Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I have a 1894 32-40 round barrel rifle for sale on gunbroker. please ask if you have any questions.
The year of manufacture for that rifle is 1903. Why quote a known erroneous reference source?
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
hi, i am not trying to rehash an old discussion, i just have a decent old 32-40 for sale if someone here is interested in it. thanks, dana
Just curious Dana…why don’t you believe that the DOM is 1903? All the written records from Winchester’s polishing room will tell you that, a letter from Cody will say that. If I was a new guy and wanted to by an old, pre 1900 rifle and bought that, and then got a CODY letter stating it was a 1903 DOM, I would be more than a little upset. Maybe there is something I am unaware of here?? Peter
I guess the horse is’nt dead yet. I learned most of what i know about old winchesters from George Madis’s books and the rest i learned the hard ‘expensive’ way. I don’t know where Mr. Madis got most of his information, but i doubt that he made it up as he went along. Winchesters were for him a lifestyle, not just a hobby. As with most things, new information becomes available as years go by. I am not trying to deceive anyone with false info, the wonderful thing about the modern age is the availability of more information.
No reflection on how George Madis estimated the dates for the Model 1894, but the original Winchester factory log books in the possession of the Cody Museum, showing ‘received in warehouse’ dates and shipping dates for each serial number, trumps any other information from second party sources.
Not disputing anyone’s point of view here, but it seems to me that as long as so called “official” publications keep publishing both sets of dates, anyone is free to pick the set he wishes. And…I’m an old timer also who’s gotten burned from buying 1st year of production models back in the 1970’s only to have them become 2nd year production models in the 2000’s, and not happy about that.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Dana, I guess because there is controversy with this it might be best to either not suggest a DOM, OR list both possibilities. The letter from Cody is huge in my book, and any other info is junk standing up against that printed Cody letter. In my opinion, you open the door when you suggest a DOM. I think George Madis was a great guy who did a lot for Winchesters, and we should all be grateful for that. I do think, for whatever reason, he got ahold of the wrong info as far as the DOM’s. It makes no difference to me whether he did erroneous research, or someone gave him the wrong info…it’s wrong…if only by the Cody’s letters, it’s wrong. Sorry if you don’t agree, but the letter rules here in my opinion. For someone to dispute that only adds to the confusion that we should all be trying to get rid of. Just my opinion. Peter
Of course, accurate production dates are desired, BUT, in this case, does it really matter that much, as a production date of 1899 or 1903 are both considered modern. If it was a production date of 1898, vs post-1898, then production dates would be more of a concern. (antique vs modern)
It is good to trust people–at least that is what I was taught as a boy. Buying rifles off auction sites, especially GunBroker has proven that my trusting-roots are a detriment: costs me money. As a student of Winchester collecting and a buyer watching for good quality hunting 1894’s, when I see a sale that lists an aspect of the rifle incorrectly, fails to mention an obvious flaw, or doesn’t provide clear, complete photos of the gun, I begin to put my money back in my pocket.
Were I to be interested in this .32-40, the date listed (even with the attribution to Madis’ texts) would cause me to pause. The description of the rifle reflects a seller who seems to know what buyers would ask regarding the rifle, but why the Madis date instead of the date that would appear on a certificate of authenticity? From that question, I would begin to look more closely at the rifle and at the seller. (And that shows a fault on my part–If I’m interested in purchasing the rifle, why wasn’t I scrutinizing everything from the beginning?) Anyway, for the .32-40 auction I even noted the lack of capital letters to begin the sentences. And the cadence of the sentence structure and verbs shows a person who might be in a hurry. Why not capitalize? What’s the hurry? (–I know it’s a bit odd to critique the description on the merit of sentence artistry–can’t help it, I’ve been a student of grammar and poetics most of my life. And yes, there is much to be seen beyond the print.)
So, I’d still be interested in the rifle, if it were one I was looking for, but I would also be ready to pass on it.
–Yes, the advent of the internet and texting has changed standard usage/grammar. Capitalizing is going out the window.
–Maybe it was hurried. Maybe it wasn’t. Who gives a rip! It’s just an auction description! Sheesh!
When I was a boy, it seemed with every new pair of tennis shoes (tenny runners) I wore, I would soon find a nail sticking into the bottom or through my foot. I learned to be leery of new shoes. I learned, too, the unique characteristics of a pile of used fencing. Sometimes I’m slow on the upkeep, but I’m 62 years old now, and you still won’t catch me in tennis shoes or walking on piles of old fence boards.
i didn’t know that being a bad typist was such a personality flaw. thanks for help. dana
From the woods. I liked that, and so very truthful with me also. Great piece! Peter
Gotta agree with FromTheWoods. The only listings that top sloppy descriptions are the ones that say something like: gotta gun here, look at the few blurry pictures ’cause I won’t take it back.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
Aside from using the Madis dates on this rifle, ( which almost all GB sellers use ) in Dana’s defense, I can’t remember anytime he has tried tried being anything but honest with the actual description of guns that he posts on the Forum or Gunbroker. Just my 2 cents worth.
Paul
I’m sure all the gun dealers refer to the Blue Book of Gun Values. Starting on page 2463 the current issue list the Polishing Room Serial numbers, along with Madis. Why not just use the correct serial numbers?
The only reason for not using the correct dates is to deceive and sell a gun for an inflated price.
Just a couple examples from a quick Gun Broker search.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
wincacher: Your 2 examples were not the best. If you want to be technical, the model 1892 started production in April of 1892 and this rifle was from Feb. of 1893 so this was within the first year of actual production. The same thing applies to the 1894. Production started in Sept. 1894 and the rifle was from July of 1895. Now, if the ad stated the first year of introduction, that would be different.
I think the two examples above from Wincacher are a perfect examples of what is being said here by some of us Paul. A first year 1892, to a lot of us was made in 1892, NOT 1893. To say other wise without clarifying that you mean the first 12 months of production, is just another way to try a scam the buyers. Remember the letter will say that the DOM on an 1892, ser# 91xx, is 1893. The sellers that do this kind of stuff know exactly what they are doing. Peter
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-rifles/butch-cassidys-m1892/
Hmmmm.
And more importantly– My lengthy post above is not meant to question nor to demean Dana’s integrity. It is merely an example of my tendencies as a buyer.
Eagle said
I think the two examples above from Wincacher are a perfect examples of what is being said here by some of us Paul. A first year 1892, to a lot of us was made in 1892, NOT 1893. To say other wise without clarifying that you mean the first 12 months of production, is just another way to try a scam the buyers. Remember the letter will say that the DOM on an 1892, ser# 91xx, is 1893. The sellers that do this kind of stuff know exactly what they are doing. Peter
My point, exactly.
Additionally, the first listing states: “The serial number of this example is 91XX placing date of manufacture in 1892 a “First Year Production Gun”. I call that example the very best example of misrepresentation, indeed.
"This is the West, sir. When the legend becomes fact, print the legend."
1 Guest(s)
