[mrcvs]

Can you post more detailed photographs? Especially of the "U.S." marking. And LOOK at that other thread, referenced above.

1) The flutes look correct, unlike the other one.
2) Difficult to tell if the "U.S." is correct, or not. Perhaps someone can post pictures of a correctly marked one for comparison. Difficult to tell given photograph quality. It certainly looks more like the proper marking than the one in the other post, but hard to tell for sure.
3) Grips could be refinished or replaced. They don't look like they have original finish; again, need better photographs.

Don't worry about shipping to Mr Kopec; folks do it all the time. If you are serious about learning about or reselling this revolver, you MUST send it to him!

 

[mrcvs]

Can someone with far superior computer skills than I post this firearm (left side), alongside a martially-marked one known to be correct, as with the other thread? I want to say the don't and spacing of the "U.S." is correct, but cannot say for sure...

 

[mrcvs]

Am I right by not posting a picture of the complete serial number?

No, please do post photographs of the serial number. It will enable us to tell you more, and learn more.

If your friend wishes to sell, to get the most interest, and best value, a Kopec letter is essential!

 

[mrcvs]

For the definitive answer, please send to Mr Kopec.

Having said that, look at post # 11 in the following: http://www.coltforum.com/forums/single-action-army/116457-4-digit-u-s-colt.html

The U.S. on that revolver looks significantly different than yours. Again, look at post # 11, NOT the subject matter of the thread, as it was strongly suggested that revolver is not correct.

Also, note the serial number on the backstrap. It shows signs of more wear than the rest of the revolver. It could have been buffed or there may be another explanation for this, but it seems surprising it would show this degree of wear. For the number 3245, the 4 is visible, and the top part of the 2. This means that the 5 would have to be to the right of the 4, and the midpoint of this serial number approximates the location of the 2, if that is indeed a 2. It could be a 3, 8, or 9 as well. Not to say that this 4 digit number might not actually be off centre, but it seems fairly significant, and it is possible, although my comment is by no means definitive, that the backstrap could have belonged once to a revolver that contained a 5-digit serial number, the 3rd digit being a 2, 3, 8, or 9, and the 4th digit being a 4.

Again, I cannot stress strongly enough, if you want to know for sure, sending to Mr Kopec: John A. Kopec