PonyLover: I have a 'like new' 7-1/2" barrel of that time period that I could have put on the gun, but I wanted to leave it with most of its original parts. All bbls. of that period were 7-1/2" (I believe), so this one was obviously cut and 'had a front sight installed.' I would have left it the way I found it , but the former owners had filed and buffed the receiver where the bbl and ejector rod attach so much that it was quite distorted. They also did much mis-shaping to the topstrap. After talking with my engraver friend he agreed to do the tedious reshaping and engraving if I would remove the chrome plating.
Since I have other engraved SAA's that are perfect, I wanted this one to look like an aged engraved SAA. He did a great job of doing that, I believe.
I did consider having the bbl address re-stamped like you suggested, but I did not. In retrospect, that would have been a good thing to have done. The patent date area on the frame is pretty much like one sees on these early guns. In my reading, I believe the experts feel that the original 'two-line roll die' became a one-line roll-die' very early on due to damage to the top line. I have a couple Cavalry SAA's of that same period that have the same 'one-line appearance'. Only a bit of bottom of the top line can be seen on those SAA's.
To roll die mark the bbl. I think it has to be removed from the frame. I believe that is how Dave Lanara explained it to me.
I also realized that since the receiver was thin where the bbl. is screwed into it, I might risk cracking the frame in attempting to remove the bbl. Frames of that period were not made of steel, they were worked (wrought) iron and were quite a bit weaker than steel that was used later on.
