Arlo, and perhaps Bob

Perhaps Arlo has hit on what you were suggesting, but I think there is a flaw in the
way that he says it.

Not being certain about the originality of the finish does not mean that there is
no difference. Clearly there is a difference - there are no two things on this earth
that are exactly the same. At some level, everything is different.

Not being certain simply means that we can not say, with certainity, that the finish
is original. We can say that we think its original, but we can not be certain. So,
we may well buy a gun that we think is original, but really is not. The question is-
will we ever find out ?!

This is not as silly as it sounds. I will give you a up-to-the-moment example.
The US stock market is experiencing massive daily gyrating moves. Up and down 200 or
more points every two or three days is dramatic. One of the precepts of Dow theory is
that recent previous lows ( or highs ) can serve as ultimate boundaries between
changing market regimes. Ie, a change from a bull market to a bear market may well be
defined by whether or not the market moves through such a boundary. So, right now,
Dow theorists are saying that IF the industrials and transports break through their
recent lows, that will indicate the onset of a bear market. But, if they do not break
those recent lows, then those lows will have held, and the market will be moving higher,
thus resuming the bull market.

All of this is true, but it is also rather useless, just like not being able to tell
with certainity about the originality of the finish. This market doctrine is useless
because we won't know until well after the fact, if those lows held. Likewise, if we
can't say with certainty that the finish is original, then what is it, and will we
ultimately find out by some other piece of information ?!

Regards, Mike

Thank you all for a very informative read. Onomea, I like the cut of your jib! You said so well what I've been thinking since I started reading this thread. Best Regards All, Jerry

Perhaps everyone is missing the point. Who can really say if S&W didn't nickel the site base on early or later guns? In talking with folks who I consider experts in the field, they say that the factory did nickel the site base on RMs as he has seen numerous nickel RMs with that configuration. Is it contrary to what we think it should be? Yes it is, but as our fearless leader has said on numerous times, never say never when it comes to S&W. With that said, Dave, you got some nice original guns there!
Bill

__________________
38-44heavyduty.com

Thanks Bill - but you still can't have the 38/44 ammo "brick"!

__________________
Dave Ballantyne

I think this is where I came in, so its a good spot to go out !

Later, Mike Priwer

I enjoyed this thread immensely, especially the guns!

I also felt the philosophic discussions useful as well. I see both sides and have no quarrel with any of the points of view. Clearly our personalities have a significant effect on the question of 'originality'. The optimist wants to believe and looks for 'proof' that the finish is not original. The realist/pessimist is disinclined to accept an absolute statement that any finish is original.

As a retired former investment banker who spent all the years he could stomach on Wall Street, I will only say that the soaring prices of Registered Magnums is enough incentive for fakery. I'm not sure those prices are here yet. Any expert restorer is wise enough to get a big chunk of the gains for himself I will only say here that once a high quality fake is sold into the collector market for big bucks, the incentive to accept a debunking is very low

None of my comments apply to the guns that started this thread. I am only sharing my hard-earned observations of human behaviour.

__________________
Bob.
SWCA 1821

Dave,
PLEASE post the last paragraph of the letter dated 11-16-05 on the gun with the HBH. It contains a statement I have never seen in a letter, and it should get this thread ROCKIN'!!

To all,
First, let me state, for the record, that I agree that Roy has said that the factory could refinish a gun, and no one could tell. GIVEN.
Now, what to do? Shall we never describe a gun again as "Original"? Should EVERY description contain the phrase "possible refinish that NO one can spot"? Ludicrous.
How do I know a rock is a rock? Because YOU said so? I might disagree. THAT is NOT a rock. How can you prove me wrong? You will "prove" me wrong by the agreement of others- other people who agree "THAT IS a rock", BUT, I will only be WRONG to you people. I still say THAT is NOT a rock, and I might find others who agree that may NOT be a rock. I have heard on good authority that they call that object a feather on Mars.

POLISHED Pins- We simply do NOT have enough nickeled pre-war mags around to KNOW what the factory did. I think we could easily speculate that perhaps they polished the pins on some bases, and not on others, depending on the type of base. I have handled all three of these guns, and I cannot tell that any of the three have been refinished, so, in my feeble mind, they qualify for the term "original finish". Perhaps I should have said "original finish, UNLESS they are refinished, and NO one can tell". Isn't THAT fun?

PRICE- I have seen Roy put the invoice price in numerous letters on pre-war mags. I have also been fortunate enough to see some ORIGINAL invoices(unless they were refinished, and NO one could tell) on Reg Mags, and some period factory letters sent in acknowledgement of Reg Mag orders. NOT ONCE was the price the full list price. ALL had been discounted down into the high $30's and low $40's. These were CIVILIAN and LEO orders. I am beginning to wonder if ANYBODY paid list price.

I wish I had not been so busy lately, and had been able to post simple kudos on the first or second page of this thread. It got a bit tedious quickly.

Happy New Year to all!

__________________
Regards,
Lee Jarrett

Due to having bought from Dick, and sold straight to Dave, the two mercilessly-questioned nickel guns seen photo'ed on page 1 of this thread, I'd like to add to the discussion with the following statement, to which any of you are most welcome to disagree with.

In my best personal and professional study I feel quite comfortable in stating that neither of the two guns are refinished, period. The sight bases appear absolutely original and have not been removed or altered in any way that is visible even to super-magnification. The tell-tale factor that a couple folks seem to be missing is that these are not ramp-sight configurations. In my up-close experience with quite a number of nickel R/M's (from 1982-1992 and again since 2004), the norm has been that R/M's equipped with other than the Baughman ramp-type sight have all had nickel bases. My conclusions on this may well be in total error and I will gladly stand corrected when shown differently. However, for anyone to assume that there is an absolute as to when and why S&W polished flat / left exposed sight-base pins is, for want of a better word, (just plain) ludicrous. Not even Roy Jinks knows with certainty the answer to that question..

