Pre-War Magnums in Nickel, including 2 Non RM's

[rburg]

I'm sure that anyone that has handled 318 and 5415 would instantly understand that neither have had any restoration work done on them. The excellent photography just shows them as great old hand guns. I see no reason why he'd try to highlight the tiny imperfections caused by careful usage over the last 72 and 68 years.

When I owned them, I wasn't trying to assemble a collection of new-in-box guns. It was clear to me that both had been honest working guns for a time, then went into retirement. All I wanted to do was live with them for a time and not add any additional damage. I'm glad a guy like Dave now has them in his collection.

It would cost more than either is worth to hire the top flight gunsmiths to even start to improve upon them.

On other issues we'd touched, I'm almost certain that Doug Turnbull has worked on S&Ws in the past. The story as I understand it was that the prices he had to charge for the quality expected just didn't justify him continuing. Besides, he has more work than he can handle just working on Colts and Winchesters. He apparently feels S&Ws are off brand items!

 

[Doc44]

Dave...Per your first post, I enjoy seeing these rare guns and look forward to seeing them and many more RMs in person when we celebrate the Registered Magnum in Dearborn, MI in 2009.

You and Mr. Cheely should alsao consider doing a RM calender commemorating the 75th anniversary of this classic revolver in 2010. Like the one Chuck Odom and I did for the 50th anniversary of the 44 Magnum.

Thanks for posting a great picture.

Bill Cross

 

[LadyFed]

Dave, those are really beautiful revolvers that I am sure served a good purpose. If they have been refinished or not really doesn't matter, at least to people like me who weigh the utility of a handgun over their collectibility. After reading this interesting thread, it got me to wondering about my own non-reg magnum that I posted earlier. I will ask it in a different posting so as to not hi-jack yours, which another member of this forum said is a big no-no!
Regards
Eliza

 

[rburg]

Originally posted by LadyFed:
After reading this interesting thread, it got me to wondering about my own non-reg magnum that I posted earlier. I will ask it in a different posting so as to not hi-jack yours, which another member of this forum said is a big no-no!

Thread hijacking is a time honored tradition here. Once the original question has been answered, then beaten to death, then rehashed a few more times, there's nothing left. If something interests you, go ahead and post it where its convenient.

While we may sometimes appear to be at each others throats, I don't think thats the case. Often the give and take results in some very good information being spread around. Few of us feel we know everything on these subjects. We learn from our discussions, just like we learn from handling and owning the guns.

 

[mikepriwer]

As I have the guns in my possession and have examined them pretty thoroughly, and you've never seen them, which one of us has a stronger case?

We are in agreement about the basic premise that you can refinish a gun without anyone being able to spot it. It's where you go from there that's confusing me.

Dave

Dick says it is a time-honored tradition to beat something beyond death, so I would not want to
be the one to break that rule.

The point I was trying to make is that this whole issue about refinishing is not about challenging
your integrity, nor is it about the skills or expertise of those within your friendly gathering.
(Personally I do have some views about that, but they are not relevant here.) The point here is
that its about logic.

The underlying issue is that the factory could refinish a gun and no one could tell -not the
historian, not me, not you, not anyone. The reason they could do this is that they did it in
the first place - they called it a new gun then. If they could make a gun look new in the first
place, surely they could work that magic again. They may have added new parts, all nicely serial-
numbered, but they could, and did, do that. This is where this whole discussion starts.

The logic of this supposition is that this group of "no one" is a very exclusive group. Sad to
say, you and your friends are excluded; its an empty group. There is no one around who can say,
with ceertainty, that the finish on a particular gun is original.

I have no way of knowing, with certainty, the originality of the finish on those guns. With
certainty, neither do you. That is the logic of the supposition. Its the "with certainty" that
is difficult to accept. I have no problem with your believing that the guns are original - as long
as you acknowledge that you can't be certain.

And you are right - you have a stronger case than I. But I was never suggesting that I had a
strong case. I only noted some observations that , to me, seemed out of place. Maybe those were
not out of place. I did raise the question, but no one responded to them.

Regards, Mike

 

[bettis1]

Ah, I think I am finally arriving at "my" endpoint in this exercise in circular logic.

If it is accepted that the Factory could apply a subsequent finish that was indistinguishable from the first one they applied; and further, that there were/are other artisans who could do the same (because the factory, neither then nor now, had a monopoly on those skills), then we reach a point where the most experienced collectors may not be able to distinguish between a first finish or a subsequent finish. When that point is reached, the question becomes moot. It simply has no further relevance to the discussion if it is unanswerable.

