Gunsnfishin said

Anthony said
Charles,
That's a very nice display, and an interesting Idea. I'm in agreement with the other members, as far as what they are saying. Finding the extremely tough first year, and in many cases expensive examples, will certainly be a big challenge, but the lowest decent example found, can certainly fill the spot on the wall as you search. The beauty is you can always trade or move up upon finding an early one, as you're thinking. 
I'm curious to you're thinking on starting with the M-73 and ending at the M-55? 
I remember some 50 years ago my very first Winchester was a M-1894, first year rifle. Definitely not the hardest one to find. Some of the models in you're quest aren't serial numbered. (I'm sure an early will fit the bill). I will take a look in the near future as I might have something you might need.
Thanks for sharing.
Tony
  

I realize a 1866 would be way more than I’m willing to spend and the 55 is 1924 so I was keeping it at 100 years old - once I get these I might expand beyond model 55 - and with 85 guns hanging on my living room walls I had to draw the line somewhere 🙄- and yes I’m not looking for the best out there just a decent example for a reasonable price 
  

Charles,

Check you're inbox, for a private message!

Tony

Louis Luttrell said
Midwest-
That RIA on-line auction doesn't have much to offer the Model 70 fan IMHO...
As for the first gun, it's hard to say what it was originally...  Super Grade rifles in 243 WIN are about as rare as Super Grade Featherweights in 243 WIN (less than 300 of either).  It's possible (???) that this was one, and it received some unfortunate Weatherby-style wood inlays and grip cap.  It kind of looks like a rust blued barrel (which it should have), so MAYBE???  IF you could take it apart and it turned out that it WAS a factory Super Grade, a replacement MC Super Grade stock could make it look original... 
FWIW... I do not put much confidence in auction descriptions of guns as "refinished" or "original finish".  As for the front base screws...  I don't know why they're just shoved in there (hanging out).  Maybe the swivel escutcheons (knurled nuts) are still in the stock and for some reason they didn't run the screws in???  Maybe they aren't the original screws...  Winchester used a weird bastard thread on their swivel machine screws and non-Winchester machine screws won't go in more than about 1 1/2 turns before they bind...
IMHO... The second gun was likely to have been a pre-war 220 SWIFT Swift Super Grade.  The cut down barrel is unfortunate, but 220 SWIFT take-off barrels are pretty cheap/easy to find (b/c the way you make a fake 300 Savage is to defrock a 220 Swift).  IF the receiver bridge didn't have non-factory holes, a '42 or earlier dated matte blue stainless Swift barrel could make it look original (the missing Redfield 254 full gold front sight would cost much more than the barrel).
The third rifle is a hodge podge parts mess. Probably was originally a 243 WIN Standard rifle. It has a 1963 receiver (they stopped making regular Super Grades in 1959), hence non-factory jeweling. I don't know what it's doing with a Winchester 22G/K "sporting" rear sight. I cannot be sure of the barrel finish (rust versus Du-Lite).  I suspect that the stock is a Custom Shop LLC repro.  If not it's been refinished.  Move it along, nothing to see... 
Just my take,
Lou
  

Thanks Lou,   They’re still cheap for a reason.  I saw something I liked in each one, but also a lot I didn’t like. 

That RIA on-line auction doesn't have much to offer the Model 70 fan IMHO...

As for the first gun, it's hard to say what it was originally...  Super Grade rifles in 243 WIN are about as rare as Super Grade Featherweights in 243 WIN (less than 300 of either).  It's possible (???) that this was one, and it received some unfortunate Weatherby-style wood inlays and grip cap.  It kind of looks like a rust blued barrel (which it should have), so MAYBE???  IF you could take it apart and it turned out that it WAS a factory Super Grade, a replacement MC Super Grade stock could make it look original... 

FWIW... I do not put much confidence in auction descriptions of guns as "refinished" or "original finish".  As for the front base screws...  I don't know why they're just shoved in there (hanging out).  Maybe the swivel escutcheons (knurled nuts) are still in the stock and for some reason they didn't run the screws in???  Maybe they aren't the original screws...  Winchester used a weird bastard thread on their swivel machine screws and non-Winchester machine screws won't go in more than about 1 1/2 turns before they bind...

IMHO... The second gun was likely to have been a pre-war 220 SWIFT Swift Super Grade.  The cut down barrel is unfortunate, but 220 SWIFT take-off barrels are pretty cheap/easy to find (b/c the way you make a fake 300 Savage is to defrock a 220 Swift).  IF the receiver bridge didn't have non-factory holes, a '42 or earlier dated matte blue stainless Swift barrel could make it look original (the missing Redfield 254 full gold front sight would cost much more than the barrel).

