Colt Forum banner
1 - 20 of 98 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm having a little trouble following the forum and posts, however I posted pictures of the #5 Texas patterson ser#700 I bought . In reply to Paterson ,I'm sure it's real as it had been in the family for 120 years, 3 generations, in Tennessee, where I bought it. It has never been offered for sale and never been shown, until now
 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,257 Posts
I'm having a little trouble following the forum and posts, however I posted pictures of the #5 Texas patterson ser#700 I bought . In reply to Paterson ,I'm sure it's real as it had been in the family for 120 years, 3 generations, in Tennessee, where I bought it. It has never been offered for sale and never been shown, until now
You can find a great presentation on this gun on CandRsenal.com, as below:

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,995 Posts
Hello and welcome to the Colt Forum from West Virginia. Glad you have joined us all here. Fine looking Patterson. Thanks for sharing it with us.
 
  • Like
Reactions: victorio1sw

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,613 Posts
Henry,

Please don't shoot the messenger, but the best way to determine if a revolver is fake or original is to compare to known originals, and the bast source of photographs of (mostly) known originals is to use R L Wilson's The Paterson Colt Book. Now even this book has a few fakes that were intentionally or unintentionally included in this book (Wilson was a convicted felon and some of his dealings and publications were shady as part of an elaborate ruse). I generally eschew coffee table books, but this book is useful in comparing mostly known original examples with ones such as yours, especially because of the curviness of this model and because the curves of known originals are essentially "boilerplate" and fakes deviate from the curvature in many ways due to the difficulty of identical replication.

First, as already pointed out, your barrel address does appear to be a pantograph or at least deviates from the more subtle original script.

The profile of the wedge differs from most displayed in the book, but this might be a later replacement, which would be acceptable.

The curvature of the three "steps" of the barrel deviates from known original examples in that the depth of the ogee of yours is less flowing at the first step in the forward part of the the barrel and the angle of yours is less than known examples. the second "step" of yours is less graceful or refined; the third "step" of yours leading to the interface between the frame and the barrel is steeper on yours than on originals.

Likewise, the ogee of the three curves of the frame differs from originals in that the depth of the first two on yours is greater than on known originals and also the frame surrounding the end of the screw encircles this screw in a more rounder fashion than yours does. The arc of the third curve on your frame is deeper and if were used to create a circle, the circumference of the circle corresponding to the arc of your revolver would be less than that of known originals.

The curvature of the intersection of the top of the stocks and the frame is more upright than originals, as originals contain a stock that, at its intersection with the frame, points more forward than upwards.

The profile of the handle of the ramrod deviates extensively from know originals. Especially quantifiable is the length of the "hook" extending downwards and its curvature in the vicinity of the screw. On yours, the "hook" extends further down, beyond the midpoint of the screw, whereas originals contain a "hook" that barely ends in a horizontal line coincident with the center of the screw/screw hole.

The second, or rearmost, decorative band of your cylinder is deeper than known originals.

The curvature of your revolver is less refined or graceful when compared to known originals.

These are some more noticeable deviations from normal. With the revolver in hand, I'm sure others would become evident.

Putting this all together, it is virtually impossible that your Paterson is an original No 5 Texas Model Paterson.

Again, I hate to be the bearer of bad news. Is a refund available if it is determined that this is not an original example, as I have essentially done?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,613 Posts
Also, compare the cylinder scene of yours with an original example.

Let's look at the man holding a pistol and the side by side horses. The pistol contains a wider barrel than yours and extends well beyond the front of the leg, whereas yours does not; the horse contains squarer front hooves whereas yours is triangular; the girth strap of the original is wider than yours. This is enough to prove the cylinder scenes are not identical.

 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
519 Posts
Henry,

Please don't shoot the messenger, but the best way to determine if a revolver is fake or original is to compare to known originals, and the bast source of photographs of (mostly) known originals is to use R L Wilson's The Paterson Colt Book. Now even this book has a few fakes that were intentionally or unintentionally included in this book (Wilson was a convicted felon and some of his dealings and publications were shady as part of an elaborate ruse). I generally eschew coffee table books, but this book is useful in comparing mostly known original examples with ones such as yours, especially because of the curviness of this model and because the curves of known originals are essentially "boilerplate" and fakes deviate from the curvature in many ways due to the difficulty of identical replication.

First, as already pointed out, your barrel address does appear to be a pantograph or at least deviates from the more subtle original script.

The profile of the wedge differs from most displayed in the book, but this might be a later replacement, which would be acceptable.

The curvature of the three "steps" of the barrel deviates from known original examples in that the depth of the ogee of yours is less flowing at the first step in the forward part of the the barrel and the angle of yours is less than known examples. the second "step" of yours is less graceful or refined; the third "step" of yours leading to the interface between the frame and the barrel is steeper on yours than on originals.

Likewise, the ogee of the three curves of the frame differs from originals in that the depth of the first two on yours is greater than on known originals and also the frame surrounding the end of the screw encircles this screw in a more rounder fashion than yours does. The arc of the third curve on your frame is deeper and if were used to create a circle, the circumference of the circle corresponding to the arc of your revolver would be less than that of known originals.

The curvature of the intersection of the top of the stocks and the frame is more upright than originals, as originals contain a stock that, at its intersection with the frame, points more forward than upwards.

