https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...65851086-1.jpg
Back up for auction
Printable View
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...65851086-1.jpg
Back up for auction
Attachment 63631
It is a nice rifle but I like my Winchester 100931 a lot more. Canfield states in his book that my serial number was stamped on Jan 15, 1941. I have the WRA RS no trap stock and keystone & comp spring too.
Non-payment?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark in Rochester
Double keystone WRAs are rare birds! My early Winchester is a beauty but it is 146219 with single round spring and WB stock.
Attachment 63633
No, original "winner" claimed he typed in an extra zero in error.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Hollinger
CMP decided on a do over
$11,556.00 wit 35 bids 11 days to end of auction
Are we up for a pool on what it brings? My guess is 16,500 :)
$18,050.00
It will bring Heartache to whom ever try's to sell it later. Rick B
$20,500.00
OK guys, I admit to being clueless in this case. I see a Garand, a very nice-looking Garand. But what on earth makes it worth such a crazy price to anybody?
It's a Winchester and it's new.
"It's a Winchester and it's new."
So that's not a scratch just in front of the buttplate and about 1,5" down then?
Or at the front end of the comb (in the previous thread)?
Or below the 8 of the receiver number?
And the scuffing of the peepsight is just my imagination?
Plus other points mentioned in the previous thread.
OK, perhaps we could agree on "almost as good as new". But not unqualified new. Not in "just out of the wrap" condition. And, if my information is correct, Winchester made about 600,000 Garands.
Another thought from my cynical appraisal:
On several occasions I have observed a rifle being sold for a hard-to-believe price, and then being reoffered sometime later. Now if there was a genuine sale at, say, 100,000, and the bidder withdrew, then the obvious (and correct) thing to do is to offer it to the second bidder (who must have bid, say, 99,900, i.e. one bid increment less). I have twice been offered items in such a situation.
Of course, if the "sale" was fake, and there was no genuine second bidder, just two shill-bidder identities of the same person, then the item is offered for sale again, so that some poor sucker thinks "wow, that's a steal at only 99,000!"
Think about it.
So, with all respect to those who undoubtedly know a lot more about Garands than I do, IMHO the price is daft.
Winchesters are scarce, they didn't make as many as SA and they all went through the WWII era. Winchester is a magic name, and there are a lot of WRA collectors out there (besides strictly M1 collectors) who have to have an M1 and a Carbine. This one appears to be mint, that's very unusual.
---------- Post added at 08:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:45 PM ----------
He can make the argument that he would not have had to go to 39,000 if the winner had not made a mistake. At what number was he high without the mistake bidder, 20,000 maybe? I would certainly not step up to a price I was forced to by an error or renege. CMP should have simply reviewed the bids without the error bidder and offer it to the guy who was high when the auction ended.
All that doesn't matter. Just that simple.Quote:
Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick
"He can make the argument that he would not have had to go to 39,000 if the winner had not made a mistake. At what number was he high without the mistake bidder, 20,000 maybe? I would certainly not step up to a price I was forced to by an error or renege. CMPhttps://www.milsurps.com/autolinker/images/link6.gif should have simply reviewed the bids without the error bidder and offer it to the guy who was high when the auction ended."
Very good argument there! Your suggestion is much better than mine.