Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 37
  1. #11

    Default

    Also check the quality of the inletting for the sling ring bar - should be crisp and even.

    John's point about a splice under the barrel band is a good one, and could answer my concern about the shaping of the front of the wood. If it's an added piece, the band spring inletting would have been hand done and might show some crudeness.

    I like John's last sentence as well. If the work was done a long time ago - even if not right - it would show a uniformity of finish/wear. Fifty years ago, many collectors were a LOT more tolerant of little oddities on their pieces - the good, extensively researched, books did not come out until the early 80's. If the auction was due to the collector having passed, some of his stuff was probably acquired during the 100 year period of (relative) ignorance.

    Then, on the other hand, HOW, exactly, did SA determine the form the carbine was going to take? No actual "1866 Carbines" are known, and way less than ten 1868s are recorded. Nothing was produced in "quantity" until the 341 Model 1870s, of which I own a specimen. This gun was not made from "junk" because the (rare) early bar and correct early sling ring appear to be right, albeit for an 1870. The fabricator had access to at least SOME "good stuff". And, did the 1870 Carbine stock simply copy something that had been mocked-up earlier?

    Looking at the pics again, that is a strange thumb latch. I do not know if an 1868 (or later) latch could even be fitted into an 1866 block. There are some 'odd' profiles to the wood around the rear of the action (almost wrote "receiver") as well, including the lack of a proper cut for the latch arm. Of course, if it was "the first attempt" they might have gotten it wrong. There is an odd mix of features; that's for sure, since any modern faker would have known things that the maker of this appear not to have. It's a puzzle.

    Still, the odds are overwhelmingly in favor of a made-up piece, but the TINY possibility that you have found an SA sample needs to be eliminated before a definite statement can be made. If it were me I'd surely take it to the show at Timonium.
    Last edited by Dick Hosmer; 02-25-2019 at 09:48. Reason: speling

  2. Default

    I don’t see the hole in the stock for a pin to hold a ramrod spoon, between the breech and barrel band. A hint that could mean it’s not a cut down rifle musket stock.

  3. Default

    Provenance, provenance. What was the name of the collector?

  4. Default

    I believe his name was Frank Garrett




  5. Default

    Ha! I saw that carbine at Baltimore ten years ago. I pretty sure that his name was Garrett. He always set up way back in the far corner and had some neat stuff on his table. If all that is correct I tried to buy that carbine from him (at a lower price), but had a buddy of mine talk me out of going higher!
    Please take that thing apart and see how it was built. Rumor was that Garrett built a few things including a great looking Plymouth rifle prototype that I bought, but later sold.

  6. Default

    What would I be looking for?

  7. #20

    Default

    From your latest pics the profile of the wood at the tip is definitely WRONG and NOT SA work. I'm betting there will be some sort of spliced on piece with joint under the band - the barrel walls look a bit thick. That is almost surely a cutdown rifle, in addition to having a blend of parts which SA would not have combined. But, don't worry, the OM will more than cover things. FWIW, I STILL do NOT understand how that deal came about. NO auctioneer in his right mind would do that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •