Model 1868 sn 69

[Texcl2]

, as soon as I saw the number I wondered where this was going lol.

[Trappyjalappy]

Say what you want about this gun, but its being presented in a true auction format. Meaning.....its only worth what folks are willing to pay for it. It comes down to a seasoned collector vs some noob with deep pockets. Most auctions I see on GB now have starting prices that are already 25% over value, with BIN of about 35% over. I actually prefer a BIN auction and will pay a little more than market value to forgo the auction BS, but with tax, fees and shipping that 35% turns into about 40%.

My point....bid what you are comfortable with, let the noobs empty their parents inheritance......(Eventually they will loose interest and sell it at a loss )

[Dick Hosmer]

I second the opinons about auctions!

Just took another (long) look at the rifle. Upon reflection, it might not be a bad pick-up for a young guy with hope for the future, if it doesn't go much higher. There are good points and bad points. It IS one of the rare early ones, and not just a low number receiver (possibly off a cadet) where you would always have to wonder. Nice metal, over cleaned, but that will tone down with time. The sight could be fixed (and, from my roster, about half of them were updated anyhow) so that's not a huge deal. The stock - though it will take time - can be replaced, as Fred suggested. The block (seller has not responded) is the biggest issue - I'd recommend a buyer temporarily put in a matching-patina "1869" one, in hopes of some day making it right. It's not what a purist would want, but - with the legit parts it has - it's not a total loss, either. FWIW, not all of the rifles on the roster have proper blocks.

[carlsr]

You beat me at posting that Dick.
Looks like 4 rifles have unreadable breech block dates and one with an 1869 date.
I wouldn't mind adding #69 to my collection but don't really need a project gun at the moment and besides, #127 is mine
I'll need to print that list as I see you've added #69.

[MattN]

So I guess my question (and it seems like Dick just answered it) was IS IT a real deal 1868 and #69? I understand the value lost to an attempt at cleaning/restoring and other minor things, and the major issue of what appears to be an altered or incorrect breech block not dated 1868. However, I feel like if it is in fact an 1868 we are still talking about a firearm with a population estimated at only around 150, of which only 25 are known to exist anywhere. I consider my self both a young guy, and a noobie to trapdoors, but I am proud to say I do own a very nice origional example (#93) so I would consider throwing an offer at the gun just to say I own two 1868s! Since I have one nice example already, I could live with #69s flaws. For the right price. So is the consensus from the experts that this is a real 68? (I previously posted as "Matt" and proceeded to lose my password and was unable to retrieve it, so I am now MattN)

[Dick Hosmer]

As a clarification, I need to point out that my "???" simply means that a given feature is not known - I did not intend to mean it was unclear, so it can not be automatically inferred that the feature is either right or wrong.

There was, until #69, really only one known 1869 block, though I'm now going to mark #69 thus as well, because it certainly does appear to be that is what it is. I was assuming/hoping that I would hear from the seller.

[carlsr]

Thanks for clarifying that Dick.
I just figured the question marks ment unreadable.
Surprising the seller hasn't responded yet, usually sellers on GB are good when it comes to answering questions about their auctions.

[BillF]

He added a picture. #37 shows the block as a 1869

[Dick Hosmer]

He added a picture. #37 shows the block as a 1869

I sent a note, thanking him. We sort of dodged a bullet, what with the "problem" occurring on a very low-numbered gun where we KNOW it doesn't belong - had it been #169 it would have upset our neat and tidy little apple-cart, NOT knowing if it was right or wrong.

[Fred Gaarde]

Dick there ARE four cartouches on #86.

IMG_7882.jpeg (136.57 KiB) Viewed 1723 times