1860 Colt Original?

[btech]

This Colt is being offered at a recognized on-line antique gun auction site as an original. It is in pristine shape, no scratches, dings or any sign of wear. All machined edges are shape and all screws look untouched. There is no scene on the cylinder. Barrel address is correct. The serial numbers do not match but the number on the receiver is 131304 which puts the manufacture date in 1864. The grips are listed as replacements.
I just cannot see any possible way this gun is original. The seller didn't even bother to age it. I would appreciate some other opinions. Am I missing something?

 

[Alden]

Doesn't look like the right color to me but its a dull photo on my side.

The bit about unmatching serial numbers but consistant quality at least suggests it being refinished...

 

[hawkeye2]

The rear sight and lack of a cylinder scene certainly send up a flag if not a skyrocket. The engraving could have been buffed off the cylinder while it was being refinished but usually that much polishing rounds off all the sharp edges. Non matching numbers; how does one find parts to assemble a 1860 Colt that all have the same amount of wear and are that nice? I looked at 2 auction sites and couldn't find it, does he have more photos or offer more info? Rifling and screw thread sizes would tell the tale.

 

[M. De Land]

The front sight is wrong, barrel looks a bit short, trigger shape is wrong and the rear hammer screws do not look extended for the butt stock.
I suppose all of these changes could have been made a hundred and fifty years ago but then it still would not be original factory gun. Mike D.

 

[flintlock75]

I compared the photos to my Original colt 1860(made 1863) and there is quite a bit of difference. The sights do not match what mine has, the front site on mine has a lower profile and is brass. It has no rear sight on the barrel. Also mine is a 4 screw model designed for the butt stock assembly, the screw pattern on the shown gun is not even close to an original. The grip profile looks off as well, it look more like the replica I have which very different in angle and feel to the original. My gun has matching numbers and is in very good condition, but the one shown looks new and unused, I would highly doubt it is an original.

 

[btech]

I appreciate the info. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see this is one of those "too good to be true". I'm disappointed that the web site would even list this.

 

[flintlock75]

I viewed your link, The butt is cut for a stock but the frame does not have the 4th screw to even attach the shoulder stock.

 

[Zonie]

The left side of the frame should be clearly marked, "COLTS/PATENT".

I can't read what is marked there but it clearly isn't the COLTS/PATENT that should be there.
Whatever is marked is also at a slight angle with respect to the cylinder cutout. Colt would never have done this.

The missing roll engraving on the cylinder IMO basically makes the gun a cheaply refinished item that isn't worth much.
The only 1860's that did not have the roll engraving were the fluted cylinder models.

 

[Wes/Tex]

Like Zonie, that frame stamp is odd, wish they'd made an attempt to let us see it...though maybe that's the point. It's well buffed and polished, the sights are both changed, though I've seem similar things done on any number of original Colt percussion revolvers. Something just not kosher about the general look of the muzzle area as well. Can't figure why the grips have a screw and the whole grip seems out of shape. Either it's one goofy combination of original and what-ever parts or I'm the queen of France! :rotf:

 

[btech]

Here's a pic of the barrel address. I emailed the auction company. I'll see what kind of reception I get. I really believe this another example of auction houses listing items they've never seen, taking "the word of the seller". You would think that anyone who had any experience with antique firearms would instantly see this for what it is.

 

[btech]

Here's a pic of the left side of a the frame.

 

[btech]

Well here's the answer I got from the auction house:
"I personally handle more antique guns than any one I know over the course of a year, I have probably personally handled 1000 original Colt Armies and several hundred repros over the last 5 years. I handle 30,000 or more guns per year.
This gun is as I describe. Stamping is wrong for repros. My description is right on. The rear site was obviously period added, I have seen this on at least 100 Armies and Navies over the years, often done during term of service. I have seen better jobs of putting guns together than this one".

This is the type of answer you typically receive when you point out problems with their listings.

 

[btech]

It's always "I've been doing this for 30 years". There's never a specific response to your concerns.

 

[pargent]

It's not even an original Italian gun :rotf:

 

[hawkeye2]

The checkering on the hammer doesn't look right. The gun doesn't seem to have much use but the cylinder is battered by the bolt which is also dragging. The last digit of the serial number on the frame isn't lined up with the others and looks to be a different font as well as not being stamped as deep. The serial number in the trigger guard looks phony too. Look at the scratches inside the trigger guard that haven't been polished out,that is typical of Italian guns/parts but shouldn't be seen on an original Colt.

His reply seems to be somewhat arrogant and doesn't really attempt to answer the question. I hadn't visited this site in a very long time and now I remember why.

 

[AZbpBurner]

The used, buggered and worn finish on the screwheads also gives credence that this Frankencolt is cobbled together from (maybe) original parts and completed using replica parts.

The auction putz didn't actually vouch for its' authenticity. He was so full of telling how experienced he is in handling original Colts.

Sure, I'd buy it, but only for the price of one of the sale-priced Piettas or Ubertis available from on-line retailers.

 

[btech]

I'm not singling out this auction house. This is the same arrogant response I get from all of them. They won't address your concerns just give you a lecture on their experience. There are NEVER any appraisals or authenticity provided. They know that you can't get that gun formally authenticated in their 5 day inspection period.
If I try to resell that gun, his "years of experience" won't be worth spit. Someone will buy this gun thinking they're getting an original. The auction house can't claim ignorance anymore. I think this now borders on fraud.
A local auction house close to me offered several "Civil War revolvers" in their auction last weekend. The on-line pics clearly showed "made in Italy" on each barrel. I pointed it out and was told they are not responsible for accuracy. If I knowingly sold fake diamonds claiming them to be real, I'd be in jail.

 

[jaxenro]

If the barrel stamping is fake Colt might have something to say about it. Maybe you can't prove fraud but trademark infringement it easier

Could be a valid Colt barrel though that makes it legal

 

[Wes/Tex]

Thanks for the additional photos. It seems very odd that the somewhat rough rear sight sits in well-cut and highly polished barrel dovetail and that the rough wedge is in a highly browned and buffed frame, barrel and cylinder. I love the "I've been doing this for 30 years" response...means absolutely nothing I'm afraid I'd have to ask "Doing what for 30 years...handling antiques or passing off fakes?" Very low tolerance for idiots!

 

[TFoley]

The grips are listed as replacements.

...and so is everything else. I this thing is more than thirty years old, I'll eat my Second issue Colt Walker with the sauce of your choice.

You can SEE the sanding marks on the screw heads, which should, according to all the images in books that I've got in my little library, be as blued and well-finished as the rest of the gun.

As for the finish, well, the originals were blued using fuming cyanide salts, which does NOT give a red tinge to the blueing like the colour that I see here.

As for the backsight, well, Stevie Wonder could have made a better job of fitting it.

However, I'm not an expert, but the UK's foremost Colt dealer, Pete Holder, has seen more Colts in the last year than this klutz claims to have seen in his thirty years - so I'll pass the images over to him.

tac