Did that say 100% mint unfired 1941 M1911A1?

[IZinterrogator]

Why yes, it did.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=101843704

I've been watching this for a few days. It got relisted because the previous auction's high bid of $7000 didn't meet the reserve price. :scared:

[John]

I would never buy this pistol, even if I had the money. I would be too guilty to fire it, and I do not like safe queens.

[Axel]

I would want a lot more information and many more pictures before I would bid on it.

Someone who is willing to shell out the big bucks for that gun will want to know a lot more about it than what is provided.

It is funny how some sellers seem ignorant about the details (just buy it on blind faith, don't bother me with questions) yet they know down to the penny what the top retail price is and they want and expect it.

[Frank]

Let's say that I'm skeptical. And I'd be surprised if someone would pay that kind of money for without some solid documentation of the pistol's provenance.

DVC

[OD*]

Looks like a beautiful restoration to me. ;)

[Hawkmoon]

I new 1911A1 would have been issued with a box, I believe. And I can't believe it would have survived for 60+ years in the condition if it had not been stored in the original box, or some sort of military packaging. So ... where did the packaging disappear to?

I'm skeptical.

The serial number is correct for 1941. The photos look blued. When did the Army start Parkerizing?

[HarleyGuy]

Let's say that I'm skeptical. And I'd be surprised if someone would pay that kind of money for without some solid documentation of the pistol's provenance.

DVC
Frank, I agree 100%. I viewed it, and read the details. What makes me curious is this. (And I know you can't answer this, just thinking out loud). I wonder if the seller would accept a bid, with the stipulation that a professional apprasier/authenticator, at the buyer's choosing and expense, "prove" the owner's claim's of authenticity, before the deal was finalized. I would love to have the opportunity to ask the seller that question, but since I have absolutely no intentions to bid on it it, I won't bother the seller with that question. Just curious as to what seller would say to that? :)

J.

[Scott Gahimer]

The pistol is restored IMO, based on what I see in the photos and the seller's description of it being "100%" condition.

It was reported on another board that the reserve is $15,000. I'd lke to think nobody is foolish enough to spend that much on even a pistol that is original, let alone one that's been refinished.

Seller reportedly even refuses to disassemble the pistol. I can't imagine anyone who refuses to disassemble the pistol to allow anyone else to break it down for a thorough inspection. But I'm confident, with the pistol in the hands of someone knowedgeable, it would not even be necessary to look inside to determine the pistol has been refinished.

John, you wouldn't have to feel guilty shooting this one. It's a 0% original finish pistol. No telling what it looked like before it was re-done.

[HarleyGuy]

Scott, what gave it away, as far as your determination. I couldn't tell much from the photo's, although I am not qualified to appraise/authenticate it.
The fact that the owner would not allow it to be dissasembled, even by a qualified appraiser, at the buyer's expense, would be a definite red flag for me though...
Just curious..

J.

[bgiven]

I noticed it has a WWI slide stop.... which may, or may not be correct...... but it throws up at least one red flag. I can't imagine someone wanting top, top dollar.... and not being able to verify the internals, especially whether the barrel is correct or not, and what it looks like under the grips.

[Jim Watson]

The pistol is restored IMO, based on what I see in the photos and the seller's description of it being "100%" condition.

Which brings on another rant by me on the fraud potential of unmarked restorations. Maybe Scott can tell from a picture, but somebody with more money than expertise is going to pay an awful lot for a lesson in authenticity.

[Hawkmoon]

Google turned up the following for me:

This early phosphate example was shipped to the Commanding
General at Springfield Armory on July 31, 1941. Per Clawson,
sn 729993 was one of the first Parkerized (Type II Phosphate)
pistols, and parkerizing was gradually phased in after about sn
734000. Bluing (Type III black oxide) was used less and less
until about 760000. During this period of transition, blued
and parkerized parts could be seen intermixed, but the receiver
and slide were always of the same finish (ref. Clawson). Note
the blued hammer on this example, as well as the darker colored
small components (thumb safety, slide release, grip safety).
Grips are Coltwood, numbered on insides, without reinforcing
ribs. Barrel is blued, marked "Colt 45 Auto" above left lug,
P-stamped on left lug, with uppercase G on underside in front
of lugs. Frame and slide serial numbers match.

