Jesse James Schofield just sold...
- Thread starter outta_ammo
- Start date
Hmm, the original description describes it as a .38 caliber but further down it says .45, for that kind of money I'd hope for more clarity. Not that I would have been bidding LOL.
Regardless a very interesting revolver. Johnny Ringo's Colt also recently sold at auction. Dang I wish I was rich!!
Thanks for posting this!
Regardless a very interesting revolver. Johnny Ringo's Colt also recently sold at auction. Dang I wish I was rich!!
Thanks for posting this!
Last edited by a moderator:
Historically Accurate
The original James Boys Gang were wiped out by the good citizens of Northfield, circa August of 1876.
That would have been a little before this Schofield 45 was available for Old Jesse to acquire. Unless he robbed a trooper and a couple hundred rounds of ammo?
So, I suppose the 2nd gang established in 1878 until his assassination in April of 1882 he could have used this gun? Realistically though, any volume of Schofield revolvers available to the general public would have been at the earliest? Mid 1880.
Sure would have been difficult for Jesse to find ammo for it though. Especially in the Southern States that early. It's not like there were a lot of them out there in 1880-1882. Most Surplus guns went to the Express Companies. Wells Fargo and American Express to name the most common found to research.
So far what I've posted is document fact. Now for my two cents....I wouldn't invest this much money in any antique firearm without "Rock Solid" provenance but that's just my opinion.
Honestly, if you were buying Jesse James gun from a relative of his? Wouldn't you want at least "a receipt"? Or perhaps a document from a James relative stating that it was his gun? Perhaps take a photo with that person holding the gun? "Something"? Something other than a fill in the blank sworn statement?
There are actual documented guns used by the James Gang...backed up by News paper articles and court records. That's the kind of provenance I would respect. They didn't steal the gun but they got my receipt?
Murph
The original James Boys Gang were wiped out by the good citizens of Northfield, circa August of 1876.
That would have been a little before this Schofield 45 was available for Old Jesse to acquire. Unless he robbed a trooper and a couple hundred rounds of ammo?
So, I suppose the 2nd gang established in 1878 until his assassination in April of 1882 he could have used this gun? Realistically though, any volume of Schofield revolvers available to the general public would have been at the earliest? Mid 1880.
Sure would have been difficult for Jesse to find ammo for it though. Especially in the Southern States that early. It's not like there were a lot of them out there in 1880-1882. Most Surplus guns went to the Express Companies. Wells Fargo and American Express to name the most common found to research.
So far what I've posted is document fact. Now for my two cents....I wouldn't invest this much money in any antique firearm without "Rock Solid" provenance but that's just my opinion.
Honestly, if you were buying Jesse James gun from a relative of his? Wouldn't you want at least "a receipt"? Or perhaps a document from a James relative stating that it was his gun? Perhaps take a photo with that person holding the gun? "Something"? Something other than a fill in the blank sworn statement?
There are actual documented guns used by the James Gang...backed up by News paper articles and court records. That's the kind of provenance I would respect. They didn't steal the gun but they got my receipt?
Murph
Last edited:
You would think the person that owned a firearms museum and signed the affidavit would know how to spell Schofield…
That's not even close to correct. Bob Ford murdered Jesse James in April of 1882. The Northfield fight left two of the James Gang dead but Jesse and Frank escaped unharmed. The Youngers were caught but Jesse and Frank James escaped to Missouri.
Knowing that as you do, I would think "wiped out" would be a little bit too strong of a description.
If you know the "Ballad of Jesse James" then you know that Jesse went by the name of Thomas Howard and Frank went by B.J Woodson. They were not as prolific as they had been but Jesse had a new gang, as you note above, probably with little or no help from Frank, and they committed robberies in the late 1870s.
The new gang was not nearly as criminally adept as the old Civil War guerillas like the Youngers and others so they didn't fare well and you all know the history of Bob Ford killing Jesse James.
The Schofields were around in 1870 - you can look that up. The SCSW says 1870 (page 111). Page 113 says that Frank James carried Schofield SN 3444 and 5476. SN 2341 was Cole Younger's and Jesse James owned SN 366, and SN 273 might have been Bob Ford's (page 113) - my speculation on the Ford gun.
The gun in the auction has a 4 digit serial number so it doesn't agree with the SCSW. Maybe Jim Supica needs to opine.
Last edited:
This firearm, as were many in this auction, were supported by spurious documentation:
Bonhams : SMITH & WESSON SCHOFIELD REVOLVER ATTRIBUTED TO JESSE JAMES. Serial no. 2921, circa 1875, .38 caliber 7 inch barrel with fluted sighting channel German silver sight.
