Quote:
Originally Posted by Skwirl
The OP does have a point. If, and it's a big if.
The letter is portrayed as a " letter of authenticity ".
I have read that already, so it's possible to happen.
Given the OP description and what others have posted about the criteria required to authenticate a particular item.
I would prefer and consider a historical letter from Mr. Jinks as a letter of origin.
It's how it started its existence, nothing more, nothing less.
Does it match that original description, that's up to whoever's looking at the gun.
Just a simpletons .02.
Have a great day.
|
Exactly.
Do we have and lawyers in the house ? (this should be interesting).
This all started because of a VERY suspicious M13 Aircrewman presented to me within the past few months accompanied by a S&W letter, just like most of all of the many I have, only this one had in same type style (as subject line) "Letter of Authenticity" or in the lower note section after signatures where the author would code the letter as to who typed it an code for subject, etc.
Parchment was correct, signature (I "think" it was signed by Don) correct, raised perforated stamp over / near signature. I thought, perhaps, this was a new style letter ... never before recalling those words on any of Roy's letters.
None of my own letters from Roy are "titled" in such a manner, I found that odd but ... ok, but it could be.
It could also be that the letter was "Doctored" to add the words, "Letter of Authenticity" or it could have been printed by accident.
Then this AM pulling a new request form from the S&WHF website I see it listed as "letter of authenticity", I just HAD to ask.
Not a rant, but a matter of incorrect "terminology" that too often finds its way in to the bill of goods an unsavory seller might include in a fevered sales pitch, in the (all too familiar) style of a Coney Island carnival barker.
We've all read and heard some incredible sale pitches but someone adding anything to a S&W letter, including the words "Letter of Authenticity" when it was not there before, would be a new low. Not a surprising low, but a new one, anyway.