So this pistol is in the range where bluing might still be correct, but the bluing would have been the Type III black oxide finish. Isn't that the finish we loosely call "black army"? If so, I think it should not look quite as ... nice ... as the pistol in the ad looks. It should be more of a matte black finish.

[Frank]

Scott, what gave it away, as far as your determination. I couldn't tell much from the photo's,...
I can't speak for Scott, and I'm not an expert on old 1911s. However, I find it pretty much unbelievable that a gun would still be in such good shape after something like 65 years -- especially with no box or other documentation.

If you unwrapped a blued 1911 fresh from the factory and just stuck it in a draw somewhere for 65 years, it would not look that good. For a gun to have survived 65 years of storage in such pristine shape (if that would even be possible), it would need to have been handled and stored with great care and attention to detail. And I can't imagine anyone doing that and not also preserving some documentation of the gun's origin.

DVC

EDIT: Sorry Hawk, I didn't see your post #6 when I posted this.

[Scott Gahimer]

There seems to be a good deal of misinformation out there...which is no surprise. The 760xxx number in Clawson's book is one example of bad information that often is used to justify refinished pistols. That information was originally provided by a trusted collector for a pistol he had not personally seen. Years later, he saw the pistol and found out it was definitely refinished. Mr. Clawson has told me he intended to drop that number back to 740xxx, but overlooked doing it when the last book was published. Originally, a 780xxx number was used.
Years later now, I do not know any reputable collector who has actually seen and verified a pistol above 735xxx with original blue finish. The 740xxx number I believe would allow more than enough room to cover any over runs of blued pistols during the transition period between blued and Parkerized finishes.

No Colt M1911 or Colt M1911A1 ever had a type III black oxide finish originally. Singer, US&S and early Remington Rand and Ithaca pistols had the type III black oxide (Du-Lite) finish. Du-Lite, Black Magic and other brand names were all the same basic type III black oxide chemical process. The only difference between Singer and the other pistols' finishes is surface prep. Singer is polished surface; the others have a sandblasted surface prior to being blued.

Colt's heat (oven) blued their pistols. That's an entirely different process. Colt didn't start using chemical blue until post-WWII.

The modern WWI Colt manufactures today may have the type III black oxide finish, but that has nothing to do with the WWI finish referred to by many as "black army".

The only difference in Colt's brushed blue and their WWI wartime "black army" is the surface preparation. The bluing process was the same on both. I personally believe the primary reason so many WWI-produced pistols' finishes flaked so badly was that the cleaning process (prior to bluing) was rushed due to the increased production rate. A finish that does not adhere well in the first place is not going to be durable over time.

Clawson goes into detail in his big book regarding the specific process used to prepare the pistols for bluing. The 1937 Colt publication "A Century of Achievement 1836-1936" also describes the process in detail. Both also state Colt's oven blued their pistols.

As far as the photos of this refinished 1941 Colt go, they're not very good. But the surface preparation does not look correct to me. The surface is too "slick" looking and the polishing patterns are not correct. Regarding photos: even with the best photos, it is usually impossible to verify originality. However, even poor photos are often good enough to spot things that are wrong.

I agree with Frank about a virtually 100% condition finish on a blued A1. In all the time I've collected, I've never seen one that is original. I've got some nice pistols that rate 98/99%...but 100% is a football field away from 99%.

As far as Jim's opinion goes on requiring restorations to be marked, I respect and understand his position, but think it would do little to improve things, and would possibly do more harm to the inexperienced novice. The same crooks who misrepresnt their pieces now and knowingly commit fraud, do we really think another law or rule would change that?
And let's say a restorer did mark his work...do we really think those crooks wouldn't have the marking removed? Maybe some wouldn't, but others would.
Dishonesty is something that cannot be controlled by laws or rules. Locks on doors only keep an honest man out. A thief will find a way in.
Knowledge and experience is the only way one can expect to avoid being cheated.
If restorations were required to be marked, the novice would then see a pistol that lacked the mark and believe it was original.
Nobody has any business buying anything they can't authenticate. I don't mean that in a smug way, and I don't want to offend anyone. I just recommend sticking with what you know. If you don't know, don't buy. Or, assume everything is refinished and/or faked and pay accordingly.

[Jim Watson]

Well, Scott, you could apply that logic to about anything illegal or unethical. Why bother to make rules, some people will just break them.

As to rules and methods to protect the buyer against fakes, while a discreet restorer's hallmark might be removed, a public database of restored guns' serial numbers would be harder to beat. And it will take someone both skilled and willing to commit a Federal felony to change the serial number on the gun.

[Scott Gahimer]

There are plenty of knoweldgeable collectors who spot the fakes and refinished pistols as soon as they get them in their hands.

If we didn't already have laws that address fraud, I could agree with you. The lack of rules or laws is not the problem. The lack of knoweldge and experience with some would-be buyers is the problem. More rules won't fix that...unless we make it harder for those buyers to buy a gun.

I say those fellows need to learn the pistols...or learn to keep their money in their pocket. The best way to learn is looking at somebody else's gun, not by buying. There aren't any shortcuts.

My recommendations:

1) Buy, read and study the right books.
2) Hook up with a reputable collector who will show you his collection and take the time to teach you.
3) Ask a lot of questions.
4) Don't buy anything without the help of your trusted mentor.
5) Eventually, have your mentor wean you off the "bottle" and introduce you to the solid food of buying on your own.

My guesstimate is a minimum of 3-5 years of hard work, a lot of study, hitting a lot of gun shows and being a major pain in the neck to your mentor. Good luck finding somebody who is willing to teach you. Maybe then , the average fellow with some aptitude might be able to know his way around 1911's. The Internet auctions and digital photos is no place to truly learn anything...unless you only intend t buy digital photos of pistols. You have to spend some real time looking at real pistols with somebody who can show you the ropes.

Bottom line, the smart guys never stop learning. The major problem I see today is that too many guys only want help buying or selling; they aren't willing to spend the time and effort to learn the pistols. Learning the pistols has nothing to do with learning the market.

[Frank]

Scott, I tend to agree. IME laws are of only limited utility. There are always people who will try to get around or break whatever law there is. And resorting to legal remedies is expensive, time consuming, stressful and uncertain.

That doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws. They provide a remedy when all else fails. But the law is no substitute for being a sophisticated, knowledgeable and skeptical trader.

DVC

[Hawkmoon]

I believe every state, and most countries, already have laws against fraud. Enacting more laws to prohibit specific aspects of something that's already illegal seems a bit counter-intuitive. If this pistol is not as described, the seller can already be charged with fraud. Both civilly and, probably, criminally. What difference does it make if he did or didn't put a specific mark on the frame?

If I may be allowed a non-gun digression, I have a case that illustrates the problem. My former wife is a professional astrologer. She hangs out with "new agers" of various kinds, and she used to participate in "psychic fairs." One day it came to our attention that a couple of nice young women in the eastern part of the state had advertised a psychic fair at their book store, and they had been informed by the local police department that they could not advertise the event or conduct the event or they would be arrested for violating an anti-fortunetelling law that had been on the books for approximately 60 years. They cancelled the event, but they weren't happy.

At about the same time, a female insurance company executive who entertained guests at parties by reading their fortunes was arrested (in another town) by a police "sting," in which two police officers contacted her (this is important), made an appointment passing themselves off as husband and wife, had a reading, paid their fee and then arrested her for violating this same anti-fortunetelling law that the girls at the bookstore had been threatened with.

This prompted some people active in the New Age community to actually read the law. And a curious law it was. Essentially, it had two parts: (1) It was illegal to fraudulently take money for telling the future; and (2) it was illegal to advertise to tell the future for money.

