Red Mottled Floral "Peacock" grips

Hoosier45 · #1 06-11-2017, 02:42 PM

From searching the forum there is a lot of debate about the originality of floral grips and when they were used. I recently picked these up because I'd never seen any like them. I assume they are very old reproductions because I don't think anyone has confirmed the existence of original mottled floral stocks. These apparently came off a 2nd model .32 DA, which appears reasonable as others here with floral stocks came from the same gun and 1880s time frame. Also, they smell like rubber. The screw appears correct and is not fully threaded like reproductions. Pencil marking on top of right panel but not readable. I can see the outline of the molding on the back side... is this the correct shape?

The color is reddish orange which gives me pause. But the overall look, feel, smell, and size seem correct. Anyways, I bought them to research and share with you all. You just never stop learning about S&W's.

Wiregrassguy · #2 06-11-2017, 02:55 PM

They're pretty but I'm skeptical about being original. The backs of hard rubber stocks I have and have seen from that era are not flat like those. But, as I have learned many times, I'm no expert.

gmborkovic · #3 06-11-2017, 03:14 PM

Mr. Hoosier, original or repro, they are darn handsome. Thanks for posting.

opoefc · #4 06-11-2017, 05:17 PM

Your guess that they are old reproductions is correct. "Old" being like 100yrs+ " Still, very interesting items. (Color & pattern is incorrect for original S&W stocks ) Ed.

Hoosier45 · #5 06-12-2017, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by opoefc

Your guess that they are old reproductions is correct. "Old" being like 100yrs+ " Still, very interesting items. (Color & pattern is incorrect for original S&W stocks ) Ed.

Ed, I was waiting on your response. It seems you are one of the few here who has seen antique replicas like this. I read where you discussed seeing blue, green, and orange colored stocks if I remember? Could you post the back side of real grips for future reference?

They're nice replicas either way and I didn't pay too much, probably going rate for factory black grips. I couldn't pass them up because I've never seen any like them. I may have to buy a 32DA or sell them if someone really likes them.

DocB · #6 06-12-2017, 08:35 PM

Not to hijack the thread, but now you've got me wondering. These came off EBAY about a year ago for next to nothing. One of our experts posted a great thread about how to identify what guns these old grips fit. So, I know they fit one of the real tiny Ladysmith revolvers. Of course, I don't have one. Who's got that kind of money. The question is, are these correct and period or reproductions. I don't really have a clue.

Hoosier45 · #7 06-12-2017, 09:04 PM

DocB,
Not a problem, I'm glad you asked because now there is multiple items to compare. The back of yours look more correct, as they're not flat which seems to be the give away. While yours are more red then others I've seen, the pattern of the mottling looks more consistent with originals too. Also, I've read that the mottled pattern should be visible from the backside, like yours are. I think they look good. Waiting on Ed to chip in again.

JSR III · #8 06-13-2017, 05:38 AM

Quote:

Ed, I was waiting on your response. It seems you are one of the few here who has seen antique replicas like this.

The only reason that is true is because Ed was around when those stocks originally came out.

OLDSTER · #9 06-13-2017, 06:30 AM

I like !! Another interesting and unique bit of S&W revolver history

mruss90 · #10 06-13-2017, 10:25 AM

Yall, I was just curious about Hoosier45's origional question. I am working on identifying a .32 Double Action Second Model which has these exact same grips, same back too. Are they original or replications?

Wiregrassguy · #11 06-13-2017, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DocB

Not to hijack the thread, but now you've got me wondering. These came off EBAY about a year ago for next to nothing. One of our experts posted a great thread about how to identify what guns these old grips fit. So, I know they fit one of the real tiny Ladysmith revolvers. Of course, I don't have one. Who's got that kind of money. The question is, are these correct and period or reproductions. I don't really have a clue.

Doc, there is something wrong with the right panel. It appears to have come out of the mould without part of the diamond and is missing the lower needle. Maybe rejects? There are several threads here that show different styles of these grips. IIRC the original red ones are more brownish and are just checkered like the black grips. Maybe that is what Ed is referring to. I'll have to see if I can find those threads again.

BTW, I was able to find a reasonably priced 1st Model Ladysmith at the Dothan Gun Show a couple of years ago. Makes you want to ask how such a rare little gun winds up in a backwater show. So, never say never.

