J-FRAME
Member
My friend has one in very good shape. What might be the demand and a selling price range?Thanks
Information on U.S. M- 1917 flap holster
- Thread starter J-FRAME
- Start date
Register to hide this ad
WaistGunner
Member
If you can get it for $50.00 to $75.00, that is about what see for them on line and at west coast shows. Does yours have the plug and tie-down?
PZ93C
Member
There are a couple of versions.
Maker? Year? Info should be stamped on the back.
WWI dated will be worth more than WWII dated.
Butt forward or regular? Something that looks like a left hand cross draw will be worth more, collectibility wise.
Maker? Year? Info should be stamped on the back.
WWI dated will be worth more than WWII dated.
Butt forward or regular? Something that looks like a left hand cross draw will be worth more, collectibility wise.
opoefc
US Veteran
I don't agree with PZ93C regarding value. WW2 versions are a lot rarer than WW1, and WW2 versions are right hand style, ( wotn on right side with butt to the rear). All WW1 are left hand style, (worn on left side with butt to the front). WW2 holsters were only made by Textan & Fink. For an in depth discussion of these holsters see Meadows book "U.S.Military Holsters and Pistol Cartridge Boxes"
Bell Charter Oak Holsters
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2005
- Messages
- 1,880
- Reaction score
- 1,570
Well fellas, since I don't fleabay I can't comment on typical market values seen there. (I thought I heard they no longer permitted the auction of firearm related items?)
Anyway, back to the holster(s) in question. My impression on values, based upon let's say, a very good condition and unaltered WW1 vintage model, is that $50 would be larceny!
A good quality modern reproduction goes for more than that.
I can't speak to regional pricing, east coast vs. west coast and I don't imagine that is even relevant concerning value.
What I do know is that the last few WWI dated/marked specimens I've seen at shows recently were selling for upwards of $100 in fair to good condition. WWII versions are indeed rarer and as such, will command a premium over that. I agree with Ed, (opoefc) that Meadow's book is one of the best resources for definitive information, but may cost as much or more than what this fellow is willing to spend, to buy the holster.
Acquiring the book makes good sense for a collector or a potential collector of military gun leather, no doubt.
Finally, these are becoming scarcer as time continues and I see no reason to argue that their interest or value will suddenly decrease at any point in the future. Good luck!
Anyway, back to the holster(s) in question. My impression on values, based upon let's say, a very good condition and unaltered WW1 vintage model, is that $50 would be larceny!
I can't speak to regional pricing, east coast vs. west coast and I don't imagine that is even relevant concerning value.
What I do know is that the last few WWI dated/marked specimens I've seen at shows recently were selling for upwards of $100 in fair to good condition. WWII versions are indeed rarer and as such, will command a premium over that. I agree with Ed, (opoefc) that Meadow's book is one of the best resources for definitive information, but may cost as much or more than what this fellow is willing to spend, to buy the holster.
Finally, these are becoming scarcer as time continues and I see no reason to argue that their interest or value will suddenly decrease at any point in the future. Good luck!
Bell Charter Oak Holsters
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2005
- Messages
- 1,880
- Reaction score
- 1,570
Ed;
I have two WWI marked and dated (G & K 1917) that could not possibly be worn as you describe. They could be worn on the left side, butt to the rear or conversely, right side with butt forward. I'll post a photo when I find it.
Edited to add photos:
G&K 1917 pictured far right. It has what appears to be a field repair, made to the flap. I have a better photo somewhere, still looking for it!
Found 'em!
For some reason, the flap looks "purple" colored in this photo. I don't know why, but "In Situ" it is actually nearly a perfectly matched patina which indicates to me at least, that the field repair is probably contemporaneous with the age of the holster. Refer to the first photo for a truer color match as it actually is.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2002
- Messages
- 690
- Reaction score
- 1,194
Here is one sold recently on eBay by the same seller at different times. The explanation for that is given under the second description. Both times it went for about $135.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=13974&item=250236274799
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=13974&item=250239172113
GB
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=13974&item=250236274799
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=13974&item=250239172113
GB
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 26,065
- Reaction score
- 48,168
Everything in the "old Army" is made for right handed people, or just happens to be universal. In 1917, sabers were still part of the TOE for the cavalry, which still existed. Therefore, the saber was the primary hand weapon for cavalry in close combat (per "the book"). The saber, worn on the left, was drawn right handed. The pistol, worn on the right with butt forward, could be drawn left handed and used for an immediate threat which could not be reached with the saber. I suppose you were supposed to hold the reins in your teeth!
I have dealt quite a few 1917 holsters in recent years. Supply of really nice ones is down, and prices up. I usually see truly nice, COMPLETE WW I models priced at $175-250 at shows. The WW II model, while rarer, seems to have a much lower demand.