The case of the insurance company exec went to trial. The state put the cops on and they testified that, yes indeed, they had called her up, made an appointment, gone to her house, had their fortunes told, and then they arrested her. The prosecution rested. The defense didn't call any witnesses. Her attorney moved for a dismissal. The judge asked why. The attorney said, "Because the law says it is illegal to fraudulently tell fortunes for money. The police officer witnesses have provided no evidence that any fraud was committed, and the state has intoduced no evidence of fraud. In fact, they haven't even mentioned it. Secondly, the law says it is illegal to advertise to tell fortunes for money. My client didn't advertise. The police officers called her because they heard about her from someone, not because she advertised. Therefore, your Honor, the state has failed to show any violation of either of the two parts of the law."

The judge dismissed the case. Further research showed that this was the ONLY case ever brought to trial under this law in the 60 years it had existed, and the case resulted in a dismissal because neither the police who made the arrest not the prosecutor who tried the case even understood what the law said.

Meanwhile, some real Gypsies who had used phony curses to steal a couple of hundred thousand dollars from an elderly woman were arrested and convicted -- under other laws. A committee approached the state legislature, explained why the anti-fortunetelling law was so flawed and misunderstood ... and the legislature repealed it. 60 years on the books, and not a single conviction to show for it.

We don't need more laws like that. As with the gypsies, all we need to do is use the laws that are already on the books.

[Scott Gahimer]

In the case of a gun sale, or the sale of any other collectible, I believe with most laws on the books fraud is only committed if the seller has knowledge that what he is selling is bad.

That's what makes a criminal or civil suit so difficult to "win". The seller simply states he thought the pistol was original, and if the buyer produces evidence that proves otherwise, he simply refunds the money and perhaps some court ordered costs. But normally, there is no fraud conviction.

I think any lawyer worth his salt could defend against a fraud charge by simply showing the buyer didn't do his homework prior to buying. If the buyer thought the pistol was original, why would it be so difficult to believe the seller thought it was original?

To have any kind of case, one would have to show the seller knowingly misrepresented the pistol for purpose of profit. We already have a variety of fraud and conspiracy laws which cover these offenses.

The courts are already backlogged. Legal fees are high. In the long run, it just doesn't make any sense to buy anything that isn't right in the first place. Do the homework first.

I do concede, however, that some current consumer protection laws may need to be amended due to the number of Internet sales today. Internet sales are currently very loosely, if at all regulated.

Whether it is illegal or not, it is foolish to even consider the purchase of a high dollar collectible you have not personally inspected, from someone you don't know, with no inspection and return privilege.

The simplist and surest way to protect oneself as a novice is just don't go there.

And even if you do find yourself buying through the mail from someone you (think you) know, with a return privilege...always pay with postal money orders through the mail. Insist your pistol is shipped and insured via USPS Registered Mail. You've got some level of protection there you don't have otherwise. In a case of outright fraud, a postal inspector on your side might give you better results than a lawyer and a civil trial.

[Jim Watson]

I don't think I ever said "There ought'a be a law".
I have known there were crooks in the field since reading 'Sixguns' in which Elmer Keith described how he warned off someone who was fixing to buy a very fine Walker, A company, no 90. Which Elmer had previously owned in rough shape.
I also remember when a properly restored shotgun would be proudly offered as a "Del Grego Parker."

I consider it a matter of professional ethics that a refinisher who does such a thorough job as to be taken for original by a customer with more money than expertise should mark his work. My opinion was molded by flintlock gunsmith John Bivens who described how he made sure a gun he worked on would not be taken for original or even "old repairs." (It wouldn't work on a 1911, but I bet something could be devised.)

But I am done on the matter. Know enough, learn enough, or get sucked in by a faker, it's all one to me. I'm not buying anything too grand to shoot anyhow.

[Scott Gahimer]

I don't think I ever said "There ought'a be a law"...
But I am done on the matter. Know enough, learn enough, or get sucked in by a faker, it's all one to me. I'm not buying anything too grand to shoot anyhow.

Well then, I think that's where we're at. Some restorers mark; others don't. I think you've summed it up pretty well. Buyer Beware.

