Thinking of bidding.Real or fake?
https://www.rockislandauction.com/de...le-with-letter
Printable View
Thinking of bidding.Real or fake?
https://www.rockislandauction.com/de...le-with-letter
Very nice rifle, looks good with the correct mount and scope as it should.
Having the cover letter from Ian Skennerton is a nice reassurance and should give great confidence in it's authenticity.
I would take RogerP's reassurance over Skennerton's in this case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Scout Sniper
Looks great.
Good luck!
On the basis that it is stated all WW1 sniper rifles were taken back to arsenal and stripped, how on earth is it possible to confirm a genuine example?
Just asking as very interested in the answer.
I got to take a quick look at the pictures very late last night. I could only see a couple of photo's - of the complete rifle viewed from either side - which is not ideal. Mind you I'm pretty bad with IT so there may have been more images that I missed. But based on what I saw:
The rifle is of the correct 'era' & from an appropriate manufacturer. The scope is a genuine item, & I think the base probably is too, although more views would have been nice. There are two minor variations of the mount base, this one having the radiused front lower end as well as the radiused lower back end. In addition this type bears the larger thumb catch - so that all checks out. If anyone is interested I have shown photo's of both variants in that little article that's on this site somewhere.
Within the limitations of the views available I would not dispute what Ian has said about the rifle itself. It quite likely is genuine.
However, I have issues with the scope rings. They may well be correct but we don't get to see them very well in order to decide. The scope is genuine. But, if you look at the view of the rifle from the RHS (bolt handle side) there appears to me, though it could be an effect of the light/shadow or whatever, variations in the surface appearance of the scope tube, as one often sees when as scope has had more than one set of rings on it during its lifetime. Further, & in the same view, if you look at the soldered edges where the rings are attached to the scope, the solder looks rather new & shiny. This would indicate either a relatively recent job, or that the original solder has been got at for some reason. Undisturbed century old soft solder takes on a slatey colour due to surface oxidation. Note also, that the black paint on the scope ocular housing is in pretty good condition except for that part of the housing that is threaded onto the scope tube proper, & this looks to have had the paint removed (odd that the paint is excellent elsewhere but totally missing here where it butts up to the rings).
So, from the very limited views we have, I cannot say with certainty, but I suspect that the rifle may well be right as Ian suggests. The scope & rings may well be right, but may have been re-fitted together somewhat after the Great War (or at least tickled recently). Even if that is the case, on an otherwise correct rifle I would not regard it as an 'end of the world' issue.......just something to be aware of when deciding how much to bid.
And if there are more photo's that my technological limitations caused me to miss, then please someone give me a prod with a stick & I'll have another look.
Roy, I've always taken it that those very few rifles that for whatever reason did not get sent back to the UK to be stripped for usable spares at Weedon now form the sole reservoir of original rifles. My original PPCo rifle was one of a batch of several thousand SMLE's that had been stored in a warehouse in Egypt for decades, until Ryton Arms bought 1200 of them in the early 1990's. Out of that 1200 there were two rifles that still bore bases (scopes long gone, of course). One of them was a BSA rifle & it was bought by Tony Hallam for his son Robert's collection (the Charnwood collection that was auctioned at Bonhams in 1998). Paul Varley, the then manager of Ryton, kept the slightly better of the two for himself (an EFD 1916). In about 1996 I managed to do a deal with him as he needed a couple of No32 scopes really badly - so we did a swap. Both of us were happy, & I still have the rifle.
In practice we are often assisted in distinguishing the right from the wrong, simply because most of the fakers are so bad at it............their desires outweigh their abilities, at least in most cases. Long may it stay that way!
Thanks for the explanation Roger, that would make sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
Must be the rarest of the rare.
Roy
A couple of detail shots.
Original parts, or mostly original parts re-assembled IMO, as you say Roger.
I have only owned one original PPCo. base, but it did not have that rather thin sort of browning, but a proper rust blue, nearly identical to that typical on the rifles themselves. Such a browning, were it original, would show wear in the all the typical places...
The scope has been reblued judging by the extensive rust pitting on the tube, which has not affected the bluing as it would were that original. Not to mention the unknown ring marks you point out!
Were the bases numbered to the rifles Roger? That doesn't ring a bill with me.
As you say, the black enamel entirely removed from the threaded collar of the ocular assembly is not likely to have happened with the scope fitted to the rings, and has clearly been at least polished quite recently from the colour of the brass.
The wear on the brass parts of the scope does not correspond to the lack of wear on the rings or the scope tube.
