What does this look like?

[kotkinjs1]

Hi all,
This was listed as a Colt Navy. It's obviously not. What does it look like though? Does it seem legit? Thanks!

 

[vmicraig]

Sure looks similar to a M-1849 Colt Pocket Revolver, the successor to the baby dragoon. But they were .31 cal as opposed to .36 cal

 

[kotkinjs1]

Brass frame and round barrel?

 

[vmicraig]

Brass frame and round barrel?

Oh, you got me - yes, the pocket has an octagonal barrel. But, the pocket does have the brass back strap, and lower trigger assembly. Guess I shouldn't have jumped the "gun" on my response, but you gotta admit at first glance it could be a ringer.

 

[vmicraig]

Per Flaydermans 9th edition, p.89 - Colt Model 1851 Navy Revolver, ..."The number of variations is considerable, all detailed in the reference work '51 Colt Navies, by Nathan L. Swayze. Basic to classification of variants are trigger guard types, markings, contours of certain parts, materials of grip straps, and attachable shoulder stocks. Caution advised for so-called "Dragoon Variant" with part round/octagon barrel. As with M. 1849 (see details), consensus of expert opinion believes variant never made by Colt and likely all specimens spurious."

Hmmm......

 

[Seduzal]

Welcome to CWT from the Smoky Mountain side of North Carolina. Thanks for sharing this interesting article. I don't know the answer to your question but I can get you some help! @ucvrelics

 

[Jobe Holiday]

It would appear to be a Confederate Griswold & Gunnison, however, it will take someone like Lanyard Puller to determine the authenticity. I do like the number font, but these things are too far out of my comfort zone, unless there is a glaring deficiency!
J.

 

[sourdough]

Brass frame, part round/part octagon barrel, S/N in the correct range and in the correct places on the frame and barrel lug: Griswold & Gunnison.

However, the trigger guard is the wrong shape, cylinder should have the S/N stamped on the side, the gripframe is not upswept at the rear of the butt, the cylinder (made from twisted iron bars) should the show twist lines turning clockwise when viewed from the rear, and there should be a cryptic mark stamped on the underside of the barrel behind the load lever catch, among other markings on the gripframe (Roman numerals) and rear of the frame which are hidden from view when the pistol is fully assembled.

It may be a defarbed and antiqued modern Italian replica: the screw threads will be metric.

If so, someone went to a lot of trouble to create a fake.

My Pietta G&G (2015 replica, smooth cylinder, wrong grip/angle, wrong trigger guard):

Jim

 

[Lanyard Puller]

It "looks like" a Griswold, but without seeing it and taking it apart I won't go down that very slippery slope of real verses the rest of the options. From the posted photos I'd have to lean toward one of the other options because some necessary Griswold characteristics are not there {in your photos}. If this came out of a recent Michigan auction... beware.

 

[UCVRelics]

I would like to see it field stripped and photos of the inspectors marks before I can weigh in on if its an original Griswold. Paging @Lanyard Puller

 

[Stone in the wall]

What is the little round dimple? filled hole? in the handgrips?

 

[ekolk6988]

Right off the bat, the round barrel makes it being an 1851 navy just plain wrong. I'm not an expert by any means, and even I know that.

 

[Lanyard Puller]

""@Stone in the wall, What is the little round dimple? filled hole? in the handgrips. ""

Stone in the wall made me go back to the photos. I enhanced the original photos and can clearly makeout the screw that is or was in the handgrips {Whitney maybe??} used on this revolver. I missed that on my first pass. With all the other visible issues, I think it's safe to call it a Griswold "copy" if priced for a couple of hundred, but a fake if $$ more.

 

[Jobe Holiday]

There are a number of people who actually collect these "copies" of real antique Confederate, etc. revolvers because owning the originals is out of the realm for 99.9% of us. These copies all start life as Italian replicas and then are sent through a "Time Tunnel" to look like the real thing. Lanyard Puller is correct about the cost being in the hundreds of dollars for one that is very well done. There is a lot more to it than just removing the Italian proofs and importer's markings, and that is what you are paying for, which is the talent of the person doing the work. Some are not so good, such as one I saw at a show in the East many years ago. It was a Colt 1851 Navy which was heavily rusted and frozen up. It was advertised as having been found in the rafters of an old collapsed barn in the Shenandoah Valley. It was on the table of a well known dealer, and priced at $850. It looked pretty good, but the problem was that you could just make out a faint Italian "PN" showing on the cylinder where it met the frame! When I pointed it out to the dealer, he glared at me for a moment and then put it under the table. I had known him for years, but he really disappointed me because there was no way he didn't know what he had.
J.

 

[JOHN42768]

Previous post cover it very well

 

[Mr. King]

The fakes in the relic business make me leary of every buying anything which is claimed to be a relic.

 

[kotkinjs1]

ok - received the mystery revolver in the mail. More photos.

The grip angle is ever so slightly swept back; when the butt is flat on the table the muzzle raises by maybe a few degrees.
The barrel has what look like the striations of the twisted iron but nothing discernible on the cylinder. The grip is obviously 2 piece and no markings inside or out. The main spring has also been replaced obviously at some point. There is a stamp each on the grip frame, a "R" and a "3." The underside has the 2 last SNs also. Nothing else on the loading lever or barrel underside. The barrel wedge looks like a simple cut bar steel replacement and its screw might be modern also but the rest of the screws seem period...whatever that period may be.

So what do you all think?

 

[sourdough]

If a G&G, the barrel should have no striations, only the cylinder. The grips should be one-piece. The grip angle at the butt is not upswept enough. The trigger guard is wrong for a G&G. The mainspring screw is a laugh. For that serial number on a G&G, the round barrel lug is wrong as G&G stopped doing that about S/N 1500 and then used an octagonal barrel lug. The load lever latch and catch appear to be somewhat new.

IMO, it is a parts gun with no value as an original.

Regards,

Jim

 

[kotkinjs1]

Right, like I said, I know the main spring is a replacement....no surprise the screw is as well. I didn't get a good angle of the barrel lug I guess, but it is octagonal. It's just really worn. See below. I can't tell about the load lever catch and latch. I know the grips aren't right either. Does the grip frame look like a G&G? I don't have a reference. As far as the grip angle and cylinder striations I've seen the Forgotten Weapons vid and a G&G sale on Rock Island (https://www.rockislandauction.com/d...e-second-model-griswold-and-gunnison-revolver) that had neither swept grips or the striations. This cylinder is so pitted that I can't really tell anyway. Seems there were micro variations from gun to gun on these aspects.

 

[Patrick H]

Interesting piece, and I'll be watching closely.