1956 Guns catalogue; guns for sale

[logjam]

I have open in front of me a 1956 magazine written by Hy Hunter. He was a gun salesmen and the producer of a SA Colt look alike who was active in the 1950's. I often write of the price of guns in days gone by. I'm going to flip through some pages and quote some prices. I though that you might find this interesting.

These prices have not been adjusted for inflation; you'll have to do that yourself.

All guns are in excellent condition unless otherwise mentioned:

Win '73; 22 LR, $85.00

Win 92 25/20 $55.00

Marlin 45/60 $45.00

German Wheellock: 80 caliber: $156.25

Colt percussion carbine: $225.00

Jap antique matchlock: 80 caliber: $58.00

Parker CHE: 2 extra barrels: $750.00

Ross 1910 sporter: $33.95

BSA. Lee Enflield Sporter (custom gun) 303; $79.50

Custom Stryer Model 1899, 6.5x53: $59.95

Win 73, 22 extra long mint; $92.50

Krag; $39.50

Evans 44 cal carbine: $24.95

Martini sporter; fine custom rifle: $15.95

Burnside carbine: $39.95

Spencer sxs 12 gauge: $29.95

LC smith 12 gauge: $39.95

Geha Scheutzen 303 British $109.00

Martini Deluxe target 22LR engraved: $250.00

Springfield 45/70 trapdoor SS#414637: $34.50

Remington Rolling Block 7mm: $14.50

Lee Enfield: $47.50 (pre-SMLE)

Webley Mark VI 450 cal: $19.95

Army and Navy Webley 450 cal: 18.50

Adams Military cal 455: $29.95

Webley Fosbery No 3477, 455 cal: $65.00

Smith and wesson: Scofield: $31.00

(many smith's mentioned all sizes all calibers, from No 1's to 1892's about $30.00)

Remington Derringers: many: about $58.00

Chicago Palm pistol: $74.50 (one of those round things)

Walther P-38 (closeout) $36.50

Mauser military 9mm auto pistol $29.95

Artillery Luger: $67.50

Colt SAA's: 44/40 7 inch: $165.00, another for $165.00
Mint 38/40 71/2 inch fine gun: $450.00

Many cap and ball Colts: average price $70. Cased $110 to $150

Starr army revolver: $47.50



There are thousands of guns advertized for sale. They got Scotland Yard's confiscated guns, so there are hundreds of funny English bulldog pistols for about $15.00.

There are scores of military guns with the forearms cut down. They run about $20 to $40.

If you want me to look up a specific type gun I'll be happy to see if I can find one.

 

[230RN]

Bought my first Colt Commercial 1911 in NRA fair condition for $70 in 1965 (oddly enough.) My first M1917 for $50.

The 1911 would be $570 today figuring 5% inflation.

Lesson:

The 1911 was not worth $70 then... The dollar was worth 1/70 th of a Colt Commercial 1911 in NRA fair condition.

And the same 1911 today is not worth $570. The dollar is worth 1/570 th of a Colt Commercial 1911 in NRA fair condition.

 

[Bubba613]

The price of gold was about $35/oz. So multiply all prices by about 10 and thats what they would cost in today's dollars.
Notice the paucity of auto's and carry weapons.
We live in a golden age today and no one knows it.

 

[MatthewVanitas]

The price of gold was about $35/oz. So multiply all prices by about 10 and thats what they would cost in today's dollars.

???

$350/oz? Gold has been bouncing between $700 and $1000/oz over the last year, and hasn't seen $350/oz since 2003 or so.

If anyone wants to drop some prices into an inflation calculator, here's an easy-to-use one: http://www.westegg.com/inflation/


It is a neat list, but I'd avoid any excessive "the good old days" reminiscing over it, as the (even adjusted for inflation) prices are low simply because the guns were a half-century newer back then.

(For comparison, the Sig 556 rifle everyone complains is too expensive at $1400 would be $185 in 1956 dollars.)

 

[Ohio Gun Guy]

One thing about the "Median Household Income" I always want to ask....
In the 1950's, is it fair to say that most households were a single wage earner. Currently, I would assume most households have 2 wage earners.

I think we have acutally lost ground when you consider "Real" wages and what it buys you.

Just food for thought.....

 

[Prince Yamato]

In the 1950's, is it fair to say that most households were a single wage earner

Yes, but salaries were higher... or cost of living was cheaper... or something along those lines. Figure that people didn't have to pay for cell-phones, cable, internet, DVD rentals, or multiple flatscreens, most people owned one car or none at all, and gas was cheap. There wasn't as much crap for people to buy.

My parents tell me that though there used to be 1 income per household, that that income was more like what 1.5 persons would earn today. So, it would be like today's median salary, plus another half salary.

 

[Hoppy590]

wish my family had bought some of those Lugers. regardless of inflation im sure its still a deal

 

[greenr18]

I'll take the Artillery Luger

 

[Vonderek]

It's fun looking at prices of days gone by. Here's a calculator to see exactly what those items would cost today:

http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl

 

[JohnBT]

"Bought my first Colt Commercial 1911 in NRA fair condition for $70 in 1965"

In 1966 I started working at a McDonalds in D.C. for $1.15 an hour. So, considering that McDs mostly had part-time jobs, that $70 was easily 2 or 3 weeks worth of work.