:thdown:
The appearance of the bases varies quite considerably. I've probably only ever seen about 12 to 15 myself, the majority now dismounted from their rifles, although a few still in situ as well, over the years. Some have shown clear evidence of blue & others could quite possibly not have been at all, just having light surface patination. I've also noticed that, from this admittedly small sample size, original bases sometimes bear their rifle's serial, & sometimes not. I don't know but have mused that perhaps the bases without a rifle number may have been unissued........or at least may not have been fitted to rifles straight away, but rather went at first into store, but that's only a suggestion & could well be wrong.
You've put it better than I, but I think we share the same concerns about the scope & rings.
Hi,i was doing research on this and other rifles to actually bid on this rifle and actually found some posts and images on reddit about this exact rifle. In the links/pictures you can see its the exact rifle from the serial number on the bolt and on the left side of the rifle the stock repair above the magazine is visible and the same. Anyway here are the links to post on reddit and also the photos of the rifle on Imgur which shows better close ups of the scope base and rings like you wanted. Was curious aswell what you guys thought:
Looks like Santa delivered early-- A 1915 Lee Enfield No.1 Mk. III Sniper with Periscopic Prism Company Scope : guns
Lee Enfield No.1 Mk. III Sniper with Periscopic Prism Company Scope. - Album on Imgur
Many thanks toxophilus. Those additional photo's are a great assistance. Having better quality close ups unfortunately opens a further can of worms, at least IMHO.
The scope appears matched to this rifle, yet it appears to be a different scope to the one it is now offered for auction with. If you have the matching scope, why change it? Things don't get better than fully matching. Note the cleaned off to bare metal area evident on the current sale photo's is magically black painted on the older photographs. The wear on the focus adjuster looks different to me too. If it is the same scope, it has clearly been got at in between photo sessions! One way to be sure would be to ask Rock island about the rifle number engraved onto the scope rings, & preferably to get images of it.
The rifle now raises concerns in my mind. The fit of the wood to metal at the back end is not great. Look at the rear face of the forend & the degree to which the butt has been scraped - the wood is now appreciably below the level of the butt socket. Further, looking at the pix of the muzzle end of the rifle, the wood to metal fit is ok, but unless the rifle had been kept in a hermetically sealed dust free environment, those edges would be full of crud by now.
The same thing applies to the edges of the screws & the screw slots on the mount. The blue on the screws is also perfect - with routine handling & exposure over the years there's usually an element of oxidation/patination, or simply the tops (high points) get worn showing bare metal. Not so here - a little too perfect.
Again, it's difficult to be too dogmatic about things when so few originals have survived, but of the few bases that bore rifle numbers I can't recall seeing a letter prefix. I think they just stamped the digits IIRC, though I would not push this issue if someone thought differently.
If anyone is going to ask Rock Island for more photographs then it would be worth getting a look at the bolt guide way with the bolt drawn rearwards to show the ends of the 5BA screws that hold the mount base to the rifle. If they are original, put there a century ago, they will have oxidised to be a pretty good match (maybe not perfect due to variations in steel constituents). If they were inserted in recent years they'll be bright, or maybe cold blued.....
I'm enclosing a few photo's of my two rifles that both bear original bases. The rifle with the smaller thumb catch base is, IMHO, perfectly genuine, albeit the screws in the base have been in & out & no longer line up with the centre punch marks. When they were replaced it was clearly a long time ago, judging by the muck that has accumulated in them. (It is hard to realistically simulate this). The other rifle I made up but using another genuine mount base. This one has both lower ends rounded & has the larger thumb catch like the base on the rifle up for auction. This one never bore a serial number, but has an examiner's mark where part of the serial would have been. Note how 'clean' the screws are - I set this up about ten years ago for myself.
Anyway, just a few observations. No doubt others will have theirs.
Very interesting photos Roger. I personally don't think the screws on your first photo have been disturbed at all: I think whoever punched them simply took the lazy way of doing it and punched in the same place on each one, rather than in line with the slots of the screws. What chance that the slots all lined up on the same position originally after all??
A wise choice to leave it as found, rather than cleaning off the evidence of age and use.
Speaking of rotating screws, something seems to have happened between the two sets of photos of the subject rifle.
The little "T" stamp is most convincing also, but shouldn't there be one on the body side as well? ;)
Any bets it will be withdrawn so the scope swap mistake can be corrected? :D
Thanks superbee. I've just had a look at the earlier & these latest photo's, & I don't want this to turn into a witch hunt against this rifle, but there are some issues that I would hope to have explained if I were considering bidding on it.