I have dealt quite a few 1917 holsters in recent years. Supply of really nice ones is down, and prices up. I usually see truly nice, COMPLETE WW I models priced at $175-250 at shows. The WW II model, while rarer, seems to have a much lower demand.
Originally posted by handejector:
Everything in the "old Army" is made for right handed people, or just happens to be universal. In 1917, sabers were still part of the TOE for the cavalry, which still existed. Therefore, the saber was the primary hand weapon for cavalry in close combat (per "the book"). The saber, worn on the left, was drawn right handed. The pistol, worn on the right with butt forward, could be drawn left handed and used for an immediate threat which could not be reached with the saber. I suppose you were supposed to hold the reins in your teeth!
I have dealt quite a few 1917 holsters in recent years. Supply of really nice ones is down, and prices up. I usually see truly nice, COMPLETE WW I models priced at $175-250 at shows. The WW II model, while rarer, seems to have a much lower demand.
My observations are exactly the same as the gentleman from Georgia. Well stated, Lee, and spot on. Regards, Jim
Just in terms of value (or, at least, perceived value), I recently purchased a WWI vintage M-1917 holster at a local gun show and paid $175.00. It's pretty nice, but the only decent one I've seen in about two years, so I snapped it up. It's only money, right?
MikeyL
S&WCA #2010
MikeyL
S&WCA #2010
Bell Charter Oak Holsters
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2005
- Messages
- 1,880
- Reaction score
- 1,570
Originally posted by handejector:
Everything in the "old Army" is made for right handed people, or just happens to be universal. In 1917, sabers were still part of the TOE for the cavalry, which still existed. Therefore, the saber was the primary hand weapon for cavalry in close combat (per "the book"). The saber, worn on the left, was drawn right handed. The pistol, worn on the right with butt forward, could be drawn left handed and used for an immediate threat which could not be reached with the saber. I suppose you were supposed to hold the reins in your teeth!
I have dealt quite a few 1917 holsters in recent years. Supply of really nice ones is down, and prices up. I usually see truly nice, COMPLETE WW I models priced at $175-250 at shows. The WW II model, while rarer, seems to have a much lower demand.
You will note that in this photo the Patton Saber is mounted on the right of the Mc Clellan. c.1917 and the 1903 Springfield on the left. More interesting though, this is an official U.S. Army photo used in an instructional guide for Cavalry to illustrate the proper regulation positioning of all accessories and weapons, but the manual stipulated that all NCO's were to bear sidearms, which are absent in this picture. That may account for the position of the saber shown.
This earlier photo of a Span Am Trooper shows him wearing the holster butt forward right side. The revolver could have been a Colt DA Army or perhaps a SAA Colt. His saber would have been mounted on the left of the Mc Clellan.
Here's one of my McClellans (M1904) with a very early U.S. Model 1902 Officers saber.
- Joined
- Mar 17, 2005
- Messages
- 26,065
- Reaction score
- 48,168
oldflatfoot said:
Interesting photo. Is it captioned? I believe that might be the "parade" or "inspection" or merely the transport positions for equipment, since both weapons are relatively inaccessible.
To be truthful, I don't really know if the Patton saber was worn on the belt at all. Patton wrote the saber manual in 1914, and changed many traditional ideas on saber warfare.
Hi Lefty,
Interesting photo. Is it captioned? I believe that might be the "parade" or "inspection" or merely the transport positions for equipment, since both weapons are relatively inaccessible.
To be truthful, I don't really know if the Patton saber was worn on the belt at all. Patton wrote the saber manual in 1914, and changed many traditional ideas on saber warfare.
OFT
Member
The Patton Saber was not made to be worn on the belt as it was too long. Note the picket pin that straps onto the saber scabbard.
The 1903 rifle is being carried with the butt in a bucket and the upper handguard has a retaining ring around it that is attached to the soldier's belt by a leather strap. The rifle had to be removed from the bucket before the trooper could dismount. Very clumsy arrangement.
The 1903 rifle is being carried with the butt in a bucket and the upper handguard has a retaining ring around it that is attached to the soldier's belt by a leather strap. The rifle had to be removed from the bucket before the trooper could dismount. Very clumsy arrangement.
Bell Charter Oak Holsters
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2005
- Messages
- 1,880
- Reaction score
- 1,570
Lee;
The photo is not captioned. It was sent to me from a friend several years ago, who I recall indicated it was of a cavalry staff NCO demonstrating the regulation positioning of saddle, arms and accoutrements c.1917. The Patton saber and the Springfield are in the correct regulation prescribed position for that time period. I speculate however, that the staff NCO pictured, who is not bearing a sidearm as was prescribed for all cavalry NCO's, was demonstrating the regulation positioning of saddle and gear for private enlisted men. He would have been using the M1917 (Colt or S&W) in the flap holster right side, butt forward (referred to as the "cavalry draw") or the M1912 cavalry auto flap holster with the M1911 worn on the right hip.
