Colt Forum banner

Would you pay a premium for a First Generation SAA Revolver in .38 Colt?

2K views 16 replies 9 participants last post by  saintclair 
#1 ·
Yes, certainly uncommon. Less than 1% of production in ".38 Colt", not differentiated between .38 Long Colt and .38 S & W.

But, talk about a most unexciting atypical clambering. In fact, its ineffectiveness during the Spanish American War in the Colt DA 1889/1892/1895 model led to the refurbishment of Cavalry Model revolvers into Artillery Model revolvers, in the far superior .45 Colt.

Common sense dictates the rarity should be worth a premium, but how much?

I have a percentage in mind, but I won't divulge it so as to alter the unbiased response.
 
#8 ·
Being rare and being desired are two different things. In my area I don't see people lining up to buy single actions in 38 colt unless they are in really choice condition then they are buying them for the condition and not the caliber.

You can't ever beat a 45 or 44-40 from what I'm seeing.
 
#13 ·
In answer to this question, well, you be the judge.

Here's the link to the auction listing: https://www.proxibid.com/Firearms-M...73-Single-Action-Army/lotInformation/48053233

Hammer price was $4,000. Sold to an internet bidder, so their premium was 15%, so they paid at least $4,600 for this one, and possibly sales tax on top of it and/or shipping.

I think it sold for a good 20-25% over what this one would have brought had it been a more common caliber, such as .44-40 or .45 Colt. I was willing to go to $3,000 and, as I was on-site, my premium would have been 10%, so my cost would have been $3,300 plus 6% sales tax, or $3598.

There was no factory letter, so the wild card was the grips. They fit poorly, so I doubt they are original. I am not familiar with what ivory or faux ivory grips would have looked like from this era, but they did not look like ivory to me and the auction house could not provide an answer. No real evidence of grain seems very suspicious. Had they been real ivory, perhaps the price would have been about right, IMHO. But, I'm not crazy about the caliber, rare or not.

Also, not sure why the firing pin on a revolver with limited use is conical instead of scalloped, as the revolver dates to 1927, and the firing pin is 1905 or before. Seems odd for a revolver that has seen little usage. However, despite this, overall, the condition looked good. A refinish seems unlikely.
 
#15 ·
No deal.

Wrong hammer knurling type....earlier hammer from the 1905 to 1910 era. Grips were not factory nor vintage and can't tell from the pictures if they are actually ivory or resin but it doesn't matter either way for the price paid. Those medallions look like someone got them out of a gumball machine.

Internet bidder who either lives in an area where he can't do any better or he doesn't know any better.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrcvs and LEO918
#16 ·
Yes, you are correct about the hammer. I didn't look at it that closely after noting the firing pin was wrong. Given the overall condition of the gun, I never considered the hammer being a replacement. I wonder why...

With the questions I had and no factory letter, It's even possible this one did not start out as a .38 Colt, however unlikely.

I wasn't really ever seriously interested in this one. I was really at the auction for a Smith & Wesson Registered Magnum.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top