This is being posted to show what is out there in the world of counter fit Military Russian No 3s. I have been very lucky to have never fallen (yet) for one of these!

Here is the first example and we'll see if you can figure out what is wrong with it.
2.jpg3.jpg
4.jpg11.jpg

Joe

Joe
The first thing I noticed is, according to your ruler, that thing is over 200 inches long!

__________________
Don Mundell

Joe
The first thing I noticed is, according to your ruler, that thing is over 300 inches long!

__________________
Don Mundell

Here is the next one:
fake2.jpgfake3.jpg

fake1.jpg
Ludwig Loewe Address line


fake4.jpg
Looks good until you look close
Joe

Can't fool you!

Joe

The next ones:

fake5.jpg
Just a top strap stamping, but obviously not factory.

P1270020.jpgP1270031.jpg
Another bad top strap stamping.

Joe

This one was made from a First model:
DSCN1251.jpgDSCN1255.jpg
Nice case
DSCN1254.jpgDSCN1257.jpg

DSCN1261.jpg

This revolver was supposedly for Crown Prince Konstantin Nikolaevich.

Joe

Joe, The first one is a very good fake, however the barrel stamping gives it away. Too bad the faker didn't copy a correct barrel stamping, as the rest of the gun is awful close to the real thing and will fool a lot of people. The grip screw may be wrong also, but I can't tell for sure from the photo. The cylinder stop notches are too big and the front sight blade radius is incorrect. Ed.

Ed, you still haven't found the BIG one!
Joe

Here is an early original with a BIG clue
DSCN3646A.jpg

While it could be the camera flash, the barrel markings on the fake appear (to me) to be acid-etched, not stamped.

C/

Those are the best pics I have of that one. The roll stamping is not right for the early revolvers from Tula but is much like some of the sloppier stamping seen late in Tula production. There are 2 glaring pieces of evidence in the photos that make this a fake.
Joe

1885 vs 1886.

The giveaway is that when translated, the Russian text incorrectly reads, "all your guns are belong to us".

That is one of the errors. Production started in 1886 and 37 is the earliest serial number known so 125 in 1885 seems unlikely. But, there is still a much bigger problem to be identified.
Joe

The size and type of the screw near the front top strap?

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

That is important. What does the screw size indicate?
Joe

The large thumbscrew was not introduced until the 3rd model Russian.

__________________
Alan
SWCA LM 2023, SWHF 220

Maybe I missed something but the 3rd Model cylinder retaining 'thumb screw' also is with the 3rd Model forged front sight.

__________________
Mike Maher #283

The screw size indicates the gun is not a 3rd model, however the date is too late for a 2nd model. Ed.

All Ludwig Loewes and Tulas were 3rd model. They were both built on the same tooling to the same original Smith & Wesson inspection gauges.
Second Models were only made by Smith & Wesson in Springfield.
The fake is a 2nd Model "decorated" as a Tula. They didn't even bother to shorten the barrel to 6 1/2 like a 3rd model!
Joe

This revolver was offered to me many years ago. There was a beautiful case and the revolver was all inlaid. That's all platinum wire inlay. However, the surface of the inlay didn't feel right - it was too rough. NO ONE would have presented that kind of workmanship to the Tsar's family in those days.
To top it off the seller was famous for counter fit high dollar pieces. I turned it down at $65,000.
Joe

Almost last but certainly not least:
I have never been allowed to get a first hand examination of this one. I have gotten several sets of pictures of it but never anything good enough to determine if it is real. This is supposed to be a copy revolver made by one of the Goltyakov brothers, Nikolai, in Tula.
CZAR_08.jpgCZAR_09.jpg
Side views
CZAR_06.jpg
The Nikolai Goltyakov name on the top rib, workmanship not quite up to par, in my opinion. If you ever see real work from these craftsmen you will never mistake copies!

CZAR_02.jpgCZAR_04.jpg
More

Joe

These are Liege made revolvers that were made for sale in officer's supply stores. These are fairly common and I have an unengraved model in my collection. These were made for sale in officer's supply stores. Most seem to have been made by A Simonis. The engraved ones were observed several years ago and were being passed off as real along with a pair of engraved 2nd models.

