Announcement

**Gary Cain** · 08-10-2006, 10:29 PM

There are three known Kittredge markings and this is kind of an amalgamation of two of them. Also it is individually struck. They were done that way but until further information comes in this mark must be considered suspect. It looks good, the font is correct, it has obviously been there a long time but it is not a proven marking yet. The reason why it is important is if it is indeed a correct Kittredge mark it increases the value by about 25%.

Gary

Originally posted by ottomaton

For my elucidation:

Why is the Kittredge mark suspect?

**Douglas Jr.** · 08-11-2006, 07:48 AM

Gary,

Congratulations! I really enjoyed this one. I am not a big revolver´s fan but if there is one that I would have for certain is the Peacemaker.

And once more: I really loved the 130-years-old patina over it.

Douglas.

**Jared S.** · 08-23-2006, 05:57 PM

Gary, thanks for sharing this Colt with us.

I have a question for you if you don't mind. When looking at the U.S. stamp with a loop, are the periods round or squared?

Jared

**Gary Cain** · 08-23-2006, 07:02 PM

Hi Jared,

They are round. I find this one a little interesting to be honest with you. There are no known Cavalry models in the 20,000 serial number range(Colt made 37,063 revolvers for the government) and this one has the First Patent Date with the rounded US(usually seen with the second patent date, but they are seen with the first as well) with the round periods. All in all quite the amalgamation. It resembles Serial Number 19,247, which is a known Cavalry Model, in all details except 19,247 has a lengthened hammer screw to attach a shoulder stock.

Gary

Originally posted by Jared S.

Gary, thanks for sharing this Colt with us.

I have a question for you if you don't mind. When looking at the U.S. stamp with a loop, are the periods round or squared?

Jared

**Jared S.** · 08-23-2006, 11:13 PM

Gary, thanks for the reply.

You did not ask for opinions on it but there are a few things I would like to tell you. Let me know if that's OK and I can reply here or by PM.

Jared

**Gary Cain** · 08-24-2006, 12:06 AM

Feel free to say whats on your mind. I allready know it is a weird (personally I think it is a case of someone gilding the lilly if you know what I mean) one. The more I can find out about it the better.

Gary

Originally posted by Jared S.

Gary, thanks for the reply.

You did not ask for opinions on it but there are a few things I would like to tell you. Let me know if that's OK and I can reply here or by PM.

Jared

**Peter A Larson** · 08-24-2006, 12:15 AM

Gary I like it. Christmas is coming and my birthday is in March.

**Gary Cain** · 08-24-2006, 06:23 PM

Hi Peter,

I like it too, but that doesn't mean I don't want to learn more about it!

Gary

Originally posted by Peter A Larson

Gary I like it. Christmas is coming and my birthday is in March.

**Jared S.** · 08-24-2006, 06:54 PM

Gary, I'm glad you have an open mind on this.

The U.S. stamp is not correct. Round periods are incorrect for a U.S. stamp. The letters are not right.

Here are original examples of the squared U.S. (Artillery, serial # 24XX from my collection) and the rounded U.S. with the first type patent (from one of Cochran's books). Note the squared periods.

The barrel address: your piece is late to have the Italic barrel address, but of course Colt used up everything and there are overlapping/late use of parts. What I would like to point out though, is that very early on there were breaks to the die, and the o in "Co," will have a break by this time along with the "A" in Hartford.

To illustrate, here is a picture of the correct address (Cavalry, serial #41XX from my collection).

And one thing I will just base on opinion from viewing and handling known originals, I don't like the condemned "C" stamp.

Regards,
Jared

**Gary Cain** · 08-25-2006, 05:07 PM

Hi Jared,

Without an open mind one can never learn! I had my suspicions about this when I got it oh so many years ago but had never taken the time to key it out. My concern was allways the late serial number. My original supposition was that it might have been a Artillery model that was rebarelled and then stamped with the Kittridge mark. The US stamp looks very similar to the round US listed on page 263 in Cochrans encyclopedia of the SAA. He also shows on the same page a US with round periods but with a second patent date format. Under magnification you can see the serif is present on the top of the U. The "C" is a pretty damned close match for the "C" he pictures on page 101. The serif looks right and the way the bottom of the "C" trails off looks the same as well. The barrel address is definately different. There are breaks though. The break in the "A" in Hartford is just beginning and there is a prominent break in the "T" in "CT." What think you of my theory?

Gary

Originally posted by Jared S.

Gary, I'm glad you have an open mind on this.

The U.S. stamp is not correct. Round periods are incorrect for a U.S. stamp. The letters are not right.

Here are original examples of the squared U.S. (Artillery, serial # 24XX from my collection) and the rounded U.S. with the first type patent (from one of Cochran's books). Note the squared periods.

The barrel address: your piece is late to have the Italic barrel address, but of course Colt used up everything and there are overlapping/late use of parts. What I would like to point out though, is that very early on there were breaks to the die, and the o in "Co," will have a break by this time along with the "A" in Hartford.

To illustrate, here is a picture of the correct address (Cavalry, serial #41XX from my collection).

And one thing I will just base on opinion from viewing and handling known originals, I don't like the condemned "C" stamp.

Regards,
Jared

**Jared S.** · 08-29-2006, 06:01 PM

Gary, I disagree with your theory that it was an Artillery that someone rebarreled. If it was condemned it would not be in the Army's inventory to be altered in 1898 (by SA). And it could not have been a Cav that was condemned later during the alteration because it lacks inspector marks, not to mention the civilian number.

