Is this Dragoon uhhhh, a little 'funny'?


PDA






Oyeboten
January 14, 2011, 09:35 PM
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=209839818

If you enjoyed reading about "Is this Dragoon uhhhh, a little 'funny'?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
kwhi43@kc.rr.com
January 14, 2011, 10:12 PM
Looks like it has replacement parts on it. Somehow I see Uberti.

Oyeboten
January 14, 2011, 10:32 PM
I think the entire thing is a 'replacement part'...Lol...

WALKERs210
January 14, 2011, 10:44 PM
The one I got from kwhi43 looks a little bit better. Oh yea Phil my son came over tonight, thought I would have to fight him to keep that thing here. Another one on the way to the Dark Side

Loyalist Dave
January 14, 2011, 10:45 PM
Why is the "1922" improperly stamped on the cylinder? The top of the numbers are gone, but there is insufficient wear meaning they were not made by punches to be used on a rounded surface? Isn't that a bit "off" for Colt for that period? Maybe I'm wrong?

LD

dirty dave
January 15, 2011, 01:08 AM
So many fakes out there I think some are getting better but lot to pay for a copy

Berkley
January 15, 2011, 01:36 AM
Compare the cylinder markings on a fine cased Third Model Dragoon sold by a major auction house last year for $31,000. The bottom line should read "COLT'S PATENT". The Gun Broker cylinder has obviously been very crudely restamped.
http://i53.tinypic.com/2cmxmba.jpg

Rat Blaster
January 15, 2011, 01:45 AM
This is getting good, pass the pop corn!......I want to learn and old guns, the real ones anyway, are interesting.:)

andrewstorm
January 15, 2011, 02:36 AM
:uhoh:

DoubleDeuce 1
January 15, 2011, 03:26 AM
That revolver is screaming FAKE !:cool:

Oyeboten
January 15, 2011, 04:26 AM
Kinda fun, huh!~


I see what appear to me to be investment Casting sprue 'ghosts' and superficial shrinkage fissures on the Grip where the Stocks are removed -



http://inlinethumb12.webshots.com/6987/2464530290067835264S600x600Q85.jpg (http://good-times.webshots.com/photo/2464530290067835264YavTKn)


All those tiny dents on the sides of the Wedge area, and, all the dents and deformation on the Barrel top above...might even be 'genuine', if the Revolver belonged previously to someone who would hit it with things in those areas, trying to get the Barrel Assembly off of the Arbor ( instead of using the Loading Lever on a half-bore position of the Cylinder, to do it ).

Berkley
January 15, 2011, 06:31 AM
On the left, the "U.S." on the frame of a martially marked Third Model Dragoon with a serial number about 400 numbers away from the one in question. On the right, the one in question.
http://i54.tinypic.com/3586tdx.jpg

Oyeboten
January 15, 2011, 06:39 AM
In Berkley's comparative imagea above -

Where the Brass Trigger Guard meets the Frame, on the authentic Original, we see a refined Bevel leaving a sort of almost Knife edge to the Brass, parallel to the lower Frame...

On the impostor, we see an indifferent treatment there.

Also, some difference to the profile of the lower Frame itself...where the front of the Trigger Guard ends.

Berkley
January 15, 2011, 08:59 AM
Barrel markings are two slight variations of: ADDRESS SAML COLT NEW-YORK CITY-Flayderman's Guide to Antique American Firearms
Barrel...Marked - ADDRESS SAML COLT NEW YORK CITY -Colt Firearms 1836-1960, James E. Serven
http://i51.tinypic.com/efjbkp.jpg
"COLT'S PT. F.A. MFG. CO. HARTFORD CT. U.S.A." was not used until after Sam Colt's death, during the cartridge era (factory conversions and original cartridege pistols).

dogrunner
January 15, 2011, 11:24 AM
What's the meaning of the cylinder engraving "MR"?

Berkley
January 15, 2011, 12:29 PM
Mounted Riflemen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regiment_of_Mounted_Riflemen) (AKA "Dragoons (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mounted_infantry)").

Tallship
January 15, 2011, 01:05 PM
That is what you call a "fifty-footer".

Shoot The Moon
January 15, 2011, 04:17 PM
Is it possible to prove it's provenance by the screw threads? Are copies not metric??

Oyeboten
January 15, 2011, 09:56 PM
In this instance, Screw Threads are the least of his worries.

But, if all else were 'right' and, Screw Threads not-right, it would suggest one is looking at a very very good copy, anyway.

madcratebuilder
January 16, 2011, 09:00 AM
An obvious copy with totally incorrect markings. Now if it was $500 and not $50000 it would be cool to own.

About as real as my Paterson.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d37/madcratebuilder/paterson13.jpg

mukluk
January 16, 2011, 09:20 AM
Your Paterson is a lot more believable, at least you didn't attack it radomly with a Dremel and hammer/punch.

72coupe
January 16, 2011, 11:24 AM
I compared my Uberti to the comparison photos and my cylinder markings are very close to the original. Except it doesn't say Colts Patent, that space is blank.

