Thanks Scott. I don't pretend it's original. It just looks nice to me. I Googled the serial number and found some pictures of it pre-restoration. It wasn't drug behind a tank, but was pretty rough. Marked AA on the side, had some WW2 parts on it. I don't know who swapped out the parts to where it is now (appears all period), Turnbull's says they just applied the finish. There is definitely some restoration skill involved. Karl was talking about restorations and quoted me as talking about not buying a refinished WW2 gun. I should have been a bit more clear. I have avoided a lot of "refinished" guns over the years, buffed out and reblues, reparked in someone's tub, etc. Those are the ones I was referring to. To me this is a restoration instead of a refinish. Yes, I love the history of guns, and have a number of 1903s from back in the day, with different stampings on the stock as they moved through life in the military, etc. I love each of them for what story they could tell. The 1913 has a history, but to me at least I think of a USGI Soldier, pre-WW1 who probably held and fired it. And now it looks KINDA like it did when our young born in 1800's Soldier first held it. My regret with starting this post is asking about money. Since I traded a couple of AK type rifles for it, the money was really a non issue. I will know better in the future. I do appreciate everyone's comments.