S&W n.3

[Pilot27]

Hello, This is my first post on this forum apart from my greetings in the general section. I come with some questions for the experts on the matter. A friend of mine has what appears to be a number 3 American, 1st model. I attach some photos.

The gun has been refinished, wich usually is not a good thing, but at least the corners are sharp and no big harm has apparently been done to this relic. Well, this is just my opinion so feel free to point out anything on the contrary.

My main doubts are the markings. The gun is almost void of them, except a S/N (1110) and obviously the correct lettering on top of the cannon.

So, fake? Real deal? Frankenstein? Pour some knowledge please!

Thanks a lot

 

[mmaher94087]

Appears legitimate to me. Very nice.

 

[glowe]

Welcome to the Forum. That is one fine looking Model 3, 1st Model revolver!! There were only 8,000 made and lots less exist today in any condition, but few in the condition you are showing. I do not doubt your claim that the gun has been refinished, but would like to ask how you know that?? To me, the lack of usage dings and wear is an indication that the gun was always kept in fine condition. Whether it is refinished or not that is a striking revolver. from probably the first year of production, 1870! The screws look almost un-turned and would like to know the condition of the chambers and bore?

 

[BMur]

Grips modern?

Beautiful gun. I have to comment on the grips though. Last photo? They have been heavily restained And revarnished or are replacements or both. Can you please show markings on the gun both barrel and numbers? There are high quality reproduction grips out there now! Close examination suggests the inside flat of the grips have no finish or white. Can we see the grips off the gun??
Also the latch doesn't look right where it meets the frame posts. More photos please of the gun open.
In fact there are high quality reproduction Americans out there also. Need to see markings please.
Can we see the die stamps for the frame serial number?
Thanks

Murph

 

[sspierce8]

I may be way off here, and pros can let me know, but wouldn't serial number 1110 be one of the first 1,000 made under the US military contract, and have US stamped on the top of the barrel? Mine is 1686 and has the US on it. And I think with that serial number it would have the oil hole? The grips don't look like any I've seen on a model 3. Here's a pic of mine. The serial number would be stamped on the inside of the grips if they go with that gun.

 

[glowe]

The 1000 US revolvers were shipped in the 125 to 2199 serial number range, so about half of those were military and half were commercial. Due to the extreme angle of the butt-frame, I am guessing it is not a US military example. Some have said this "bent butt-frame" was the result of the gun being dropped, but I don't think that there is proof, because they actually show up quite often. Don't have another reason though.

The best way to determine if the gun is commercial or not is to look for a few stamps. The most obvious for the military issued guns should be a "US" stamped on the top of the barrel just ahead of the cylinder. The left stock should have an "OWA" in script. Also a small letter "A" was stamped above the middle of the cylinder on the left side of the frame. Other stamps were also used.

 

[sspierce8]

Yes, like this.

 

[iby]

american.

It sure looks like a US gun.
I agree that it has been refinished. The heads of frame screws at the sideplate are flat and the latch posts have some kind of color.

 

[Pilot27]

Thanks for your imput. I assumed the gun has been restored because it hardly has a scratch on it, and with that low S/N and after 150 years it is the most conservative guess I can take. But at least it must have been reblued.

Chambers looked good to me but did not take measurements. Bore was very good with no apparent signs of corrosion.

Grips do look quite awkward, and if you can point the correct direction towards quality replacement I will tell the owner (He aint using neither english nor internet). I did unscrew them looking for markings in the handle but found none. Looked like mapple wood or so. Also no S/N stamped on the wood of the grips. Did not take a photo, sorry. I will try to post more pics now so you can see the latch.

Oil hole is present. No "US" to be seen anywhere. Apart from the S/N and patent scroll no markings. This really puzzles me.

I will try and load the rest of the pics. on a following post.

 

[Pilot27]

Some more pics.

 

[Pilot27]

More pics.

 

[Pilot27]

Last of them!

 

[BMur]

Honest Evaluation.

Outstanding photo's. That helps a ton!

I'm just thinking out loud here so take it for what its worth OK?

I agree that it's been refinished but a very nice job. The gun presents itself extremely well.

However, it has seen extensive restoration. The grips as I suspected are not original. They are replacement grips. they look very nice though and they are well done.

