Pre-war K-22 Masterpiece value

[Harvester]

Greetings,

I have what my research leads me to believe is a pre-war K-22 Masterpiece... one of the few made in 1940 just after the Outdoorsman and before production ceased for a few years. I have the revolver and matching red box (serial number on botom of box). The pistol has a few nicks and wear marks but the metal is bright and shiny, the edges sharp, and I consider it in 98% condition. Please refer to the attached pics.

The Serial Number is: 687822 and the frame number and yoke number are both: 19996. When I acquired the pistol, it had the Mother of Pearl grips shown in one picture and I later found the wood grips that are on the pistol now. Unfortunately, the wood grips condition does not match the pristine condition of the pistol.

Many thanks in advance for any assistance you might provide,

Harvester

 

[murphydog]

Wow. Expensive, but I'll leave the value estimation to those with direct experience with these.

 

[smith17]

It does fall in the serial number range but, unless my eyes are failing me, it doesn't appear to have the short throw 'stepped' hammer. Is the rear sight of the micro-click nature?
Ed

 

[230grfmj]

It does fall in the serial number range but, unless my eyes are failing me, it doesn't appear to have the short throw 'stepped' hammer. Is the rear sight of the micro-click nature?
Ed

Good catch smith17.

Here is what the hammer and the rear sight should look like on a K-22 2nd Model Masterpiece.

 

[Masterpiece]

Hammer & Rear Sight???

It does fall in the serial number range but, unless my eyes are failing me, it doesn't appear to have the short throw 'stepped' hammer. Is the rear sight of the micro-click nature?
Ed

Harvester,
I'm also in agreement with Ed's observations!! Unless I'm not seeing what I believe I see it looks to have a Long-Throw Hammer!! Does the Rear Sight have the "Patent" Markings?? Although by the Serial Number it does fall into a Block of 50 of these Revolvers that were produced in the 687800 Range!! In any case,I think it would be in your best interest to have it "Lettered" just to make sure!! Regardless,it's a "Very" Fine Revolver!! How about a couple more photos of the areas in question??

 

[Masterpiece]

Thanks 230grfmj,
You must be able to type faster than I can as your message beat me to the punch!!

 

[Harvester]

Good googly-moogly... I thought the repository of all things S&W lived here but DANG you guys are too much! I do not want to tell you how long it took ME to find the information I have and you gentlemen rattled-off more in a matter moments.Thank you for the prompt and kind replies... and you are killing me with requests for more pics but I will do my best to accomodate you later this evening.

I can; however, answer Masterpiece's question about the Patent 'markings'... rather than "PATENTS PENDING" like the ridiculously detailed picture 230grfmj posted (thanks again for setting the bar so high for posted pics LOL!)... my revolver is marked: PAT.2187096 which my hasty Google search just now revealed was filed by E. S. Pomeroy (assignor to Smith and Wesson Inc.) on Sept. 28, 1939 and appears to have been granted on Jan. 16, 1940 and it matches the appearance of 230grfmj's revolver so it still seems authentic to me. BTW- after a much closer inspection of the picture on the box I see it matches the hammer you guys say is correct. Any chance mine actually did come from the factory with that hammer and would having it "lettered" confirm that? Considering the absolutely superb condition of the pistol, screw heads, etc. it seems unlikely someone would make such a switch after the fact but I am no expert.

BTW- I just put my reading specs back on and the hammer appears to be marked on the 'hump' with the verbiage: "REG.U.S.PAT.OFF"

Thanks again and I will try to take and upload some more pics later,

Harvester

 

[DCWilson]

Harvester, that is a beautiful revolver but it sure is a puzzler. I wondered briefly if someone took a long-action first model (K-22 Outdoorsman) and added a micrometer rear sight and taller front sight to it, but the serial number is all wrong for that. I don't know what's going on with that gun, but it does look like the wrong hammer for a K-22 Second Model (K-22/40).

Could a second model have been retrofitted with a different hammer stud that made it a long action revolver?

This one is definitely worth a letter.

Do I understand that the patent number you mention is stamped on the long foot of the rear sight assembly? I had never heard of that patent before now.

The REG.U.S.PAT.OFF marking is typical for hammers and triggers of the 1930s; the patent it refers to is the case hardening process that gave S&W hammers their distinctive colors.

 

[cgt4570]

Yes, a letter is in order. The theories are endless. It could have been a factory test bed for the new rear sight. It could have been returned to the factory to have the rear sight swapped. It could have had an earlier hammer modified and fitted by a gunsmith (ala 'Kings' Short Action mod) because a replacement stepped hammer couldn't be found. It could have been a factory 'mistake' since the two models overlapped.

