Printable View
When compared to a known original from 1927, this 1931 example may or may not be a very good refinish. Thoughts?
Engraving not as crisp as known example, tone of bluing and wood different from known original, serial number less crisp…
Or maybe there are differences over this four year time span?
And photographs of a known original, in comparison.
More photographs of known original.
Well more available but it won’t let me add them to size exceeded.
I don't think the metal has been refinished, the engraving pattern changed over time as well as the bluing (especially between some 1927/1928 99's vs later ones). Somebody might have added some varnish to the stock, hard to be sure there.
Yes, early 1927 and earlier rifles were engraved by Enoch Tues. My example is late 1927, William Gough. As should be the questionable 1931 example. I would expect more consistency in the engraving. At the very least, varnish has been added to the wood, I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by CalhounRR
Yep, something like the first 4 to 6 months of 99K's might have been engraved by Enoch Tue - definitely some were before he unexpectedly passed away. But from 1928 to 1930's we see significant variations n the 99K engraving. We're not sure if Gough just wasn't as consistent as Enoch Tue (tho even there we see some variations), or if he maybe had other engravers working under him.
Here's a couple examples. SN 389,xxx on top, SN 309,xxx on bottom. Both Gough, but what a change.
https://i.imgur.com/U8Zgtf1h.png
The lower photograph, this being the earlier example, is more consistent with mine, being an earlier Wm Gough engraved rifle. The second example, this being the top photograph, is more consistent with the rifle being questioned.Quote:
Originally Posted by CalhounRR
Thank you for the clarification. The quality of later examples relative to earlier ones, suggests to me apprentices may have been involved. I’m pleased that my rifle is the earlier one with the better quality of engraving.