[warweaver]

Well then, I think that's where we're at. Some restorers mark; others don't. I think you've summed it up pretty well. Buyer Beware.

True, but not always true. If anyone is sold a fake by a gun dealer, hire a lawyer and bust him using an unfair trade practices statute (under which you recover attorneys fees and treble damages) or sue for fraud, misrepresentation or some other tort.

By the way, the buyer doesn't have to know that the gun he sold was a fake. Reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the representation being made is adequate not only to establish civil liability under common law fraud or misrepresentation theory, but is the threshold in most states for implementing punitive damages (the purpose of which is to deter future conduct).

Proving reckless disregard would be very easy to do in the context of an M1911A1 internet sale. Just look at the description furnished in the advertisement - would a lay person have any idea what any of that meant? No? O k, then, the seller will be considered an expert. If he owns a gun store or has an F F L license, you'd better believe he'll be held to a very high standard of knowledge. The jury only has to be 51% sure that he "had reason to know" that what he represented was not correct.

I can assure you that in most instances, service of process will convince the dude to take the gun back. It's all a question of what you expect of yourself. If the conduct is acceptable to you, take it. If it is unacceptable to you, and you know who the seller is, sue him in court. In most instances it would be a small claim anyway, which would almost certainly yield a default judgment, in which case you simply domesticate the judgment in his state and then ask the sheriff to go seize some of this property.

It's really not that complicated or time consuming. And could be worthwhile.

[Scott Gahimer]

It's really not that complicated or time consuming. And could be worthwhile.

Welcome to the forum. I would never presume to debate law with a lawyer, but I can assure you attempting to recover losses through the legal system is never as simple or productive as not making a mistake in the first place.

I don't view buying bad and/or misrepresented pieces as an opportunity to collect a worthwhile settlement. I simply would rather spend the time and effort to learn what is original...then go buy the good ones, pass on the bad ones and attempt to help others learn along the way.

I do agree that one should seek to return misrepresented pieces, and if you don't get anywhere...then pursue it legally if necessary. The mere mention of suit be filed will convince many sellers to take the piece back and return your money to make you 'whole" again.

[Frank]

Yes you could sue, on a number of theories. Of course, in most jurisdictions, suing on a tort theory won't get you attorney fees. And an attorney is unlikely to take a case on a contingency fee unless the amount likely to be recovered would be enough so that his time and trouble will be adequately compensated.

And of course, if not all that much is involved, you can sue in small claims court. But wherever you sue, and on whatever theory, if you win, you still have to collect.

If the judgment in your favor is for a significant amount of money, there's always the question of whether the judgment debtor (the guy you sued) even has enough money to cover it. Let's say that with treble damages and attorney fees (or with actual and punitive damages, if you sued in tort), you get a judgment against him that says that he owes you $75,000. If he has a solid retail business, he may have sufficient assets available to pay the judgment. But if he's running a "shoestring" operation, say out of a low rent store front with little inventory or out of the garage of his rented house, he just might not have the money.

If he's really "integrity impaired", he's not just going to pay up. He's going to make it has hard as he can for you to squeeze the money out of him. He's going to stall and delay, and there's a good chance that he's had a lot of practice ducking creditors.

And yes, you can take a judgment to the sheriff and have the sheriff seize some property. But you have to find the property first. The sheriff won't do that for you. So you may need to hire a private investigator to search out property. Or you may have to haul the guy into court to try to make him answer questions under oath about his assets and property. And if the guy is a professional dead beat, as many shady business people are, he may have done a good job of hiding his assets. (I'm not sure, but you may be able to buy a credit report if you're a judgment creditor;and that might help you find his assets, depending on how well he may have hidden them.)

The moral is that IME practicing law for over 30 years, the legal system is your last resort, and resorting to the legal system is a very poor substitute for either making a good deal or avoiding a bad one in the first place.

DVC

EDIT: Well Scott, you beat me to the submit button, and you've put it very well. Of course, since I'm a lawyer, I had to be more wordy.