All a notarized letter is is a signature verified by a notary that the person signing the letter on that day in front of the notary is indeed the person signing that letter on that day, having presented documentation proving their identity before the notary.
A notarized document does ZERO towards proving the veracity of the claim!!!
For me to actually believe the attribution of this firearm, I'm going to want solid proof, such as contemporary documentation in a published document or records of the era, stating this revolver by serial number. Smith & Wesson records stated in a letter would be acceptable as well, if this revolver specifically shipped to Jesse James or a close associate. A document signed by an individual in front of a notary decades after the fact is totally useless!
For example, there's nothing preventing me from taking my Triple Lock revolver and writing a letter and documenting the serial number stating that I acquired this from individual "X" who inherited it from his father, who knew Buffalo Bill Cody and who was personally given this gun to him by Buffalo Bill, out of his personal collection. It means nothing. Except maybe to my heirs, who are clever enough to present this revolver for sale at Bonham's and a fool is stupid enough to accept my notarized letter as fact.
There's a sucker born every day!
Also, auction houses have no reason to prove the facts. Doing so makes one a party pooper and decreases the hammer price and bragging rights. It's much better to get free advertising and sell a firearm at the highest recorded price ever, even if the supporting documentation is shaky, at best. Plus, your commission is far greater as well.
Bonhams : SMITH & WESSON SCHOFIELD REVOLVER ATTRIBUTED TO JESSE JAMES. Serial no. 2921, circa 1875, .38 caliber 7 inch barrel with fluted sighting channel German silver sight.
All a notarized letter is is a signature verified by a notary that the person signing the letter on that day in front of the notary is indeed the person signing that letter on that day, having presented documentation proving their identity before the notary.
A notarized document does ZERO towards proving the veracity of the claim!!!
For me to actually believe the attribution of this firearm, I'm going to want solid proof, such as contemporary documentation in a published document or records of the era, stating this revolver by serial number. Smith & Wesson records stated in a letter would be acceptable as well, if this revolver specifically shipped to Jesse James or a close associate. A document signed by an individual in front of a notary decades after the fact is totally useless!
For example, there's nothing preventing me from taking my Triple Lock revolver and writing a letter and documenting the serial number stating that I acquired this from individual "X" who inherited it from his father, who knew Buffalo Bill Cody and who was personally given this gun to him by Buffalo Bill, out of his personal collection. It means nothing. Except maybe to my heirs, who are clever enough to present this revolver for sale at Bonham's and a fool is stupid enough to accept my notarized letter as fact.
There's a sucker born every day!
Also, auction houses have no reason to prove the facts. Doing so makes one a party pooper and decreases the hammer price and bragging rights. It's much better to get free advertising and sell a firearm at the highest recorded price ever, even if the supporting documentation is shaky, at best. Plus, your commission is far greater as well.
I have to agree with mrcvs. A signed and notarized document from a descendant of the James boys is nothing more than verifying the signature.
It does nothing to corroborate the info given in the letter.
It does nothing to corroborate the info given in the letter.
DWalt
Member
In some countries, Notarization is a more rigorous legal process, and may include a requirement that the document being notarized can be demonstrated as being factual. And in some places, a Notary must actually be a practicing attorney. But I am unaware of any such requirements existing in the USA. A signed and legally compliant affidavit of content correctness would provide much more protection against fraud than a simple notarized document (which provides none). And the affidavit's signatory could be prosecuted for uttering a false document.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2021
- Messages
- 4,513
- Reaction score
- 7,645
Just read it went for around 6 million! There is another very famous mob figure’s and families gun collection going to auction. Some Very Nice S&W’s and 1911’s. Can’t relate due to forum rules.
BigMuddy
Member
I would question any firearm attributed to Jesse James. His mother was known to have a barrel full of handguns that she would pull from and sell to people as being “Jesse’s gun”. Most all of these guns from that era are impossible to document. There are a few exceptions but unless a gun was ordered directly by an individual from the factory it’s very difficult to know who owned what. I have read many times that Jesse did have a Schofield later in life. True or not I don’t know. I do know here in Missouri it’s hard to find anyone who isn’t a distant relative of Jesse, or didn’t have a relative that knew him, rode with him, knew someone who knows someone who has a gun of his, etc. 
I haven’t been in years but in the State Capitol there was a 7 1/2” Nickel Colt SAA 45 that was said to have been taken from Cole Younger after Northfield. It was missing the ejector rod housing that was said to have been shot off in the raid.
The Garret gun that just sold is 7 1/2” Colt SAA. Not a lot of provenance to prove it either for a gun that sold for 6 million.