I saw that U.S. stamp in Cochran's book (different book than you have), and it does appear to have round periods (I'm leaning toward it being an effect from the picture though). If it does have round periods, it quite simply is a fraudulent example that made it into the book. No book is without mistakes. Like a fake SS helmet decal that makes its' way into a book, you can't point to it to show that it is real. Errors happen. As you know, books are great and a must, but handling and studying known originals also helps. It's experience. At one time it was not well known that the periods should be squared. Unfortunately, now the fakers know and have corrected that oversight.

Another original U.S. stamp for your reference, with second type patent stamp. One of the 800 New York Militia guns from 1895, serial 56XXX, (my collection).

Again, your barrel address is not correct. Does the barrel have the first style ejector housing arrangement (screw and stud holes)? Is it numbered to the gun? Take a look at the address and see if the periods are round.

On to the condemned stamp. I agree that it is a "pretty close" match to the one in the book. As I said before, it is my opinion (from the pic) that it is not original (this one is opinion, everything else stated is fact). I took in the other aspects of this piece when forming this opinion. I collect Martial Colt SAA's and have never had a condemned, buy back, etc., so I don't have one in person to compare it too. All in all though, with the other ambiguities with this piece, the C is not the main issue:

Civilian serial range.
Italic barrel address it shouldn't have, and if by some slim, strange occurrence it did, the address stamp is not correct anyway.
Incorrect U.S. stamp with round periods that were not used.
Suspect Kittredge stamp.

IF the "C" was looked at in person by an expert in that particular area and was deemed original, there is one other possibility which explains the civilian number. The theory: it was a civilian gun that was caught up during the alteration period. Explanation for that: like the "Keyes" revolvers, it could have been purchased by a soldier as a replacement for a missing or stolen revolver, to avoid there being an investigation if a gun was found to be missing. Then, much later, some dummy wanted to "enhance" it by stamping the U.S., the Kittredge mark, and re-stamping/replacing the barrel (it absolutely could not have had a U.S. stamp). Again, this is just a theory IF the "C" is original.

Sorry for the delay in replying to you, I've been busy and didn't have a chance until now.

Jared

**Gary Cain** · 08-29-2006, 07:47 PM

Hi Jared,

Thanks for the reply. The book I have has the round periods and they are very clearly round. You may be right that they are fraudulent but I don't know. The periods on the barrel are square for the most part thouh a couple are rounded out and one is almost oval. The barrel is numbered to the revolver. I have collected US military arms for 35+ years now and if there is one thing I have learned it is to never say never. The serial number range is my big concern and if not an artillery(the long barrel numbered to the gun makes that unlikely) or your theory of the private purchase to replace a lost weapon, then it is clearly made up from whole cloth.
That much is patently clear.

Cheers
Gary

Originally posted by Jared S. View Post

Gary, I disagree with your theory that it was an Artillery that someone rebarreled. If it was condemned it would not be in the Army's inventory to be altered in 1898 (by SA). And it could not have been a Cav that was condemned later during the alteration because it lacks inspector marks, not to mention the civilian number.

I saw that U.S. stamp in Cochran's book (different book than you have), and it does appear to have round periods (I'm leaning toward it being an effect from the picture though). If it does have round periods, it quite simply is a fraudulent example that made it into the book. No book is without mistakes. Like a fake SS helmet decal that makes its' way into a book, you can't point to it to show that it is real. Errors happen. As you know, books are great and a must, but handling and studying known originals also helps. It's experience. At one time it was not well known that the periods should be squared. Unfortunately, now the fakers know and have corrected that oversight.

Another original U.S. stamp for your reference, with second type patent stamp. One of the 800 New York Militia guns from 1895, serial 56XXX, (my collection).

Again, your barrel address is not correct. Does the barrel have the first style ejector housing arrangement (screw and stud holes)? Is it numbered to the gun? Take a look at the address and see if the periods are round.

On to the condemned stamp. I agree that it is a "pretty close" match to the one in the book. As I said before, it is my opinion (from the pic) that it is not original (this one is opinion, everything else stated is fact). I took in the other aspects of this piece when forming this opinion. I collect Martial Colt SAA's and have never had a condemned, buy back, etc., so I don't have one in person to compare it too. All in all though, with the other ambiguities with this piece, the C is not the main issue:

Civilian serial range.
Italic barrel address it shouldn't have, and if by some slim, strange occurrence it did, the address stamp is not correct anyway.
Incorrect U.S. stamp with round periods that were not used.
Suspect Kittredge stamp.

IF the "C" was looked at in person by an expert in that particular area and was deemed original, there is one other possibility which explains the civilian number. The theory: it was a civilian gun that was caught up during the alteration period. Explanation for that: like the "Keyes" revolvers, it could have been purchased by a soldier as a replacement for a missing or stolen revolver, to avoid there being an investigation if a gun was found to be missing. Then, much later, some dummy wanted to "enhance" it by stamping the U.S., the Kittredge mark, and re-stamping/replacing the barrel (it absolutely could not have had a U.S. stamp). Again, this is just a theory IF the "C" is original.

Sorry for the delay in replying to you, I've been busy and didn't have a chance until now.

Jared

**Jared S.** · 08-29-2006, 09:02 PM

OK Gary.. I've enjoyed the discussion.

Jared

Announcement

One you don't see every day.

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Users Viewing this Thread