Also, ( and this is a problem) the frame number 1110 has most definitely been re-stamped in my experienced opinion. I am not aware of Smith and Wesson using different size dies for serial numbers. The 1's and the 0 are not the same die size. The 1's look like they were recently stamped on the frame. So I don't know what happened there. Which opens a can of worms regarding what the "Restorer is trying to accomplish"?

Also the back of the cylinder has some type of assembly number? that is hard to read. Is that same number under the grips on the grip frame? Also on the barrel? Is there a number on the latch?

It's only my gut here but it looks to me like it was assembled and quality restored using non matching parts. A much closer examination would be required "IN HAND"..

Or you can please provide more close up photo's of numbers found on the frame under the grips and with the cylinder removed a photo of the latch underside and back of the barrel.

It's just been my experience that many years ago there were a lot of parts and parts guns out there. Years later you would find many assembled with non matching parts. Initially they were sold as such. Now unfortunately you find them restored in an attempt to pass them off as all original and all matching. When in fact they might be all original parts but not from the same gun?

It's a different ERA of collecting and I'm always trying to have an open mind when it comes to Market Value. Re-numbered guns sometimes don't bother some collectors depending on the quality of the restoration and if they are presented as "refreshed numbers"? but many collectors will immediately walk away from this type of restoration suspecting basically an assembly from non matching parts. So you have to decide where you stand on this position.

Murph.

 

[sspierce8]

Mine is all original and verified. It belonged to my GGG grandpa. If there are any markings, or photos you would like me to provide for comparison let me know. I'll do my best.

 

[sspierce8]

Here is something else I notice different. There is no screw on the bottom of the grip on mine.

 

[BMur]

Later Frame

Just finished some research on the frame screw that SSPierce8 brought up. It looks like it shows up on the frame in the later serial numbers. Which also supports that the frame has been re-numbered. I also can comment further about the stamps if there is interest but I think the restorer was obviously trying to attempt to make an older 1st model frame look like an earlier frame for some reason? Just my opinion but it fits.

Other Americans that I looked at all had assembly numbers often 3 on the back of the cylinder. These numbers should match other numbers found under the grips and I'm really not sure on these but somewhere on the barrel and possibly on the latch? but it should be in multiple locations. Perhaps SSPierce8 can provide what assembly numbers he see's on his excellent early model? It's an excellent comparative since it is very close in serial number range.


Murph

 

[sspierce8]

It actually says TO on the latch, and the cylinder.

 

[BMur]

How about the frame under the grips?
Also see photo. I noticed a number visible on the back of the barrel? Those numbers need to match others found on the gun or the gun is not all original parts.

Murph

 

[sspierce8]

If you're asking me, yes, it says TO on the frame under the grips as well. The Smith and Wesson historical society has reviewed all the markings, and confirmed and documented mine as an original survivor, and forwarded to Charles Pate to update his survivor data. I had to take mine to a gunsmith to take the grips off. They'd been on since 1870. The gunsmith nearly fainted when he saw it

 

[Pilot27]

Ok, so far I think we all agree that the gun has been refinished, and also restored to some extent. The job was neatly done. The feel of the gun in hand is amazing, everything works like clockwork and fits snugly.

About the grips all I can tell is they seemed old but surely not original to the gun.

Frame number also seems restamped, so S/N 1110 means who knows what for sure. Maybe it was done during the restoration, maybe earlier if put together from different pieces someone. Could be random or as you say a rather naive attempt to pass it as an early type. Will never be sure, but I think we can bet it is a Frankenstein revolver.

As I first said upon posting the most disturbing fact is the apparent lack of matching markings of the parts of the gun. Part of the problem might be that I didn't know exactly where to look. It will take me maybe months to take another look at the gun and provide new pics, so please be patient.

The gun owned by sspierce8 is at least by my standards the "holly grail" for a collector. The one I have shown you has issues, but all said still is a S&W #3, 1st model in restored but pristine and non original condition. It is a pleasure to hold in the hand and from my point of view feels not like a tool as some of its contemporaries do but like something built for a gentleman.

This of course is just my opinion, as I'm more used to european dueling pistols than american six shooters, but the feel, balance and good handcraft of this S/W reminds me of them. And that is something I never felt with a Colt. Wich are excellent weapons as well. But just a bit more on the tool side than S/W.

Please excuse me if I do offend by this personal appreciation, I do not mean to.

As said I will post more detailed pics but might take long. Thanks for the input!