Colt Forum banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
This gun is a great exa IMG_0719.jpg IMG_0720.jpg IMG_0721.jpg IMG_0736.jpg IMG_0740.jpg
IMG_0719.jpg
IMG_0720.jpg
IMG_0721.jpg
IMG_0736.jpg
IMG_0740.jpg
mple of a restamped fraud. The gun has been heavily buffed and then a very poor job of restamping was applied. The stamped sderial number - 10904 - would date the gun to 1874. However the components are mostly in the 1890's. On the right side of the frame - just above the trigger guard - a banner is engraved. The heavy buffing has removed most of it, but I have included a sketch based. Perhaps somebody will recognize the banner. I expect it was applied by a dealer. Although I collect a number of authentic originals, I enjoy tracking down some of the poor restorations and frauds I have found.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter #2
Sorry about the photo overlapping the first sentence - still learning how to use this site. I Should read - "This is a good example of a restamped fraud.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,189 Posts
Well, its a parts gun. It has an early frame and I'm not so sure about the numbers. Font looks correct but it has the double struck 9 which makes one suspect but doesn't automatically make it bogus. Barrel, ejector, grips, cylinder and possibly loading gate replaced. Check number on gate with number on frame under TG. Should be the same.
JMO but I don't think any of these modifications were done to deceive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
285 Posts
I think it's a Spanish SAA clone, "Ovid" is a Spanish word, and the dimensions just don't look the same as a first generation Colt. The screw holes especially.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19,169 Posts
The frame "Looks Colt" to me. The SN's on the frame and TG look okay except that someone 'worked' on the 9 in the frame SN. It has seen lots of buffing, for sure!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,189 Posts
JMO, but it looks “a little off” because the TG is bent. Don’t think it’s a clone.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
19 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Thanks for all of the input - individual parts appear authentic- frame has been worn down and trigger guard is bent. Most parts tie to 1982 through 1986. My first guess was that it was a rework of a pistol stolen from the military. Not much invested.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
375 Posts
Thanks for all of the input - individual parts appear authentic- frame has been worn down and trigger guard is bent. Most parts tie to 1982 through 1986. My first guess was that it was a rework of a pistol stolen from the military. Not much invested.
Is that a typo? 1982-1986? Did you mean 1882-1886?
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top