CMP Forums

CMP Forums (http://forums.thecmp.org/index.php)
-   M1 Garand (http://forums.thecmp.org/forumdisplay.php?f=7)
-   -   Correct Grade? (http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=251737)

TSimonetti 09-10-2019 08:18 PM

Correct Grade?
 
Don't get me wrong. An extremely nice gun, but the bolt is not correct. Not even close.

Trigger group is correct, but it looks completely reparked except for the trigger pin.

http://cmpauction.thecmp.org/detail....ade-SA-3611884

Craftsman 09-10-2019 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSimonetti (Post 1868119)
Don't get me wrong. An extremely nice gun, but the bolt is not correct. Not even close.

Trigger group is correct, but it looks completely reparked except for the trigger pin.

http://cmpauction.thecmp.org/detail....ade-SA-3611884

I can vouch for the light grey park being original finish for a late war SA.
I received a 3.6 SA service grade a few years back that was all be a flat 9 op rod and 19 A8 bolt correct, the best rifle I've ever received via CMP mail order, right down to the excellent NFR stock set. Rolling Thunder at the time confirmed that the metal finish was original and it is the same light grey park as on the auction rifle.

ClayCreekRng 09-10-2019 11:24 PM

I questioned the bolt as well. How do you think the double stamped Cartouche will affect value?

There is an obvious condition mismatch looking at the stock in relationship to ME/TE measurements as well. Mostly correct not collector obviously, but would you say corrected by rebuild either way?

TSimonetti 09-11-2019 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Craftsman (Post 1868157)
I can vouch for the light grey park being original finish for a late war SA.
I received a 3.6 SA service grade a few years back that was all be a flat 9 op rod and 19 A8 bolt correct, the best rifle I've ever received via CMP mail order, right down to the excellent NFR stock set. Rolling Thunder at the time confirmed that the metal finish was original and it is the same light grey park as on the auction rifle.

I’m willing to believe the TG is quite possibly original finish but I’m not convinced. I’ve seen light gray original finish on late war SA TG’s. The gray on this TG seems atypical to me, but maybe it’s due to dry metal or lighting?

But the TG isn’t really important compared to the bolt.

Rolling Thunder 09-11-2019 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSimonetti. Iím willing to believe itís quite possibly original finish but Iím not convinced. Iíve seen light gray original finish on late war SAís. The gray on this one seems atypical to me, but maybe itís due to dry metal or lighting?

But the TG isnít really important compared to the bolt.
Tony,

Receiver looks like original finish but you're correct, accurate descriptions and / or pertinent details and lack thereof of M1 auction items has been a debacle for some time now.

Unfortunately many tend to believe CMP Auction descriptions at their peril due to unintentional faulty information.

TSimonetti 09-11-2019 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rolling Thunder (Post 1868212)
Tony,

Receiver looks like original finish but you're correct, accurate descriptions and / or pertinent details and lack thereof of M1 auction items has been a debacle for some time now.

Unfortunately many tend to believe CMP Auction descriptions at their peril due to unintentional faulty information.


I agree, Receiver is original finish. I didn’t make it clear in my last post that I was talking about the TG. Edited to clarify

Coltgrabber 09-11-2019 02:33 PM

Those who follow the auctions have seen rifles posted from time to time that have some part that seems to disqualify them from being "Correct". There was a "Correct" early IHC on there a few years back that had a Julian dated mid 1955 stock. I asked a leading South Store armorer at the time how that could be correct? He winked and said "Can you prove it isn't correct" & we both had a laugh." ........And before anybody get their bowels in an uproar..... I am NOT attacking CMP nor any of their personnel, but merely reporting that it happens from time to time. You'll notice that they do have on each auction "Sold as is". I am amazed that they get it right the majority of the time!

Bml 09-11-2019 03:01 PM

I see repeatedly auction descriptions seem to be incorrect or misleading for NM rifles. Currently a NM rifle is listed as Type 1 with a bunch of Type 2 marked parts and LMR barrel. Could have been a Type 1, but parts were changed later. It would be similar to me advertising my NM marked barrel garand as a NM rifle. Could have been one but it is not properly configured as one now.

TSimonetti 09-11-2019 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltgrabber (Post 1868296)
Those who follow the auctions have seen rifles posted from time to time that have some part that seems to disqualify them from being "Correct". There was a "Correct" early IHC on there a few years back that had a Julian dated mid 1955 stock. I asked a leading South Store armorer at the time how that could be correct? He winked and said "Can you prove it isn't correct" & we both had a laugh." ........And before anybody get their bowels in an uproar..... I am NOT attacking CMP nor any of their personnel, but merely reporting that it happens from time to time. You'll notice that they do have on each auction "Sold as is". I am amazed that they get it right the majority of the time!

I try to be a logical person.So when I saw this auction, I decided to speak up. I'm not attacking CMP or anybody there either. Regarding Garands, there are things we know, things we don't know, things we don't know that we don't know, and often things that we think we know but end up being wrong. What we now know is that there are a lot of chronological anomalies with IHC receivers, stocks, and barrels etc....With 1945 SA's not so much, but that may change in the future, who knows? Someone might find a batch of 1945 SA Garands with original -2 bolts..

But for now, "correct" is something that has rightly evolved into meaning something in Garand collecting terms, and the CMP seems to be historically way on board with that meaning.... I don't think it's a matter of policy for anyone at the CMP to ask someone to "prove it's not correct". I think their standard is higher than that. I just think this auction was a wrong judgement by someone.

Now on the other hand, if there was a knowledgeable armorer who actually examined this particular rifle and actually believed it was the original -2 bolt(which is at least remotely possible), then he should be able to convince his peers to list the rifle as a collector grade and the CMP should lay their cards on the table, selling it "as is" of course. But to simply list it as correct is just sloppy analysis.

Does anyone know if any documented original 1945's have a -2 bolt? maybe it's possible. I try to never say never.

But that said, I think it should have been listed as a SG

freelancer99 09-11-2019 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Coltgrabber (Post 1868296)
Those who follow the auctions have seen rifles posted from time to time that have some part that seems to disqualify them from being "Correct". There was a "Correct" early IHC on there a few years back that had a Julian dated mid 1955 stock. I asked a leading South Store armorer at the time how that could be correct? He winked and said "Can you prove it isn't correct" & we both had a laugh." ........And before anybody get their bowels in an uproar..... I am NOT attacking CMP nor any of their personnel, but merely reporting that it happens from time to time. You'll notice that they do have on each auction "Sold as is". I am amazed that they get it right the majority of the time!

:GS:


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:25 AM.