Dan
I haven’t been in years but in the State Capitol there was a 7 1/2” Nickel Colt SAA 45 that was said to have been taken from Cole Younger after Northfield. It was missing the ejector rod housing that was said to have been shot off in the raid.
The Garret gun that just sold is 7 1/2” Colt SAA. Not a lot of provenance to prove it either for a gun that sold for 6 million.
Dan
DWalt
Member
Like Pancho Villa's gun. There are probably thousands of them around. His widow would buy old guns cheap and sell them at high prices to gullible Gringo collectors as her husband's guns.
DWalt
Member
The picture shows a long-barreled SAA with nearly no finish remaining, but no other details are given. To part with that much cash ($6M), I'd require at least three tons of provenance.
Last edited:
6 Million
No matter your opinion? 6 Million dollars is a direct reflection of today’s antique gun values. They’re certainly NOT going down! The estimate for that sale was 3 million so double the estimate!
I sat in on a live auction “yesterday” and couldn’t believe what some antique guns sold for ( before the premium) that were not only not matching put togethers but also welded, stretched, heavily modified antiques, poorly refinished, etc, and they still sold for a premium price! Boxed H&Rs and Iver Johnson’s that sold for as much as boxed Smith & Wesson’s. $900 for bulldogs that I use to pay $40 for in the late 1990’s!
Bottom line? The antique market is alive and well!
Murph
No matter your opinion? 6 Million dollars is a direct reflection of today’s antique gun values. They’re certainly NOT going down! The estimate for that sale was 3 million so double the estimate!
I sat in on a live auction “yesterday” and couldn’t believe what some antique guns sold for ( before the premium) that were not only not matching put togethers but also welded, stretched, heavily modified antiques, poorly refinished, etc, and they still sold for a premium price! Boxed H&Rs and Iver Johnson’s that sold for as much as boxed Smith & Wesson’s. $900 for bulldogs that I use to pay $40 for in the late 1990’s!
Bottom line? The antique market is alive and well!
Murph
Brassmonkey55
Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2020
- Messages
- 26
- Reaction score
- 25
Jesse James, Ringo, BtK, all in the same month. Hmm. And you're buying a story.
I wonder why Elvis' gun wasn't ready, and Churchill's Webley. Shame.
I wonder why Elvis' gun wasn't ready, and Churchill's Webley. Shame.
Are there any S&W records for # 2921?
Sorry if I missed it somewhere in the conversation.
Sorry if I missed it somewhere in the conversation.
U. S. Army issued
If you look at photo 3 in the auction? You can "Clearly see" The U.S. stamp on the butt of this revolver. That is "Proof Positive" that this was a U.S. Army inspected and Issued pistol....It actually might have been left in the Armory and never issued. Then sent to Surplus in the early 1880's...It's possible but flip a coin... Many of the Schofields were actually issued and remained in the field for many years. In fact the majority of them were issued.
So, the earliest this gun could have been in Civilian use would have been early to mid 1880. The likelihood of this being a James Boys gun is remote at best. The 45 Schofields were "NOT" available in 1870. They were introduced in 1875 as part of U.S. Army trials in 45 caliber. This is a documented fact.
Also, bottom line....cartridge availability in the South would have been a "REAL" issue for this 45 S&W in the early 1880's. Even if you think perhaps they used a Webley 45 cartridge? That caliber was also scarce in the bulldogs....the most common large caliber was the 44.
So this gun honestly would not have been a good choice for an outlaw in the early 1880's. A 44 would have been a much better choice at that time in history due to cartridge availability.
A pistol isn't worth much without bullets!
Murph
If you look at photo 3 in the auction? You can "Clearly see" The U.S. stamp on the butt of this revolver. That is "Proof Positive" that this was a U.S. Army inspected and Issued pistol....It actually might have been left in the Armory and never issued. Then sent to Surplus in the early 1880's...It's possible but flip a coin... Many of the Schofields were actually issued and remained in the field for many years. In fact the majority of them were issued.
So, the earliest this gun could have been in Civilian use would have been early to mid 1880. The likelihood of this being a James Boys gun is remote at best. The 45 Schofields were "NOT" available in 1870. They were introduced in 1875 as part of U.S. Army trials in 45 caliber. This is a documented fact.
Also, bottom line....cartridge availability in the South would have been a "REAL" issue for this 45 S&W in the early 1880's. Even if you think perhaps they used a Webley 45 cartridge? That caliber was also scarce in the bulldogs....the most common large caliber was the 44.
So this gun honestly would not have been a good choice for an outlaw in the early 1880's. A 44 would have been a much better choice at that time in history due to cartridge availability.
A pistol isn't worth much without bullets!
Murph
Last edited:
