Refinished or original?
- Thread starter PeteC
- Start date
It appears to me to be original. The hammer may have some shim problems.
What is it, exactly? If it is chambered for the .38 Special (likely), it is either a K-38 Masterpiece or a .38 Combat Masterpiece. Might be a pretty nice gun.
What is it, exactly? If it is chambered for the .38 Special (likely), it is either a K-38 Masterpiece or a .38 Combat Masterpiece. Might be a pretty nice gun.
What I can see of it looks original, though I'm no expert.
Rollmarks are sharp - not faded or washed out.
Blue looks right. Nice case-colors on the trigger look good. Hammer colors aren't as obvious, but they aren't always.
Rollmarks are sharp - not faded or washed out.
Blue looks right. Nice case-colors on the trigger look good. Hammer colors aren't as obvious, but they aren't always.
StrawHat
Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Messages
- 8,054
- Reaction score
- 20,362
- City & State/Province
- Ashtabula County, Ohio
The finish looks original to me.
Kevin
Kevin
stansdds
Member
Roll marks appear deep and with slightly raised edges, barrel pin end is round, the hue of the finish looks correct. I'd say original finish. See what's hiding under the rubber stocks. Rubber stocks trap moisture.
another vote for orig. sideplate seam is nice
fleabus101
SWCA Member, Absent Comrade
Im leaning toward a nice refinish. The seams are not as sharp but One telling sign to always look for are the cylinder flute lines and fr cylinder edges.
The cylinder flute edges are not sharp all
around top bottom and rear appear rounded..buffed and soft/polished. As said
look at another cylinder w original sharp lines/edges and then look at this pic again..
My 2 cents FWIW..
Randy..
The cylinder flute edges are not sharp all
around top bottom and rear appear rounded..buffed and soft/polished. As said
look at another cylinder w original sharp lines/edges and then look at this pic again..
My 2 cents FWIW..
Randy..
Last edited:
I’m with the original finish crowd.
I vote nice refinish. Hammer rub marks say gun's been cycled a lot, but turn ring almost not there and looks colored over, roll marks and flute edges a little soft.
Long story short, I don't know much about the gun, and have not seen it. I believe it is a Model 15-something.
The person who was thinking about buying it asked me about the scuffs on the hammer, and what looks like a flat-ish finish, and not shiny like other revolvers he has seen for sale.
I posted it in case something jumped out at the experts. Thanks for all the comments!
That's an older S&W, as evidenced by the pinned barrel. I just went and looked at a few of my older Smith's which I know have not been refinished, and are in as good of condition.
There's just something about the finish in the rollmarks, especially the Made In USA mark, that makes me think it's been refinished. I'm no expert, however. I think the hammer and trigger are original. Nice pistol, regardless . . .
There's just something about the finish in the rollmarks, especially the Made In USA mark, that makes me think it's been refinished. I'm no expert, however. I think the hammer and trigger are original. Nice pistol, regardless . . .
StrawHat
Member
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2007
- Messages
- 8,054
- Reaction score
- 20,362
- City & State/Province
- Ashtabula County, Ohio
I have newer revolvers that I know have not been refinished that don’t have stamping as deep as on that one!
Kevin
Kevin
MrG5122
Member
A dead giveaway is the frame/yoke seam at the pivot on the front of the frame. That seam on most Smiths of that vintage is almost invisible if original finish. Another is the bevel at the tip of the ejector rod. If original it should be in the white(unblued).
BigBill
Absent Comrade
It’s begging for some fritz.
stansdds
Member
Fritz? Who's Fritz?
IrishFritz
Member
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2020
- Messages
- 130
- Reaction score
- 258
It looks to me to be a professional refinish. I agree with fleabus101 and I also question the striations that run from the area of the rear sight down around the recoil shield. The side plate gap is also too large. There is a lack of fine striations on the cylinder that should be there. My guess is that somebody took a lot of time and trouble to do a first rate mix of machine and hand polish; in any case, its still a fine gun.
Big Bill is referring to Flitz metal polish. IrishFritz may want to chime in also.
All the above comments make good points, but more photos are needed. Kind of reminds me of the story about the three blind men who touched different parts of an elephant and guessed everything except elephant...due to insufficient data.
The Goodyear Grip is safely out of picture range. Shows signs of having been handled and fired, but not carried or holstered. No help from Fritz who is out of the house and no Bikini Wax (yet), just a lot of cleaning.
Attachments
There is nothing wrong with the side plate gap. I say original finish.
dsf
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2006
- Messages
- 1,529
- Reaction score
- 2,191
- City & State/Province
- Escaping CA to OR - soon!
Re the rub marks on the hammer, I think a single shim would take care of that straight away.
Mention was made the cylinder bolt should be in the white, so to speak. Unless mistaken I believe they were also made in blue although my memory is weak on this point. There's not a universal "must be in the white" criteria. Although every one I recall, including the newly made 442 in my office desk drawer, is white.
FWIW, the cylinder yoke sideplate screwhole looks a bit dished. The lack of horizontal rub marks on the ejector rod make me lean toward refinish.
But, I wouldn't bet my life one way or the other on original or refinish.
Last edited:
The cylinder yoke retaining screw is loose in the side plate. I have not tried to address that, and have not taken it out to see if it is intact. There is also some dirt left around that screw. I might not have cleaned in that area well enough. It does not look dished out to me, but there may be something else wrong there.
The screws are not badly buggered, but the slot edges feel sharp, so someone has been in there. Not really shocking after 45 years.
There are scratches on both sides of the hammer, wider and more visible on the right side. I know what a shim is, but I have never done that on revolver.
The bevel at the tip of the ejector rod - that is a new one (I learned something in this thread!). I have a Model 18-4 that shipped the same year (18Kxxxx and 24Kxxxx prefix, respectively, 1977). The tip of the ejector rod on both guns looks identical, blued bevel and all, only the Model 18 finish shows more wear including the shaft of the ejector.
The screws are not badly buggered, but the slot edges feel sharp, so someone has been in there. Not really shocking after 45 years.
There are scratches on both sides of the hammer, wider and more visible on the right side. I know what a shim is, but I have never done that on revolver.
The bevel at the tip of the ejector rod - that is a new one (I learned something in this thread!). I have a Model 18-4 that shipped the same year (18Kxxxx and 24Kxxxx prefix, respectively, 1977). The tip of the ejector rod on both guns looks identical, blued bevel and all, only the Model 18 finish shows more wear including the shaft of the ejector.