A new '65 VW bug, with an am radio was $1600.

John

 

[Bubba613]

The difference in all this is the big inflation of the late 70s. While prices have risen ten fold or more, wages have not. Thus most households need two incomes to survive. This was not the case in the 1950s.

 

[panther22]

A guy here told me about a hardware store back then that had Enfields in a big blue barrel, $25/each. You could also buy rural land around here for about $100 an acre.
AND, back then, all the guns were made of steel and walnut, plastic was for toys!

 

[logjam]

Considering the "real" value of money is difficult. Inflation is not a straight line when considering all products. Some things are ten times more expensive than they were in 1956 and others are only three of four times more expensive.

I used to use the beer method of computing inflation. I figured that the demand for beer is relatively constant. A six pack of premium beer cost $1.35 in 1963, which was when I started drinking beer. Today it's $6.00 for a similar product. Using this system things cost 4.5 times today what they cost then. At least for beer.

I no longer use the beer method of computing inflation because the supply today is so much greater. Today we have hundreds of breweries producing beer, which increases supply and drives the price down.

Howeve, using the beer system and since the artillery luger cost $67.50 in 1956, 4.5 times that equals 303.75. It makes beer pretty cheap today.

If we apply an inflation rate of 10 times, then we get $675.00 for the Arty Luger. Today I'd guess an Arty Luger in mint condition would run $1,500. They were, therefore much cheaper then.

However, there are many fewer examples of Arty Lugers for sale today, which drives the price higher.

Inflation rates are therefore skewed.

We can attempt to compute the real value of money by computing an average inflation rate, but this does not consider availability of goods, relative demand, tax pressures and population growth.

As I consider life in the two eras, the 60's and today I think that we were generally richer then. As a college kid then, I could afford a new Winchester Model 70, price $1.44. Today I could not.

In 1960 a single man, working in an Ace Hardware store could afford a small house, a car, a TV and Fridge. If he saved a few months he would not find it difficult to buy a new Model 70.

The man in question I knew. Today his little house, in San Anselmo, Calif would cost $450,000. No fellow taking cash at an Ace Hardware store could afford such a house today.

In closing, the 1956 catalogue offers a Company A Walker Colt in fine condition; Price? $3,000. You tell me, is that cheap or expensive?

 

[Old Fuff]

In closing, the 1956 catalogue offers a Company A Walker Colt in fine condition; Price? $3,000. You tell me, is that cheap or expensive?

It just so happens that a similar Walker was sold on January 18th. See:
www.gregmartinauctions.com

Lot# 2
High Bid: $180,000.00 SOLD

Rare and Important Colt Whitneyville Walker Model 1847 Percussion Revolver, Military Issue, A Company.

Serial no. A Company, No. 11. .44 caliber, 9-inch barrel with German silver blade front sight, top flat of barrel lug roll-marked: Address Sam'l Colt New-York City. Left side of barrel lug marked: A Company No. 11. Right side of barrel lug marked: US/1847, [the numeral 8 stamped upside down as often the case]. Left side of frame marked: A Company No. 11. Front of frame at junction with barrel breech stamped: 11. Cylinder with standard scene and marked: C Com-y No 214. Back of cylinder stamped: 21, indicating the 21st example numbered in their production. Bottom of brass triggerguard assembly marked: A Com-y 11. Bottom of triggerguard inspector marked: P. Back of gripstrap inspector marked: P. Steel backstrap butt marked: C Company No. 11. Right side of brass triggerguard strap, covered by grips, marked: 11. Walnut grips with traces of inspectors cartouches on both sides, WAT in script on right panel. Brass collection number tag marked 9, secured to triggerguard by copper wire.

Condition: Excellent for this model of Colt revolver. Markings generally sharp. Metal showing gray-brown patina overall with scattered pitting, dents and nicks, of varying depth. Some filing on rear of face of barrel lug, to adjust tightness at juncture with frame. Cylinder retaining sharp number markings and approximately 35% thinning scene. Half the cylinder cartouche characters visible of the "Model U.S.M.R." and "Colt's Patent " motifs. Grips with wear and minor chipping at front of each side of butt. Grips with traces of inspector cartouches on both right and left sides. Old replacement T-spring on bottom of barrel to secure loading lever. Action very good.

Notes: Inspector markings on grips rarely observed in the military issue Walker revolvers.

Provenance: W. Buhl Ford, III (no. 9 in the Ford Collection, a great grandson of automaker Henry Ford)Herb Glass (sold revolver to W. Buhl Ford)

You do the math...

 

[moooose102]

that is, well, something. some of the prices seem pretty high for 1956, especially the 22's. and then some seem kind of low. i was born in 1956, my dad bought a new 1956 buick special to bring me home in.