The third rifle is a hodge podge parts mess. Probably was originally a 243 WIN Standard rifle. It has a 1963 receiver (they stopped making regular Super Grades in 1959), hence non-factory jeweling. I don't know what it's doing with a Winchester 22G/K "sporting" rear sight. I cannot be sure of the barrel finish (rust versus Du-Lite).  I suspect that the stock is a Custom Shop LLC repro.  If not it's been refinished.  Move it along, nothing to see... 

Just my take,

Lou

Here is one that someone had some embellishment done and is missing the front sling attachment. I’d like to know what the bolts seem to stick out so far.

https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/5035/680/engraved-and-silver-inlaid-pre64-winchester-model-70-rifle

theres also a super grade that’s had its barrel cut down 

https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/5035/616/pre64-winchester-super-grade-model-70-bolt-action-rifle

and another that the description says it was upgraded post factory 

https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/5035/612/pre64-winchester-model-70-bolt-action-rifle

Buck94 said

Henry Mero said
Here's My take on "fees" , eg: a Winchester with a real collector value of $10,000.00 sells at auction for that amount. breaking it down , sellers premium at 20%  He gets $8000.00 , auction house $2000.00 , buyers premium at 25% house gets $2500.00. taxes at .13% (Canada), plus shipping handling etc. The house comes out with $4500.00+, the seller with $8000, the gov't with $1300.00, but the buyer, (poor guy) , ends up with $14125.00+ in a $10,,00.00 gun.  The auction house is the only winner here, I, the buyer shoulda just offered the seller $9000.00 or payed the $10,000.00 and We'de both been ahead. Personal real experience, I just purchased a 1890 at R.I.A. for (hammer price) $2500.00 , total cost to Me $3,685.00 U.S.. I just bought a 1890 privately $2,975.00 shipped, total cost to Me $2,975.00U.S.. I think We should be talking with each other more and paying less attention to the auctions, We, sellers and buyers, would be a lot of $'s ahead and We would have a lot more gun shows again.
  

I think you left out the fee amount the auction houses charge the seller which depending on the auction house and the value of the item or items can be 10%. My understanding is the seller at RIA in your example would have only walked away with 7k after having to pay them their 10% sellers premium. I very much agree with your overall assessment and would offer at least in my area of expertise (Commemoratives) they never get more from me than the rifle is worth which on a 10k rifle means I would pay a max of $8,400, so with the BP I’m paying around that 10k amount. Thus, the seller is losing money that could be in their pocket in a private sale instead of the auction houses which I think is also Henry’s point! 
  

RIA's minimum buyers premium is 17.5%.

Henry Mero said
Here's My take on "fees" , eg: a Winchester with a real collector value of $10,000.00 sells at auction for that amount. breaking it down , sellers premium at 20%  He gets $8000.00 , auction house $2000.00 , buyers premium at 25% house gets $2500.00. taxes at .13% (Canada), plus shipping handling etc. The house comes out with $4500.00+, the seller with $8000, the gov't with $1300.00, but the buyer, (poor guy) , ends up with $14125.00+ in a $10,,00.00 gun.  The auction house is the only winner here, I, the buyer shoulda just offered the seller $9000.00 or payed the $10,000.00 and We'de both been ahead. Personal real experience, I just purchased a 1890 at R.I.A. for (hammer price) $2500.00 , total cost to Me $3,685.00 U.S.. I just bought a 1890 privately $2,975.00 shipped, total cost to Me $2,975.00U.S.. I think We should be talking with each other more and paying less attention to the auctions, We, sellers and buyers, would be a lot of $'s ahead and We would have a lot more gun shows again.
  

I think you left out the fee amount the auction houses charge the seller which depending on the auction house and the value of the item or items can be 10%. My understanding is the seller at RIA in your example would have only walked away with 7k after having to pay them their 10% sellers premium. I very much agree with your overall assessment and would offer at least in my area of expertise (Commemoratives) they never get more from me than the rifle is worth which on a 10k rifle means I would pay a max of $8,400, so with the BP I’m paying around that 10k amount. Thus, the seller is losing money that could be in their pocket in a private sale instead of the auction houses which I think is also Henry’s point! 

Mike

Buck1967 said

Henry Mero said
Well, that does it , I'm taking these over priced new glasses back and keep using My old ones, sometimes ignorance is bliss.
  

My friend I would have sworn it was a 21 as well. Other than Bert knowing it was impossible for it to be a 21, I would bet even he might have thought that 4 was a 1?
  

Actually, I initially though it was a lightly struck "7", but that too would have been a stretch with the serial number solidly in the 1924 range. 

Bert

Henry Mero said
Well, that does it , I'm taking these over priced new glasses back and keep using My old ones, sometimes ignorance is bliss.
  

My friend I would have sworn it was a 21 as well. Other than Bert knowing it was impossible for it to be a 21, I would bet even he might have thought that 4 was a 1?