My Uberti has very few markings. Only about 5 faint proofs, 2 serial numbers, and the cylinder markings. There are no markings at all on the top of the barrel.

Loyalist Dave
January 16, 2011, 05:07 PM
I have a question??? Could it be an antique fake? I mean somebody made it 100 years ago to fake being a Colt, sold it as such, and so it's an antique fake, and not a faked antique? :D Might be cool if it was such, but you folks are right, not worth $5K.

LD

BHP FAN
January 16, 2011, 06:06 PM
Yes, it is. Very humorous.

messerist
January 17, 2011, 11:03 AM
Does Gunbroker have a policy about sellers marketing fakes as originals or is it just buyer beware?

BHP FAN
January 17, 2011, 11:15 AM
The seller may not know.

Otony
January 17, 2011, 01:12 PM
The seller may not know, but he has another "antique" Colt that it is very, very similarly "improved". I am rather inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt, as he may have been taken in (in which case he should consider another career path) but in any case I would not buy either.

I do admit to being a little suspicious of his intentions.

arcticap
January 17, 2011, 05:16 PM
Does Gunbroker have a policy about sellers marketing fakes as originals or is it just buyer beware?

Conversely, it's interesting that some dealers have sold original guns as reproductions. ;)

However on their "Tools for Buyers" page, Gunbroker recommends that buyers use an escrow service "for the ultimate in safety":

http://www.gunbroker.com/Support/SupportFAQView.aspx?FAQID=1165

GunBroker.com Help Center
Escrow Services
(last updated on 5/8/2009)
Escrow Service

For the ultimate in safety when making your purchase, you should consider using an online escrow service. An escrow service holds the buyer's money until the buyer receives and inspects the item. Once the item is inspected, payment is released to the seller. If there is a problem with the item, the buyer can reject the item and return it to the seller. Upon receipt of the item by the seller, the buyer's money will be refunded.

Many escrow services will not handle firearm transactions. Here is a (very) short list of escrow services that are known to handle firearm transactions:

Tradiator.com: When Escrow is used, payment is sent to Tradiator instead of the Seller, to hold until the buyer receives the item and is satisfied with it. Also offers auction dispute resolution and mediation services. Click here to visit the Tradiator Web site.

Oyeboten
January 17, 2011, 06:45 PM
Hi Loyalist Dave,


You'd asked -


I have a question??? Could it be an antique fake? I mean somebody made it 100 years ago to fake being a Colt, sold it as such, and so it's an antique fake, and not a faked antique? Might be cool if it was such, but you folks are right, not worth $5K.




The injection/investment Casting Sprue 'Ghosts' seen on the Grip-Frame area, would preclude this being very old at all.

These Revolvers had no remarkable value until more or less recently anyway, for there to have been any or enough motive or reason to justify making one from scratch as a fake.


My bet, is that this Revolver is from the 1960s or 1970s, and was originally made by some Company offering fairly faithful general Cap and Ball reproductions with no intention of them being mistaken for Originals...and, hence, the small cues of the wording and kind of relief seen on the Cylinder, the Barrel text, wrong Wood Species of Stocks, etc.


This Revolver may originally have been merely 922 for it's Serial Number also, and, someone, later, in wishing to mis-lead, added the 11 ( in a different style of Character ) in order to make it appear to be 11922, and, within a Serial Range which could be possible for a Dragoon of that Model.

BHP FAN
January 21, 2011, 10:41 PM
That's sounding pretty deliberate.Not nessesarily from this seller though. I remember [vaguely] an article about a ''too good to be true'' Hawken that a widow had an expert look over. Turned out to be a ''defarbed'' model her deceased husband had made for his fur-trapping persona.

madcratebuilder
January 22, 2011, 08:12 AM
I see the listing is over and it is not re-listed. The seller has 71 feedbacks with a A+ rating. He may not have known it was a fake. My defarbed Paterson has fooled some very knowledgeable fire arm guys, they just did not have Paterson expertise.

Shoot The Moon
January 22, 2011, 11:03 AM
I looked at the photos of the '49 Pocket that he's selling, got my own (Uberti) '49 Pocket from the safe and compared them. The engraving of the wheel on the cylinder appears to be in a very slightly different place to mine - the gap between the cutout for the bolt and the engraved wheel is greater on the the one for sale. There are however many similarities - I noticed particularly that the trigger looks identical. Anyone on here got an original to compare?

jtscuba02
January 22, 2011, 11:56 AM
Does it look like there is the same dimple (punch) marks on the pocket model as was on the Dragoon? On the right side around the wedge. Maybe not as many and maybe just a coincidence.

Loyalist Dave
January 22, 2011, 01:06 PM
The injection/investment Casting Sprue 'Ghosts' seen on the Grip-Frame area, would preclude this being very old at all.

These Revolvers had no remarkable value until more or less recently anyway, for there to have been any or enough motive or reason to justify making one from scratch as a fake.