 

[Speedo2]

The "long throw" hammer is certainly a puzzlement. I've got an pretty early K22/40 (sn 682937); it has the stepped, "short-throw" hammer and "Patent Pending" stamped on the top of the rear sight. I believe that Harvester's "Pat.2187096" stamping may be correct because of its later manufacture. Any others out there with similar markings? But that hammer...? For most things S&W, I've learned never to think in absolutes. Perhaps Harvester's gun is just another example of S&W having some old Outdoors-man parts lying around and them not wanting to waste anything. I agree that a letter would be interesting. Regardless, I would consider it to be a Masterpiece rather than an Outdoorsman. Very nice gun, and a good way to make an impressive entrance here. Welcome. -S2

 

[Harvester]

Thank you all for the warm welcome!!

Many thanks to everyone for all the kind words and detailed information and, yes, the Patent number I mentioned is located in the same place as the 'PATENTS PENDING' on the sight of the K-22 pictured in the other post.

Sound like I definitely need to hit-up S&W for a letter and see where it leads... I will keep you posted on what I learn. In the interim, please feel free to share any other insights! It was not expected but I am looking forward to getting to the bottom of this mystery.

Thanks again,

Harvester

 

[Masterpiece]

Harvester,
The Patent Marking on your Rear Sight is the "Correct" Marking for Revolvers in your Serial No.Range & slightly earlier!! I have seen this Patent No. on 2nd Model Masterpieces as early as the 685,000 Range!! When exactly they started using them is not going to be easy to figure as S&W most likely made this change during the production process after they ran out of the previously marked "Pat.Pending" Marked Rear Sights!! Like everyone else has stated,it's a real mystery how the Long-Action Hammer came to be used!! I also doubt Roy's Letter is going to give you any indication how it came to be either!! Unless some new information has come to light in later years I'm sure your Revolver is going to "Letter" as a Second Model!! All of the Revolvers,in the Block I mentioned earlier,with Serial Numbers between 687,801-687,850 were "All" 2nd Model K-22 Masterpieces!! Here's another thought concerning the Hammer!! Do you have to cock the Hammer completely to the end of it's travel to get "Full Cock" or not?? I don't think you can easily install an Early Long Action Hammer in these,but it's something to check!!

 

[Memphis]

That's a beautiful gun and yep, the hammer is the first thing I noticed. But it sure is a puzzler. The serial number puts it in a very desired grouping. I'm much more interested in those patent markings on the gun. I've never heard of another one like that. I have a good feeling about this gun. Might just be a very special gun. At least it's one we haven't seen surfacing before.
And man I JUST sold an extra 2nd Model hammer that I found at a local gunsmith. It was in near perfect condition too! I'll be watching this thread with much interest. Thank you for posting it.

Roger

 

[rburg]

Lets upset Lee's evening and call it a transitional K22 Masterpiece! Its not fish, its not fowl, its a mammal.

Ooops. The thread title asks about "value". I'm going to question the 98% condition rating. I rate it much lower. The grips detract pretty much. I see a fair amount of ejector rod wear (as evidenced by the lace of finish on it.) I also seem to detect some holster wear on the very end of the barrel. The combination of those factors take it down from 95% to maybe 90%.

What it is will determine the value somebody will pay for it. Guns aren't like coinage, where an oddity add great value. With guns, having a one of a kind mistake or alteration generally detracts from the value. In today's market, a K22 Outdoorsman in a presentable box will bring between $1500 and $2000. One with special features, like HBH or Magnas at the upper end of that. A K22 masterpiece will probably sell for about $4000. With mismatched grips and the noted wear and tear, I'm going to guess well under the $4000 price.

The big boys in the K22 game won't want it, or at least at top dollar. But its a spectacular quality shooter.

 

[Masterpiece]

Harvester,
Not a necessity,but just little side note if you'd want to check into it!! Your Rear Sight should also have the Revolver's Serial No. stamped on the Underside of it!! If you do decide to remove the Sight to check, be "Very" careful as not to damage the Forward Screw Slot!! They can be a problem if you don't have access to the Correct Screwdriver!! Just thought I'd let you know!!

 

[Harvester]

Wow... and the education continues, thank you Masterpiece, rburg, and Memphis!

Understood on your rating, rburg, you are correct about the wear you mentioned and the grips drop it as well but I would still argue 95%. That being said, you have much more experience and you are wiae in stating it is worth what someone will pay so very subjective to be sure. Either way, thank you for the additional commentary and actually answering my initial idea for the post; although, I was derailed with the 'mystery' along with everyone else! ;o)

And you have larger cohones than me, Memphis... there is no way *I* would attempt to remove that rear sight- correct screwdriver notwithstanding! 8-O Other than the numerical patent marking I have to say I am baffled by the sight commentary... it sounds like the consensus is the sight is different than the one on the beautiful pics 230grfmj posted but it looks the same to me. Am I missing something?