Somewhere in my database there are/were photos of a young Lt. Patton demonstrating various excercises of engagement with the saber he designed, while mounted. As I'm sure you know, Patton was "Master Of The Sword" at West Point. Prior to 1914, (Civil War, Indian Wars, Span Am) the "wrist breaker" type saber could be attached with leather strap and buckles to the forward "O" ring and stirrup leather. From a practical standpoint, I imagine that method used to bear the saber was more common than the trooper wearing the saber on a sword hanger or belt. The saber measured about 42 inches overall with scabbard, rather ungainly when the trooper was dismounted. I speculate further that this was the principal reason it was commonly mounted to the saddle, as shown in this photo.
Bell Charter Oak Holsters
Member
- Joined
- May 16, 2005
- Messages
- 1,880
- Reaction score
- 1,570
The Army did however, also issue a more traditional rifle scabbard for the '03 for mounted troops. It was fairly utilitarian and the design had been used previously for the Henry and Winchester Repeating lever rifles as well as the Krag Jorgensen. I've not seen any photos from WWI where this scabbard was used but wonder if it was relegated to the mounted field artillery, rather than the cavalry?
I agree that the regulation cavalry arrangement was clumsy, but yet I've seen photos of dismounted troopers with the rifle intact, mounted to the saddle.
Collecting US martial holster is my main interest (they are cheaper and full of history as guns and troubles free)and I have to say holsters for the M1917 are a peculiar chapter. They made three models for the venerable revolver: The M1909 WWI era (right side butt forward) identical to the one for the M1909 45 LC Colt revolver, the M2 and the M4 during WWII.
The M1909 was made only by Gratonn&Knight (while R.I.A. did the ones for the 1909 Colt) and only in 1917 and 1918. The M2 (right side butt rearward) was made only in 1942 by Fink and Tex Tan and it's a M1909 reverted hand. The M4 was made only in 1944 and only by Sears and Milwaufee saddlery and it differs from the M2 having no more the bottom ring for the leg thong but simply grommets in M1916 holster style.
Dont be too optimist regarding price cause it depends a lot on conditions, IMHO an oil soaked leather or a missing bottom plug worths near nothing, but a complete nice russet one will easily reach 200$.
In the first pic my G&K 1918 compared with the FINK 1942, in the second my mint SEARS M4.
The M1909 was made only by Gratonn&Knight (while R.I.A. did the ones for the 1909 Colt) and only in 1917 and 1918. The M2 (right side butt rearward) was made only in 1942 by Fink and Tex Tan and it's a M1909 reverted hand. The M4 was made only in 1944 and only by Sears and Milwaufee saddlery and it differs from the M2 having no more the bottom ring for the leg thong but simply grommets in M1916 holster style.
Dont be too optimist regarding price cause it depends a lot on conditions, IMHO an oil soaked leather or a missing bottom plug worths near nothing, but a complete nice russet one will easily reach 200$.
In the first pic my G&K 1918 compared with the FINK 1942, in the second my mint SEARS M4.
I don't know much about holster usage, but I do study US Cavalry sabers of the 20th Century.
Regulation carry of the M1913 saber varied through time. The method described in 1914 states that the saber could be carried on either side and illustrates it being carried on the left:
http://varego.net/rtng8w3r2/vb4s3w7/19140611.htm
Here's a picture straight out of the 1917 equipment manual:
Here are some other period pics:
The M1913 saber was mounted to the saddle and not carried by enlisted men. Officers were authorized by regulation to carry the saber in a garrison scabbard in the crook of their left arm, as LTC Patton shows us here:
Interestingly, at least for me, is that the saber shown in the pic below is not a M1913 saber...it's a 1912 Experimental that was made in very limited numbers and only for a short time...it's something of a Holy Grail among US saber collectors.
Regulation carry of the M1913 saber varied through time. The method described in 1914 states that the saber could be carried on either side and illustrates it being carried on the left:
http://varego.net/rtng8w3r2/vb4s3w7/19140611.htm
Here's a picture straight out of the 1917 equipment manual:
Here are some other period pics:
The M1913 saber was mounted to the saddle and not carried by enlisted men. Officers were authorized by regulation to carry the saber in a garrison scabbard in the crook of their left arm, as LTC Patton shows us here:
Interestingly, at least for me, is that the saber shown in the pic below is not a M1913 saber...it's a 1912 Experimental that was made in very limited numbers and only for a short time...it's something of a Holy Grail among US saber collectors.
Originally posted by oldflatfoot:
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