Thanks for the forensic info. :D No what I meant was that it wasn't faked as a "collectable" and gave too little time. I meant could a company have faked it as a "Colt" when this model Colt was availble, so should've said "150 years ago". Anyway the sprue ghosts nullify that.

That would be an odd situation, selling a fake as a collectable fake, claiming it was made about the same time as the Colt, but wasn't made by Colt, but in someplace like South America..., and maybe charging like $700 when in fact it's an antiqued reworked repro from say 1970.

Thanks for the information! :D

LD

scrat
January 22, 2011, 07:00 PM
here is another
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=212959740

sltm1
January 22, 2011, 08:38 PM
This thread has been a real interesting read. As good as fakery can be done by a pro, it's becoming increasingly hard to verify what you're buying at times. The easiest way to know if it's real or not, FOR SURE, is to buy a gun that has not been in reproduction. I know my Savage Navy is real !!

junkman_01
January 22, 2011, 08:57 PM
Are the .31 cal. Colt Pocket models really 6 shot? My .36 Pocket Navy is a 5 shot.

pohill
January 22, 2011, 09:14 PM
They were made in 5 or 6 shots, with barrel lengths of 3", 4", 5" & 6".

junkman_01
January 22, 2011, 09:31 PM
Were the .36 Pocket models made in 5 and or 6 shot also?

Claude Clay
January 22, 2011, 09:32 PM
id rather be bidding on the washing machine and the bucket of scrap it was 'aged' in :rolleyes:

pohill
January 22, 2011, 09:58 PM
According to Flaydermans, the .36 Pocket Navy and Police were only made in 5 shot.

I bought a revolver (from a well known store in Maine) that was listed as a "pre-Italian repro of a Whitney", but was actually an original. It can go both ways.

BHP FAN
January 22, 2011, 10:15 PM
I bought an original '49 pocket in rough but shootable shape, and gave it to a friend who promptly swapped it off, assuming it was a repro.

Mr_Pale_Horse
January 23, 2011, 10:49 AM
I have attempted in the past to point out to Gunbroker, where I buy and sell, that certain individual auctions misrepresent modern firearms as antiques. For example, an auction selling 1916 dated Swedish Mauser as an 1896 and declaring no FFL required to make this purchase.

I like Gunbroker's web interface and have had little trouble with individual bidders. I would hate to see Gunbroker or the like get undue scrutiny if someone at the Federal level decided to monitor transactions.

arcticap
January 23, 2011, 03:00 PM
Gunbroker has a boilerplate option regarding whether an FFL is required or not, but not a boilerplate option regarding whether a C&R license is required or not. So maybe that listing simply failed to indicate that at least a Curio & Relic license was required which isn't the same as an FFL.
So in that respect an FFL would not necessarily have been required. :)

mykeal
January 23, 2011, 05:36 PM
Why would a C&R license be required? The gun uses percussion cap ignition and a powder and ball front-loading chamber, not a modern, currently available cartridge.

Oyeboten
January 23, 2011, 06:28 PM
mykeal,

I think articap was referring to the Swedish Mauser Rifle question.



scrat -

You'd referenced -

here is another
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=212959740


Other than the "C" being off scedule for the Cylinder Stamping location of the entire word 'COLT", and, some replacement Screws, I see nothing to suggest this Revolver is not an original mid 19th Century Gun...and, a Colt.


Seller says "Six Shot" but, looks like a five shot to me.


Otherwise...what is wrong with this Revolver?

mykeal
January 23, 2011, 07:33 PM
mykeal,

I think articap was referring to the Swedish Mauser Rifle question.


Man, you're right. :o

Apologies.

Berkley
January 23, 2011, 08:19 PM
Otherwise...what is wrong with this Revolver?
Hard to say for sure from photos posted on the web, but for my money the word "COLT'S" on the frame appears to have been re-stamped.
http://i52.tinypic.com/2yv5j08.jpg

mykeal
January 23, 2011, 09:38 PM
I think it's just corroded.

Oyeboten
January 23, 2011, 10:25 PM
Or...something is under thw word 'COLTS'...a usualt double strike would not look quite like this, but, dunno what is up with this example.

I am pretty sure these small Text Stampings were done by Hand at that time, only takes a second to do, but, if not done right, can of course come out a little goofy or would be hit twice with possibly less than perfect alignment.



So...looks like a five shot Revolver to me, even though the seller says "six".


What do you all think about that aspect?

junkman_01
January 23, 2011, 10:36 PM
I just checked the cylinder alignment on my 5 shot Pocket Navy and it is different than this 6 shoot Pocket model, confirming that it is a 6 shot.

Noz
January 24, 2011, 01:03 PM
The first thing that caught my eye was the flat heads on the screws, as if they had been buffed in the frame and then loosened and or tightened away from buffed position.
I am NOT an authority of antiques at all.

HelterSkelter
January 24, 2011, 02:05 PM
looks like someone used it as a target for a bb gun :/

If you enjoyed reading about "Is this Dragoon uhhhh, a little 'funny'?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!