With much difficulty, I managed to get some more pics but after I had to downsize them to post in this message I am not sure how much you will be able to see. I captured a pic or two with the hammer cocked (which felt exactly as expected and it locked-up tight) as well as a few others so enjoy and let me know what you think!

I'll be navigating to the S&W sight later to find the specifics on how to get a letter for this pistol.

Again, I thank you all~

Harvester

BTW- rburg... I believe you know a friend of mine: Osprey... he was the one who originally turned me on to the Forum years ago. I got busy with other things, dropped-off the Forum, and I just reactivated my profile this week. Strange to see my original join date of 2001 but now with only a handful of posts... my 'record' seems to have been erased but I was pretty jazzed my profile still existed!

 

[H Richard]

Welcome back. You have an interesting K22. I will be waiting your reply from Roy. Be sure to send pictures along with the letter request of the gun, especially the left side showing the hammer cocked and tho location of the Long hammer throw stud, and pictures of the rear sight from the top showing the patent number.

I believe there is a request letter format in the downloads area, above.

 

[MJS5678]

The rear sight is correct, it has the same pat.# as mine, #696434. The hammer is strange, but I think someone has put an outdoorsman hammer into it. If I can find the time I will try the hammer from my OD into my Masterpiece.

 

[rburg]

Yes, I did know sprey. He was a good guy. We spoke many times on the forum, and I even got to meet with him one time when he traveled near where I live. I wish he'd come back. And he worked for a real character, Reaper.

Back to the condition rating game. You'll find different people rate guns in different ways. I subscribe to the lowball school of ratings. And I'm in good company, with others like Jim Supica and David Carroll. When they rate a gun, they state a condition. When you receive it, you're pleasantly surprised at how good it is. If anything, you might rate it higher. You could call something a "strong 90%", and someone else might say its almost a 95% gun. But there are no stops between 90% and 95%, and a gun almost always takes on the lower rating.

A while back (and still) I bought a really nice K22 2nd. It was just great, box and all. Then one evening David Carroll stopped by the house on his way someplace or another. He wanted to see my guns. So to the gun room we went. He wasted/invested a couple of hours pouring over mostly my Registered Magnums, but spent just a little time on the K22s. A few months later he was buying some of the RMs from me, and he had another K22 2nd I was interested in. But I was sitting on the fence and in his best car salesman style, he said his was better! Yeah, sure. But it did have a factory grip adapter and I'd never seen that on a 2nd model. So I bought it and it came home.

My first task, after recording the serial number, was to compare the guns. And darn if he wasn't right. I had some of the same minor blemishes the one pictured exhibited. Just a little scraping on the ejector rod (strong evidence of it being shot just a little) and just minor rub marks on the end of the barrel. He rated the one he sold me as a 98% gun and mine as a 95% gun. And he did it all from memory from 6 months before. I'm not sure its moral to have a memory like that.

Another thing to remember in all this is I've never seen a 100% gun. They don't come from the factory that way. Brand new and never unwrapped you can find a little flaw or two. I guess maybe someplace, somewhere a perfect one has escaped. Most of us have never seen one.

Many come from the unopened box in deplorable shape, some inoperable. Quality control is a mixed bag. If they test it enough to be sure its right, its got wear. If they don't test them, you run the risk of the gun not functioning. So don't take condition ratings in the wrong way.

What you have is a gun that will present some interesting problems to those looking at it. Just like here, the knowledgeable who look at it will be confused. If your goal is to sell it, this will probably be the best place to start. If you want to shoot it, nothing we've said will prevent it from becoming a star. If you want to keep it, you already know its going to be a great conversation piece. If you're just keeping it, start your search for a perfect set of 1930s grips. The gun will look immeasurably better.

And if you see Craig, say high for me.

 

[Harvester]

Thank you gentlemen... for the additional pics and continued superlative commentary!

Well put, rburg, and your wisdom is well received. And that *is* pretty scary about DC's memory and affinity for detailing firearms and logging the details away forever.

As it happens, I miss Osprey too... I haven't heard from him in quite a while. Nice... I had forgotten about his smiley-face 'O' but I will definitely pass on your regards. Too funny... I actually work for Reaper still and back when Osprey worked with us we were the 3 Muskateers!

I know Osprey enjoyed your banter and meeting you and always spoke very highly of you... I imagine my passing on your sentiments may encourage him to resurface.

I haven't had a chance to request the letter yet but I will definitely attach pics with my request if possible.

Thanks again,

~Harvester (Kent)