It looks to me as though the rings & scope are the same, yet the black paint that was present on the forward (parallel) part of the brass ocular housing has disappeared between the two sets of photo's. There could be a plausible explanation for this, such as a repair on the scope that marred the paint, & the seller has never got round to repainting it.......but unless someone tells us we just don't know.
There are clearly traces of a rifle serial number under the existing serial number on the mount base. From what we can see of the partially effaced number, it looks as though it is probably one & the same number. There is evidence of file marks on this flat area as well. Assuming the serials are one & the same why would one erase the number only to reapply the same one? The 'T' has moved forward a screw hole & the second application looks more neatly applied than the first. It could be armourer done, but it could also have been done for less legitimate reasons.
As pointed out the screws have been out, or at least slackened off, between the two lots of photo's. Why would you do this, given you have a fully matching original rifle? (I haven't touched my original rifle other than for an occasional wipe over & Youngs 303 patch ever since I acquired it in 1996). The screw slots align with the centre punch marks on the earlier photo's, but not on the later.
It might be an original rifle, but if it is, & it already has its matching bolt & matching scope, why has it been tinkered with in recent years? And the photographs clearly show this. It is possible that it could perhaps be an original rifle that had lost its mount base & has had a replacement (or even conceivably the same one) retro-fitted? This would explain why the rifle serial number on the receiver ring looks ok, as does the serial on the scope rings, but the serial number(s) on the base look iffy............ In fact the more I mull over this rifle the more I think this may explain the conundrum. Still a bit of a mystery why two goes at serial numbering the mount base though.
It would be nice to handle it in the flesh & to see the bolt way with the bolt drawn back.......plus views of the base with the scope off.
Stamps may bounce and leave double traces, but a few times and different stamps on the same part - really?! The additional pictures superbee has posted, IMHO the base clearly is cold blue finished.
Anyway: at best, a restored original sniper rifle (and if restored and a base was re-issued as Roger had suggested, what are the chances that you lack the base but you still have the original matching numbers scope to the rifle?), at worst a well done fake. Nothing I'd spend $ 5,000 to 7,500 plus BP upon!
Good points Promo. Mind you, I am sure many of us have come across a rifle that has perhaps changed hands from the original person who brought it back, or bought it when first surplussed, only to end up in the hands of a subsequent custodian who poorly appreciates it, & who decides to mess about with it. The original mount base could have been lost or at least mislaid. I'm not saying it was.....but it is possible. My view has changed a little from viewing the better photo's & from studying the serial numbers on the rifle receiver ring & on the scope rings. To me, they both look genuine & unmessedabout with. It is hard to reconcile this rifle as an out & out fake if these numbers are indeed unaltered.
It is interesting to compare the immaculate engraving of the numbers on the scope rings with the much less precise, battered and worn looking "Periscopic Prism Co...." engraved down between the rings.
The PPCo. markings are of course much better protected from bumps and wear in that location than the pristine markings we see on the more exposed rings...
And the old(?) paint in the former markings is curiously absent from the the latter.
The PPCo. markings are in fact hand-engraved whereas those on the rings are not.
Just reviewing saved photos of original PPCo. fittings I have, I don't see any where the markings on the rings are not hand-engraved - unlike this case. And if it matters, several of those were S and T range serial numbers.
The wondrous absence of wear and pitting on the scope rings is quite mysterious, as is the very fresh looking blue, though I do see an attempt has been made with something like a piece of corduroy(?) dampened with some suitable liquid to do a bit of "antiquing". ;)
I will resist the temptation to post some of those photos of original markings; let these people do their own homework!
All of the above issues aside, I find it irritating that the description is SO poor for such a potentially rare and pricey rifle. The photos do not show the buttsocket marks--we had to find out it was a 1915 rifle from another site. One would think that RIA could at least state the year and the manufacturer; that is pretty basic information. I would thumbs down it for that reason alone. Sometimes a lack of information is "convenient"
Ed
Roger, it seems we were talking of different things. I did not want to claim the base as being not original. What I pointed out though was the fact that a stamp may bounce, but someone who does this on a daily bases will not get the stamp to bounce 6 times in a row. Combine this with a scope base that carries what appears to be non original finish (cold blue?) it may be a mixture of original parts, but refinished and force matched to the rifle in question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Roger Payne
This however still puts the outcome at what I had already said: at best a restored original, at worst a fake with some better and some worse parts. And at least to me neither of the two are worth the estimate. To someone else it might be, the question though remains if this person has the information available in this thread, and if yes, if he considers it the same way as I do.