Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Is there any place to reference front sight values, or rarity. Half moon hunting No 4 or Lyman folding globe No 5, German silver blade etc. Wondering what is considered more valuable or desirable.
AG
Offline
The Lyman 5 is more valuable in your list and a Beach front is worth more than a Lyman. Stroble’s book does have values buts it outdated.
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
AG said
Is there any place to reference front sight values, or rarity.
Yes, but it will cost you some time & effort: research SOLD prices on ebay. (Because that’s where most sights & other gun parts are bought & sold, such as the barrel I listed on this site, which drew not a single inquiry, but sold immediately on ebay for more than I’d asked here.). The reason it will cost you some time & effort is that seller’s often don’t know the correct name of the sights they are selling, or even confuse names, such as calling a #5 Lyman a Beach, or vice versa. However, if you’re willing to do your homework, you’ll find out the “real world” values, which are always more accurate & up to date than “book values.”
Thanks Clarence. I want to make sure it’s period correct for my model 1894 DOM 1898 & understand there’s a 1902 patent date for one of these No 5’s & 1886? So I want to make sure it’s the 1886 I’m getting on EBay.
There’s another thread on this if I can find it about when Lyman first made the no 5.
AG
In reference to the Lyman combo sight, Stroebel has the estimated cost for one in original condition to be $150 (75%) to $250 (100%) w/original box and papers…and that might be fairly close in the ordinary sense. However, when one is attempting to match the condition of the metal, (not to ponder the patina of the bead), sight to their rifle, what does one do, double this price? Whatever the case might be, when appraising the value of an existing match, the cost of poker just went up in leaps and bounds as I see it, YMMV:
AG said
Thanks Clarence. I want to make sure it’s period correct for my model 1894 DOM 1898 & understand there’s a 1902 patent date for one of these No 5’s & 1886? So I want to make sure it’s the 1886 I’m getting on EBay.There’s another thread on this if I can find it about when Lyman first made the no 5.
AG
I think that either the Lyman or the Beaches would work fine. I like both especially the Beaches that has all of the gold on the ring. I looked at one of the Lymans. It has Patent info on the ring but no date. It used to be you could get either sight for about $300 in great shape but I bet they are more now.
AG said
You’re very welcome! Thank you!
I agree with Clarence’s post, too, especially where the cost of one’s time and effort is concerned and the real world values.
James
Scarce gun parts usually can go for whatever you will pay. If I see a sight or part I need, I am all over it like a duck on a Junebug. No, I am not rich, but the opportunity may not come again, so I will over bid on an item I really need, just to get it. A while back, I bought a package deal on several sights and some parts. I think I paid $100 for the lot. One sight was a Winchester California Buckhorn for black powder and one sight for smokeless. Both in mint condition. Both of those sights are worth hundreds of dollars. Sometimes you get lucky. Big Larry
Big Larry said
Scarce gun parts usually can go for whatever you will pay. If I see a sight or part I need, I am all over it like a duck on a Junebug. No, I am not rich, but the opportunity may not come again, so I will over bid on an item I really need, just to get it. A while back, I bought a package deal on several sights and some parts. I think I paid $100 for the lot. One sight was a Winchester California Buckhorn for black powder and one sight for smokeless. Both in mint condition. Both of those sights are worth hundreds of dollars. Sometimes you get lucky. Big Larry
I agree! Good advice for any hard to find rifle that might be within budget, too!.
James
AG said
Thanks Clarence. I want to make sure it’s period correct for my model 1894 DOM 1898 & understand there’s a 1902 patent date for one of these No 5’s & 1886? So I want to make sure it’s the 1886 I’m getting on EBay.There’s another thread on this if I can find it about when Lyman first made the no 5.
AG
The 1902 pat. was used by WRA on their close copy of the Beach after its pat. expired in 1891; NOT accidentally, that’s also the date Lyman introduced their #5.
So Clarence is the Beaches the only period correct No 5 for my DOM 1898?
AG
AG said
So Clarence is the Beaches the only period correct No 5 for my DOM 1898?AG
AG, You’re doing what I said ebay sellers frequently do–mix up two very similar but different sights. Lyman’s #5 was obviously “inspired” by the Beach, but slightly different in the details of construction, whereas the one WRA began to mark with their pat. in 1902 (probably, they were already making them before that date) was a nearly exact copy of the original. WRA catalogs continued to use exactly the same Beach woodcut illustration after 1902 (up to 1918, I think) that had been used while Beach’s patent was still if effect. Then sometime shortly after WWI, the Beach was dropped from the catalog, replaced by Lyman’s #5; maybe it was cheaper to buy #5s from Lyman than continue making their own Beach copy, or perhaps the tooling to make them was lost during the disruptions of the war.
AG said
So Clarence is the Beaches the only period correct No 5 for my DOM 1898?AG
Beach did not make a No. 5 only Lyman did. The Beach is called a combination sight. There may be some “Beach” sights out there with no Patent date but these were not made by Beach.
The Beach has a Patent date of 1867 and if the Lyman version came out in 1891. The Lyman No. 5 is OK and the Beach combination is OK. Only the Winchester 1902 version is not OK or any maker that has a patent date after the year your gun was made. Like I stated there is no date on the 2 Lymans I checked.
While we’re on the front sight subject, I have a Lyman No 4 half moon that is the same width as the top of the octagon dove tail & another that’s wider sticking out on each side. Can someone explain the width of these No 4 sight bases?
AG
The Lyman No. 5’s I have are wider than the top barrel flat by about 1/8″ on each side. Is one a heavier barrel than the other? These sights were made to fit all the makes.
Chuck said
AG said
So Clarence is the Beaches the only period correct No 5 for my DOM 1898?AG
Beach did not make a No. 5 only Lyman did. The Beach is called a combination sight. There may be some “Beach” sights out there with no Patent date but these were not made by Beach.
The Beach has a Patent date of 1867 and if the Lyman version came out in 1891. The Lyman No. 5 is OK and the Beach combination is OK. Only the Winchester 1902 version is not OK or any maker that has a patent date after the year your gun was made. Like I stated there is no date on the 2 Lymans I checked.
Thanks Chuck. Lyman No 5 it is.
AG
Chuck said
The Lyman No. 5’s I have are wider than the top barrel flat by about 1/8″ on each side. Is one a heavier barrel than the other? These sights were made to fit all the makes.
Chuck I tried to edit my reply & meant to say No 4(hunting half moon). Sorry my bad. One I have I s wider at the base than the other & now I see the half moon is a little bigger as well. Do you know about the wider & little larger No 4 ?
AG
Ag,
I don’t recall anything in print about different widths available just different heights of some sights. I would guess it could be sights that were trimmed to look better on small barrels?
Bob
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
1873man said
Ag,I don’t recall anything in print about different widths available just different heights of some sights. I would guess it could be sights that were trimmed to look better on small barrels?
Bob
Thanks Bob. The narrower one says Lyman in the correct position near the edge & looks original so I’m confused. The wider one says Lyman Pat Aug 31 86.
AG
1 Guest(s)
