Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Offline
Looking for misdated 1894 carbines SN 3400000 to low 4000000 would be the range most occur in. Barrel stamped Aug 14 pat date instead of Aug 21
I have (47) of the patent date error Model 1894s documented in my research survey, in serial range 325000 – 400073. (4) of them are Extra Lightweight Rifles, (4) are Eastern Carbines, and the remainder are SRCs. They are relatively hard to find due to the fact that the majority of Model 1894s manufactured in that serial range are Sporting Rifles (a 3:1 ratio).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bert H. said
I have (47) of the patent date error Model 1894s documented in my research survey, in serial range 325000 – 400073. (4) of them are Extra Lightweight Rifles, (4) are Eastern Carbines, and the remainder are SRCs. They are relatively hard to find due to the fact that the majority of Model 1894s manufactured in that serial range are Sporting Rifles (a 3:1 ratio).Bert
Any Idea how to value these? I Paid $1200 for the one I have but have no idea what to expect to pay for additional ones
They are interesting variations. However, I would attach no additional premium If I were purchasing one.
In my opinion, they are worth no more than the same condition gun with the correct patent date. It is the graded condition of the gun that will dictate 98% of the value.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Most Collectors are unaware of the miss dated Model 94. Two years ago at the OGCA/Winchester I asked every Winchester vender if they have seen an example of this variation. To my surprise no one was aware of the miss dated Model 94! I will ask again when I go to the show on the 14th of September. But, I will most likely come away with the same result. So, even though I is pretty neat, and rare. With few, but very advanced collectors having knowledge of this feature. Today, it does not command a premium. Perhaps in the future with more collectors being aware it may. With that being said. I would not sell my 1894 SRC with the error patent date with out a large premium. It is just too cool not to command the premium.
Bo Rich said
Most Collectors are unaware of the miss dated Model 94. Two years ago at the OGCA/Winchester I asked every Winchester vender if they have seen an example of this variation. To my surprise no one was aware of the miss dated Model 94! I will ask again when I go to the show on the 14th of September. But, I will most likely come away with the same result. So, even though I is pretty neat, and rare. With few, but very advanced collectors having knowledge of this feature. Today, it does not command a premium. Perhaps in the future with more collectors being aware it may. With that being said. I would not sell my 1894 SRC with the error patent date with out a large premium. It is just too cool not to command the premium.
Can you please provide the serial number and cartridge chambering.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
This carbine was bought new by Guy Snell. I purchased the carbine fronm Roy Snell his son over 20 years ago. Roy told me that his father paid $18.00 for the gun. He used it on many deer in New York state, and even killed a wolf with it there as well! He added a 21 Lyman peep, since I was told that He didn’t care for a tang sight. I also have some pictures of Guy holding the carbine. Which is to me pretty neat. Now that you read my boring story the S/N is 368529.
[email protected] said
It is a 30 WCF. When I get home I will post the S/N for you.
One more question for you…
Is the Winchester proof mark stamped on the barrel forward of the rear sight, or behind it near the caliber marking?
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bo Rich said
This carbine was bought new by Guy Snell. I purchased the carbine fronm Roy Snell his son over 20 years ago. Roy told me that his father paid $18.00 for the gun. He used it on many deer in New York state, and even killed a wolf with it there as well! He added a 21 Lyman peep, since I was told that He didn’t care for a tang sight. I also have some pictures of Guy holding the carbine. Which is to me pretty neat. Now that you read my boring story the S/N is 368529.
Your story is not boring. Most of us wish we had a gun in our collection that can be traced to the original owner and to have a picture of the gun in the owner’s hands is priceless. If you can you need to get Roy to put this in writing to pass in on in the future. This gun could outlast us all.
First off. Thank you Chuck for the nice reply. Bert the Proof Mark is located in front of the rear sight, just after the patent date. By the way I saw that you are doing a article on the flat band 94. I have a later model S/N 1454886 that has the second type checkered hammer. Interestingly I also have S/N 1454031 that was made 850 guns ahead of the first that has the ribbed style hammer. The are both .32 W/S carbines. Just so you know the error marked carbine was located at the very back of my safe! I hope my effort was helping. Bert are you going to the OGCA show? I will be there on Saturday. Hopefully we can talk more about these carbines then.
Hello Bo,
First, I will not be attending the OGCA show (too far to travel for me at this time).
The location of the proof mark on the barrel was very inconsistent during the same time period that the patent date error was extant. Many are found forward of the rear sight, vice the normal position just forward of the caliber marking. I have no idea why there was a different location on the barrel. On all other models and the vast majority of the Model 1894s, the proof mark was located behind the rear sight, and just forward of the caliber stamp during the time period when the caliber marking was still located TDC on the barrel.
Based on my research survey results, I would expect both of your the Flat-band carbines to have the Type-3 hammer. Serial number 1454886 is now the latest production Model 94 I am aware that has a Type-2 hammer.
I completed the article discussing the Flat-band variation of the Model 94 early last year, and it was published in the Winter 2018 edition of “The WINCHESTER Collector” magazine. If you are a WACA member, it can be found here – https://winchestercollector.org/magazine/
the information you have provided thus far is greatly appreciated, and it does help the cause. I now have 1,924 Flat-band carbines recorded in the survey (2,110 total Model 94s surveyed in the known serial number range).
Thank you for your efforts!
Bert – WACA Historian
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
Bo Rich said
Most Collectors are unaware of the miss dated Model 94. Two years ago at the OGCA/Winchester I asked every Winchester vender if they have seen an example of this variation. To my surprise no one was aware of the miss dated Model 94! I will ask again when I go to the show on the 14th of September. But, I will most likely come away with the same result. So, even though I is pretty neat, and rare. With few, but very advanced collectors having knowledge of this feature. Today, it does not command a premium. Perhaps in the future with more collectors being aware it may. With that being said. I would not sell my 1894 SRC with the error patent date with out a large premium. It is just too cool not to command the premium.
Bo,
I certainly am aware of the error patent dated carbines. I also have one, but it is a very rare 14″ trapper in 25-35, and it has the much less common patent error date of October 14, 1884.
I will be at the OGCA/WACA show. Not yet sure of my table location, but will be in the Winchester section.
My name is Al. Hopefully we will meet somehow.
Al
1 Guest(s)
