Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
I don’t know about y’all, but I don’t get my undies in a knot if a nice four-digit 1892 comes along and is manufactured in 1893. I would place a premium on a one, two, and possibly 3 digit 1892, but once up into 4 digits, it would not get much of a premium at all, whether or not manufactured in 1892 or 1893.
You’re forgetting the topic here…the topic is honest descriptions. We don’t care when it was made as long as the seller is honest in his description of the rifle. Should I assume that if you don’t care if the DOM is off a year or two in the description, you probably won’t care if the bore is all pitted when he called it good?? Let me know on that if you would. Peter
Eagle said
You’re forgetting the topic here…the topic is honest descriptions. We don’t care when it was made as long as the seller is honest in his description of the rifle. Should I assume that if you don’t care if the DOM is off a year or two in the description, you probably won’t care if the bore is all pitted when he called it good?? Let me know on that if you would. Peter
Yes, of course. Honest descriptions are desirable, and lots of unscrupulous sellers out there, so I indeed did stray off topic. I guess I would rather have a high condition Winchester and not worry too much about a year one way or the other, as long as it is not sold as being pre-1899, and is not, but I guess we must strive for accuracy in ALL aspects of the description.
I guess if I was into buying dates rather than nice honest guns then I would have a beef with the auction or others like it myself. I dont see much deceptive about Dane’s description, he stated the source of the DOM to Madis–whether the correct date system is used or not doesnt weigh into whether I would buy the rifle or not–just my opinion of course. Most collectors should have at least a working knowledge of the difference in the Madis vs the PR dates regardless of which one is used to describe a gun. At this late date if any collector doesnt know the difference between the Madis vs. PR dates then shame on them for not doing their due-diligence or for considering themselves a collector.
Best that I can tell Dane’s rifle is described as it is captioned in the photos and is priced right about where I would set the ask price if it were it mine. If there were some outright shenanigans with any auction then I agree with calling a spade a spade, but come on, I wouldnt be willing to trip over a nice rifle because I cant agree with a date.
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
Chris, Just to clarify…I would not pass on a nice rifle just because it was not described honestly or the way I think it should be described. In fact I have made some great buys in the past by pursuing an old Winchester at auction that looked like it could be a sleeper with terrible pictures and a very not descriptive description. I do agree with MRCVS that there are “lots of unscrupulous sellers out there” who prey on unknowing buyers. I was a buyer like that once, and have never forgotten the experience. It’s the sellers that do it maliciously with the intent to sell an item for more money with false/misleading information/pictures etc that bothers me. Even though I don’t agree with his method of arriving at the DOM, I do not put the OP in that category. Peter
I totally agree Peter, I dont like an unscrupulous seller any less than anyone else. And I know what you mean about being led astray, been there and done that. Ive also made the decision to pass on buying a particular gun (as well as selling some) based on poor advice received and have lived to regret it. I just thought the topic posts got a little into the weeds.
Chris
1892takedown @sbcglobal.net ......NRA Endowment Life Member.....WACA Member
"God is great.....beer is good.....and people are crazy"... Billy Currington
1 Guest(s)