 

[paintballdude902]

these prices are actually pretty close to the rate of inflation


that luger works out to 500 sumthing and that is a great price for today but they can be had for it i had to pass 1 up for 475 a few months back (not 21)

 

[230RN]

Price increase over time is easy to figure.

If stuff goes up at, let's say, 5% every year, that means after one year you will pay 1.05 X the original price. That's 1 + the inflation rate in decimal form.

The "1" is added because you want to include the original price.

For two years, you take the new price and multiply it once again by 1.05.

For 5 years you multiply the original price by 1.05 x 1.05 x 1.05 X 1.05 x 1.05.

Ah, but wait.

1.05 x 1.05 x 1.05 X 1.05 x 1.05 = 1.05 to the fifth power, or 1.05^5. (1.05e5 in some notations.)

So you go to your calculator, enter the inflation rate + 1, hit the y^x button, enter the number of years you are looking at, and then the equals button.

Then you multiply that by the original price.

Voila! There's your new price.

Just a quickie lesson in one form of the famous amortization formula:

Future Value = Old value X ((1 + inflation rate in decimal form) ^ number of years)

In the case of my 1911 bought in 1965, we're looking at 43 years, figuring 2008-1965 = 43.

So figuring a linear inflation rate of 5%, each year the item's price goes up by a factor of 1.05.

1.05^43 = 8.11496...

So for 43 years,

$70 X 8.11496... = $570

Terry, 230RN

--------
NOTE: This is not intended to be a rigorous examination of the amortization formula and its ramifications. Just a simple introduction to the concept. I did not want to confuse the issue with "present value" since this can have various meanings depending on which direction in time you are going. I also did not want to complicate it with monthly compounding, or figuring the inflation rate from the two values.

 

[Shear_stress]

Price increase over time is easy to figure.

Well, you could do that. Or you could just use the Westegg inflation calculator and get a price that takes into account the exact inflation rates over all those years. That $70 in 1965 actually works out to $455.60 in 2007 dollars. A pretty good deal.

 

[expvideo]

This is why those of us that can't afford gold can invest in firearms. They are a safe place to put your money, for the same reasons that gold is a safe place to invest. But you can't shoot gold, and no matter what you do to it, you can't increase its value.

 

[RJChapman]

About 15 years ago, I was having a discussion with my granddad. He was in his mid to late 20's during the great depression. We were discussing the price of things back then vs current. His comments has helped shaped my views and attitudes today.

He pointed out that while things were indeed very much cheaper back then, so were wages. He said the purchasing power of his wages back then was very small compared to current times as making the purchases consumes a larger portion of his wages. He summed it up saying that life is much easier to live now than back then.

This is the same granddad that come dinner time used to take the .22 rifle, only one cartridge and go rabbit hunting, bringing home a cottontail each time without fail. Imagine, times so hard that you conserve your .22 ammo to only one round per hunting trip.

 

[logjam]

My father, who was born in 1921 recalled working in the local grocery store, making 10 cents an hour. A coke cost a nickle. Cokes therefore were very expensive, even at a nickle. Today working in that same grocery store he'd make about $8 a hour (little mom and pop store in Bucklin, KS) [it burned down not long ago]. Today a coke costs about $1.50 which makes it much cheaper than it was in 1935.

If one wants a feel for the prices of things in the late 30's through the 70's buy old Life magazines. I believe there's a Phd in American History in those magazines.

It appears to me that housing was cheaper and food more expensive when compared then to now.

I think guns were cheaper then, generally. However the availability of money skews the formula.

It was probably as hard to buy a new car in 1965 as it is today. It was however, easier, much easier to buy a house. In the 40/50's the average mortage ran for five years. So while your home would have probably been smaller, having a paid for home was commonplace.

 

[JohnBT]

A five-year mortgage? Not anybody I knew of, they all had 30-year mortgages. Except one aunt and uncle, they paid cash.

http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache...x.pdf+wwii+mortgages&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

"Home ownership post WWII
Home ownership rate in 1945: 45%
Home ownership rate in 1955: 65%
Standard down payment: 20%
Standard mortgage term: 30 years"

 

[230RN]

Shear Stress suggested, with respect to the amortization formula:

Well, you could do that. Or you could just use the Westegg inflation calculator and get a price that takes into account the exact inflation rates over all those years.

Giving a man a fish versus teaching him to fish.

Terry, 230RN

 

[Shear_stress]

Giving a man a fish versus teaching him to fish.

With respect, that's less of a fishing lesson and more like a great deal of busy work. If you want more than +/- 25% accuracy, you're going to need to enter the individual inflation rate for each year into your calculation.

 

[Dienekes]

Speaking of Life magazines, as a freshman I spent a lot of time in the college library reading them. They had every issue from the first one (1936?) onward. I was always interested in history and particularly in WWII. Not sure just how far I got but I know I got through 1945 at least. Including advertisements, which were quite a window into the times. I think I probably got more out of that "wasted time" than anything else I did that year.

As a matter of fact, I KNOW I did.