As to those quoting Roy's comment that the factory could re-do a gun in various ways, and no one be able to discern such, from my conversations with him that fact more applies to work done prior to the early 1900's. Alterations done in later years usually exhibit at least minor evidence of "something different", though we don't always know what.

Insert: It may be considered by some a bit egotistical on my part, but the "Nickel R/M dinner meeting" held in Ohio a few years back - between me, Dick Burg, Jim Fisher and Lee Jarrett - was a great opportunity for Dick to have his guns examined by three guys who should by now know what they are looking at, thoughts-comments-opinions that Dick obviously valued or he would not have asked us. The guns were not for sale at the time so no one other than Dick had, if you will, an agenda of any sort. Just four good friends with long and extensive experience comparing notes and attempting to determine originality as much as the ability to do so lay within us at the time.

The above said, I'm out in the wide-open and available for a sound thrashing from those who may choose to disagree, and thus close with this: I stand flat-footed on the complete and total originality of these guns as sold to Dave. Should he wish to sell them today I'd represent them to the potential buyer exactly as I did to him, my integrity and reputation fully at risk (as it is everyday, anyhow..).


David

Lee, Mike, David, Dave and anybody else who's remotely interested in sight-base pins...
When I asked Roy about the disparity in pins (not in relation to this thread) in polished/rounded/invisible/visible last year, he replied that all it means is that the flat/invisible pins indicated that the base was mounted BEFORE final finishing; the rounded/protruding pins indicated that the base was attached AFTER the finishing process.
He also added that my 'pin' question was an example of the kind of issue collectors should not be concerned about.
So I stopped worrying about it...
Don

__________________
OGCA Life
NRA Life

David...I am in complete agreement with all you stated above. The sight base on a RM that has a blade mounted later (since a choice of several blades was available)should have been pinned to the barrel ramp, polished flush and then finished in blue or nickel. The last operation would have been to pin on the sight blade and that is why all RMs I have seen have this pin exposed (not polished). In the case of where the ramp and blade are blued, the ramp would have been pinned to the barrel after finishing so the pin would be exposed (i. e. not polished flush to the rib). Same situation is seen on 44 Magnums and other target models through the mid-60s.

Bill

Lee, I have a copy of the ordering sheet and personal letter sent by the owner with his order on RM #3450 in 1938.
The owner paid the NRA Discount price of $54.00.

__________________
John

Its been an interesting discussion.

I can assure everyone here that the real motive of the aforementioned (and beaten to death) supper meeting was to fill our stomachs. Or at least that was the primary reason. And David left out my wife as one of those present. Her entire motive was a nice supper!

People opinions change when they handle a gun and can really inspect it. At that point in time I had no question about the lack of orinality of one of them. It was clearly a good refinish, and it isn't part of this discussion (but it is a part of a different, email discussion.)

Whenever you hand a gun to other people, collectors, experienced shooters, whatever, you need to be careful not to poison the discussion. Some very honest but well meaning people will tell you what they think you want to hear, or hedge if it runs counter to your beliefs. Thats why you don't tell them what you think till they've told you.

We spend way too much time and effort preaching what the factory did or didn't do. We just don't have all the answers. When you have the gun in hand, and a magnifier, and good light, you just get an opinion or idea. When you get candid opinions from others, and everyone that handles a gun agrees, its a strong trend.

I believe at the time David, Jim, Lee and I all came to the same conclusions.

The rounded and flush pin question came up here on the forum about 5 years ago, in the context of K32s. That was when I had a small accumulation of them, and I had both posibilities on several guns. That was back when I was posting photos, and there was just no question that in the early postwar years they didn't follow any rule. What suprised me a little was that early ones were both ways, as were later ones. That told me that there wasn't a preferred method, or at least to the exclusion of the other. Probably depended on who was doing the work.

__________________
Dick Burg

Say, this wasn't one of them candlelit suppers where ya gotta squint to see the menu now, was it?

Dave, the 8 3/4" non reg nickel is not a typo. I would remind you that you saw this gun in the not too distant past! Perhaps at that time there were other things that captured your attention.

FWIW I am in complete agreement with Bill Cross's observations regarding sight bases and pins. I know of three examples of pre-war .357s (presumably original or not able to be discerned as not original) where the sight base is nickel and the pins exposed.

I also like the idea of a calendar--we'll talk and see what we can come up with.

Ray

__________________
SWHF

Thanks to everyone for their continued input, just when I thought it was safe to raise my head over the parapet again.

Lee - in the letter you mention Roy states "It is my opinion after examining this revolver that it has not been refinished and that the nickel is the original factory finish". In Roy's opinion. Right back to where we started...?

Apologies Ray. You have the fourth, the 8 3/4", of course. As you rightly say, I was kinda stunned at the time! I'm with you on the calendar. Great idea Bill as I'm sure it will generate sales outside the S&WCA and maybe encourage some new prospects. Ray - I'll call you about it next week.

__________________
Dave Ballantyne

Dave

As for the pins that secure the rectangular block to the barrel : I checked about
a dozen blue registered magnums. Maybe 3/4's of them have the rectangular block, the
others have a ramp base. All of the ramp bases are mounted with non-flush pins; most of
the rectangular blocks are mounted with flush/polished pins, some very hard to spot.

So - I would have to say that I would expect the same thing with nickel guns.

Regards, Mike Priwer

need to keep this at the top!
Bill

__________________
38-44heavyduty.com