Wiregrassguy · #12 06-13-2017, 01:31 PM

This is what the color and checkering should look like.

DocB · #13 06-13-2017, 01:34 PM

My bad. . .angle and light reflection in photo. You had me worried for a bit since I've never paid much attention to these grips. You guys in Alabama must have all the good gun shows to find stuff like that. Our shows here have been stinky lately.

Wiregrassguy · #14 06-13-2017, 01:41 PM

Yeah, that's better. I don't know. But the floral pattern and color are off for S&W, IMO. Maybe Ed can say but he is probably traveling to the symposium now.

Actually, about 1.5 years ago, the shows here got really stinky and haven't recovered. I still go but ain't much there that interests me.

Hoosier45 · #15 06-26-2017, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mruss90

Yall, I was just curious about Hoosier45's origional question. I am working on identifying a .32 Double Action Second Model which has these exact same grips, same back too. Are they original or replications?

It appears that both of our sets are very old (Pre-1900) custom made replicas to dress up your S&W. I'd say they are scarce and well-made. I value them at the cost of the standard black grips.

glowe · #16 06-26-2017, 08:53 AM

I do not believe that the shape of the backside is the determining factor in originality. As I had stated in earlier posts, the stocks were sanded until they were closely matching the butt-frame. That minimized having to sand down the edges and re-polish. Butt-frames were hand finished and maybe an apprentice took off a little too much metal or there was a flaw that had to be removed.

It would be interesting to check the exact dimensions with other stocks from other "R" frame stocks, or place them on another 32 DA gun to see if they are smaller?? I have seen quite a few red mottled stocks with similar color to yours that sellers and owners claim to be original. 320 Revolving Rifles had this color stocks.

What bothers me about these stocks is that they appear to be quite worn, but still glossy in appearance. I tend to go for polishing that has removed the oxidized layer and shows the color similar to when they were new? All indications show what should be factory stocks. Holes are original and not resized or moved and escutcheons look original. Pencil marks would properly indicate serial number placement. What I have in my notes for stock serial numbers is the following. Stock #s, stamped since 1857, changed to penciled #s c. 1900 and back to stamped #s in 1929 (except hard rubbers which can be penciled, stamped or scratched on over the entire time period).

Maybe they were polished at one time or are reproductions from a worn mold. How many of these stocks are out there and how many are reproductions? From what is being stated in this and other posts, it sounds like none can be authenticated with 100% certainty.

-db- · #17 06-26-2017, 09:55 AM

Random thoughts on mottled stocks...

Parsons' book on the Pioneer Single Actions tells us hard rubber stocks were introduced on the first .38 models and were sourced from at least two different suppliers (one of which was in France). This was a cost-reducing move on the part of the company, not an upgrade or dress-up option. Parsons also reports the red colored stocks were supposed to mimic rosewood S&W was stocking guns with at the time. Learning this, I suspect that Wiregrassguy is correct in pointing out that examples such as those he linked to (H Richard's gun), with mostly vertical streaking of the color as would be seen in natural real rosewood, are indeed the earliest proper type, the look the company was interested in.

It is possible the more wildly colored/patterned examples we see, which are often the subject of question as to authenticity and sometimes considered early or old reproductions, are in fact legitimate stocks the company initially rejected. Or perhaps the company at some point relaxed standards and began accepting supplies of less than ideal "imitation rosewood" rubber stocks. I raise these points because I find it difficult to believe there were aftermarket reproducers of such stocks 100+ years ago. For one thing, it wouldn't have been very profitable as no one saw any collectible value in such guns at the time and production of near-exact replicas would have been quite expensive. Also consider that these were the cheap stocks S&W offered. Doesn't it make more sense that reproducers would try to cash in on more expensive stocks instead of the cheapest and most common? Furthermore, we know S&W wasn't averse to going after infringers of copyright back then. Anyone producing unauthorized copied contemporary S&W stocks would have likely heard from D.B. Wesson himself.

If reproductions of such stocks exist, and we're assured by experts they do, they were likely produced after these older guns, and their stocks, began attracting serious collector interest and thus increased value, at some time well into the 20th century after the company stopped offering them.