DSCN3209a.jpg
A Simonis revolver with a real 3rd model.
DSCN3502atext copy.jpg
Barrel stamping on the Simonis "copy"

DSCN3225as.jpg
Drawing from Zhuk's Pistols and Revolvers(in Russian) showing this model.
s0000.jpg
The first photo is quite small but the shape of the revolver is not quite right and the trigger guard does not blend into the frame correctly. The front sight is also in the wrong place and the third model has the front sight forged with the barrel. 1st and 2nd models have pinned front sights. The shape of the frame around the trigger pin is also very wrong. The Russians made a big deal about the reinforced trigger pin during the very first contract and this revolver doesn't have it.
s0001.jpg
Hammer checkering is wrong – way too course and shapes of the parts are crude – Smith & Wesson never made them that way!


continued...

s0002.jpg
There is no pivot in the middle of the star, numbers are wrong and too even. Again latch is crude. The pin marks on the extractor star and cylinder are definitely intended to fool a purchaser as they should be there.
s0003.jpg
Fourth photo shows the shape of the frame WITHOUT the reinforced trigger pin boss found on all Smiths after the first part of the very first contract! Close examination shows the inlay work to be too crude for Russian master craftsmen of the period.
s0004.jpg
Fifth photo again no reinforcing boss on the frame around the trigger pin. Shape of the whole revolver is just slightly wrong. The trigger guard does not blend into the frame correctly

s0005.jpg
Sixth photo more of the same problems with shape of the frame and workmanship.

s0006.jpg
Seventh photo shape of the butt of the revolver is wrong and the numbers were not stamped in. They are also too even. Look at the face of the numbers and shape of the butt in the photos of the other pair of revolvers (to be shown in the next posts). They are also frauds, but at least made from original contract revolvers. Numbers are also too even – just like the ones on the cylinder face
continued...

s0007.jpg
Eighth photo the line address is at least spelled correctly but does not look to be located correctly. However, the letters are crude and the workman ship not as good as it should be.

s0008.jpg
Ninth photo The HK acceptance mark is too deep and even and it could be engraved rather than stamped into the revolver. The fact that this mark is also on the pair to be pictured next makes me wonder if the maker got a real inspection stamp for these.

This revolver is intended to appear to be a contract revolver from the serial number and the acceptance mark, clearly a made up revolver intended as a fake.

Here are a pair of 2nd models probably done by the same craftsman

0000.jpg
A pair of 2nd Models decorated. I think they could have been made from real smiths.

0001.jpg
The shape on these is correct

0002.jpg
Detail of the engraving, all the parts seem to be in the right place for it to have started as a real Smith
continued ...

0003.jpg
Line address is spelled correctly but clearly not original to the revolver. The HK acceptance mark looks to be OK but the same proof was seen on the previous Liege manufactured revolver. If real this would make it from one of the later (post 1874) 2nd model contracts.

0004.jpg
Serial number on the butt falls into an acceptable range for a contract revolver. Serial number is uneven enough to be real.

0005.jpg
Engraving detail

0006.jpg
Serial number on the second revolver, again looks real and the range is correct.

0007.jpg
Detail of the top of the latch. Mixed workmanship again.

continued ...

0008.jpg
Detail of the Kuchekevich acceptance mark. It looks really good - too good! There would have been another acceptance mark in this are that has been polished out. It would have been very difficult to do that without damaging the HK acceptance mark. It had to be at least "freshened" to be that clean. It does really look to be correct.
0009.jpg
More inlay engraving detail

0010.jpg
Both revolvers from the top. No where was I able to get a good enough picture to determine the front sight details

0011.jpg
They are pretty! My best guess is that they were prepared in Bulgaria and this style of work can be seen on other examples.

That's the last one I will post. Enjoy and BE CAREFUL !
Joe

Joe, Great thread. Congrats. I recall back when the Soviet gov't collapsed at the end of the cold war, there were a couple of gentlemen from Russia that came to the winter Antique Gun Show at the Las Vegas Sahara. They had a couple S&Ws ( and some Colts ) like you have posted, that they claimed came from the Heritage Museum in Russia and that they had contacts there the could deliver to US collectors certain museum quality collector guns in the Hermitage, for a price. They had a video of the collection and you could pick out what you wanted, pay a 3rd party escrow holder in Europe and the gun, or guns, would be delivered to you in the US for inspection. If you approved them, the escrow holder then paid the sellers & the insider at the Hermitage. I don't know if anybody went for the deal ( probably a scam ) but if they did, I'll bet they got something like the fakes you have posted here. Ed.

I remember those guys. Not to split hairs, but did you mean The Hermitage Museum in St. Petersburg?

__________________
Mike 2796
SoFo Bunch member

Yes, the Hermitage in St. Petersburg. There were also weapons being leaked out of the Artillery Museum (Artillery, Engineer and Communication Troops). Those would still have the inventory tags on them!
Joe