It sorta reminds me of that old hippy question about a tree falling in the forest without anyone around to hear it. The answer only has meaning if one uses it to discredit someone else's opinion by raising it.

Bob

 

[mikepriwer]

Bob

If you accept ---, then one side of the question must have uncertainty
as part of the answer. Clearly, there are times when we can be certain
that the gun was refinished ! Ie, the other side of the question.

The question, like lots of things in life, may simply have an uncertain
answer. That is different from it being unanswerable. Think about going
to a doctor, and receive the "I think" diagnosis, and therefore take these
pills, or have this surgery, etc. That is an uncertain answer, but we
accept it in that context. If, on the other hand, the diagnosis was
" I dunno ", then that is a very different response.

Regards, Mike

 

[merlindrb]

So much wisdom in one thread! I feel honored to have initiated it (the thread, not the wisdom)

First things first. Eliza - I'm with Dick on this one. Hijack my threads whenever you wish, you'll be doing everyone a favor.

Arlo - I'm glad you don't think I'd do something like that. I was a little worried, but probably being too sensitive. By the way, if you wanna buy some pristine, absolutely perfect, as new in the box Kansas City guns just send me an email. I got a dozen or so to get rid of...

Dick/Bob - thank you for the aforesaid wisdom, as always.

Mike - we're cool. I know what you're trying to say, we just see things from different angles.

Regards.

 

[Onomea]

Well, to ramble on a bit more, flog that horse carcass mercilessly, as it were:

If the most discerning experts cannot tell an original from a well done refinish, what is the difference between such a refinished gun and an original? Since the distinction is unknowable, in the case of a truly perfect refinish, the only difference, therefore, is hypothetical. I.e., if we could tell the difference, then there would be a distinction to be made. Since we cannot, there is no distinction.

But that can't be right. There is certainly a market distinction, in terms of value, between a known refinish, no matter how good, and a presumed original finish. And to deliberately pass the former off as the latter is fraud. So, there are distinctions in value, and legality, involved, at least.

And just what is it about the original finish that makes it more valuable? It's not because it is better quality, or because it is more attractive. Part of it might be that because other collectors find original finish guns more valuable than restored, we do, too. That's human nature.

But, at the bottom, I think the greater value is attributable to our respect for its age, and our pleasure in owning something so delicate and beautiful that has survived so well, and so improbably, over several generations. It is a concrete tie to the past that we can hold in our hands. In short, the value is romantic – emotional -- though nonetheless quite real.

 

[rburg]

Another subject we probably need to deal with here is what even constitutes an original finish. Admittedly, I've never worked in a firearms factory. In my illspent youth I did work in a machine shop to get thru college. We made air and hydraulic cylinders. Sometimes they didn't pass inspection. Minor things like a poor degreasing job left a mottled finish. Those that didn't pass inspection were just done over again.

With a high end consumer product, I can imagine S&W thru its history rejected a predictable number of guns due to finish problems. That far along in the manfacture, I can't see them tossing them in the "melt" bin. They probably just went back for rework.

My question here being if the factory inspector didn't like an RM (you pick the nickel #), what happened to it? Here's a gun that was custom ordered, with things like the barrel length and other features. Did they start the month long process all over again, or did they just rework/refinsh the gun. That might take a day or two. You know the answer.

And its not like Jets that were completed, then pulled and refinished to a different color.

As I understand the refinish process now, after 7 decades, is that the refinisher needs to study the gun and the methods that were originally used. The direction of polish, the grit used, and a bunch of other minor things like the chemicals used, the rollmarks and the acceptable depth or shallowness.

I find it hard to believe that the factory has better artists than the outside world. They just don't pay that well. The advantage they had was the number of guns they worked, and all the right/original tools.

My experience with refinishers is that all are profit motivated, and lazy to boot. Thats how we got nickle plated sights, extractors, hammers and triggers, etc. Those are easy to spot because they don't even mimick the originals. No one really complains about the hammer and triggers being sent to case color for rework. Looks as good or better than original, and no one minds.

 

[mikepriwer]

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

 

[j38]

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

 

[1Aspenhill]

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

 

[merlindrb]

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

 

[mikepriwer]

With that said, Dave, you got some nice original guns there!

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

Later, Mike Priwer

 

[S&WIowegan]

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.

 

[handejector]

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!

 

[wordsmith]

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

 

[DHENRY]

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

 

[Doc44]

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