The profile of the handle of the ramrod deviates extensively from know originals. Especially quantifiable is the length of the "hook" extending downwards and its curvature in the vicinity of the screw. On yours, the "hook" extends further down, beyond the midpoint of the screw, whereas originals contain a "hook" that barely ends in a horizontal line coincident with the center of the screw/screw hole.

The second, or rearmost, decorative band of your cylinder is deeper than known originals.

The curvature of your revolver is less refined or graceful when compared to known originals.

These are some more noticeable deviations from normal. With the revolver in hand, I'm sure others would become evident.

Putting this all together, it is virtually impossible that your Paterson is an original No 5 Texas Model Paterson.

Again, I hate to be the bearer of bad news. Is a refund available if it is determined that this is not an original example, as I have essentially done?
hello, mrcvs; that is a good critique. a couple of points; the patersons assembled by uncle ehler and called no. 4 (four) by dealers as a convenience back in the 1940s was not a colt designation. the 1847 (walker) model was the no. five. (this from many conversations between a. j. fjestad and myself in the early 2000s). the platinum bands on the cylinders of original patersons were to provide assistance in expansion of the cylinders if needed. these bands were installed on other high grade weapons before colt put them on his cylinders.
regards, bro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,316 Posts
The gun is a fake and now you have been informed it is a fake, if you try to sell it as original, you will be committing a crime. I suggest that you return it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
51 Posts
Return it? I'd say it depends on how much you paid for it. If you thought it was a real treasure and paid proportionally what the treasure was worth, or if you paid the price of a higher priced replica. If you paid the latter, then consider it and acknowledge it as a replica. It may very well be three generations old. As far as replica's go, it's a very nice looking one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
MRCVS I do respect and value Your opinions and observances and will do some further research, I'm just not seeing the nuances Your pointing out. I am standing here with the gun in hand and the Philips/Wilson book in the other along with the magnifying glass. CNR , not that it's anyones business but I bought it as an original and paid accordingly. GRI I gotta ask how many Pattersons have You observed to make such a statement and also ask if You are a lawyer to inform Me of what I must do. Constructive criticism is always welcome, uninformed opinions are not.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,253 Posts
Last week I went to the doctor…he exam me and said ..yep you are definitely sick. I told him I feel fine and I’m not sick.
He replied.” Why are you here then”.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,613 Posts
If anything, look at the cylinder scene on yours and compare it to the one in the link I posted. You can see they are clearly not identical.

I was hoping you have return privileges on this one and this is why time might be of the utmost importance.

I might show my posts to the seller and see what they say.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,316 Posts
People like you pop up on the Forum from time to time. They are always here for validation of their firearm. You never hear from them again, especially if they fail to get that validation. They usually pay little for their firearm compared to what would be the actual value. I doubt you paid $100k or more for this gun. The firearms eventually show up again on the internet, a fake is a joy forever. How many Patterson’s have you owned? None.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
519 Posts
I see many differences in the horses. They did not come from the same roll stamp.

View attachment 751635

View attachment 751636
hello, it is interesting to investigate thedifferences between a fake or reproduction and an original paterson, 1847, dragoon, navy and et c. where the rubber meets the road is in i - r non destructive spectroscopic analysis. if a forger can beat this test, his product is as good as an original for all practical purposes and could be considered as one.
regards, bro
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,652 Posts
I'm having a little trouble following the forum and posts, however I posted pictures of the #5 Texas patterson ser#700 I bought . In reply to Paterson ,I'm sure it's real as it had been in the family for 120 years, 3 generations, in Tennessee, where I bought it. It has never been offered for sale and never been shown, until now
Just for a test, I looked at the pictures without reading any reply first. I know nothing about Pattersons, but do know antique and patinas and engraving. When I first saw a couple pictures I thought, "fake."
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Agarbers; Thanks for the detail pics I do see the difference You are talking about. Now I'm probably in for a hard time to get My money refunded. Mrcvs thanks again for Your time and effort. GRI of course I'm on this forum to validate the authenticity, or not, of this gun, it is the "COLT" forum. Just wondering for future posts if You always make uninformed comments on subject matters or are You just being rude.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,316 Posts
Your personal attacks aside, you are welcome to prove me wrong. Stay on the Forum for a year and post at least 10 of your guns. It seems you called me out for being “uniformed” for early on calling your gun a fake. Now it seems you’re admitting it is.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,613 Posts
I see many differences in the horses. They did not come from the same roll stamp.

View attachment 751635

View attachment 751636
I pointed out a few discrepancies between Henry’s Paterson and the real Paterson when it comes to the roll engraving. All it takes is one unexplainable discrepancy to rule out authentic vs fake.

Now I like to get a Colt revolver at a bargain basement price, or even, in this case, where something might be offered to me without competing offers, sales tax, commissions, etc. But, the field of Colt Paterson and Colt Walker collecting REQUIRES vetting by a national expert any prospective purchase, if not done so already. The stakes are just too high! Yes, you are unlikely to get a bargain, but at least you have the “real deal” which hopefully appreciates over time. As compared to a fake for which one might be out six figures for a $200 revolver.

Fakes abound when it comes to Paterson and Walker revolvers and 99 times out of 100 what is perceived to be authentic is a fake, clever or otherwise.
 
1 - 20 of 98 Posts
Top