Simson & Co. SUHL. #1 BOUGHT
 

I see that the Simson & Co. SUHL. #1 was bought this time around on AuctionArms.

http://www.auctionarms.com/search/di...temNum=3320804

http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/ARS869f.jpg

http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/ARS869k.jpg

http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/ARS869g.jpg

Looks to me like you can almost make out the original serial number that's been ground off the receiver. Maybe with John's digital wizardry...
KFS

Esteemed TacFoley, I think you are right.


Now, this particular auction had great pictures, leaving little to the imagination. My question is, when they usually did a factory rework, how "good" did they buff, mark out or what the previous markings?

Did they leave the serial number and add their proofs / markings?

Don't know if this image adds much, but I make out 87 to the right of the 1.
http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/number.jpg

Excellent work!

This is a damn tough bunch and almost imposible to fool, except when previously held opinions, which may or may not have any basis in fact, come into play.

Let's see this bunch provide more critical analysis instead of the "Well known dealer told me..." stuff.

Tom A.
Who still gets flummoxed on occasion

For more info look under Restoration and Refinishing, topic is $2489 Shooter.

Tom A,
These men are SO sharp that I think a few of their remarks on this very pistol are worth revisiting.

From Thor:
[quote]posted 07-23-2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A parts gun, Simson chambered would be around 1925 vintage and rust blued. Barrel appears salt blued as does EJECTOR which is not right either for a Simson. Some parts are blued that should be strawed, some are strawed that should be blued. A little high for a parts gun, but not too bad!
The number 1 markings are a little funny given that the parts are from different guns. Thor
-------------------- <hr></blockquote>

From max2cam:
[quote] posted 07-24-2002
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the first photo of that gun notice the apparent tool marks on the milled out flat behind the toggle cam-ramp area of the frame.
How common is it for this spot on the frame to be perfectly smooth without machine tooling marks and how common for there to be marks there?

My 1938 has some machine tool traces in that area, but I thought earlier guns would not. Or did WWI production guns show more tooling blems as well?

<hr></blockquote>

From Hugh:
[quote] It is common for there to be some circular milling marks in this area. However, on that #1 gun, those look more like "engine-turning" marks rather than milling marks. That "1" looks funny also........ <hr></blockquote>


From tacfoley:
[quote]Dear American Persons - please enlighten this poor old fart sitting on the other side of the wet bit, but don't you have an organisation like the Trading and Advertising standards authority like we do over here in the backward old UK? The seller of this 'faked up' pistol in THIS burg would be seriously done by:
a. the Trading Standards Authority
b. the Gun Trade Association
c. the Home Office

As a result of prosecution under any or all of these organisations, he would, at the very least, lose his licence to trade in Section 1 Firearms - ie those which fire a cartridge, effectively preventing him from any further mis-representation of a live weapon.

I guess it's because there are just so many of 'em out there for you all that one bad apple doesn't even get noticed.......


<hr></blockquote>

Although true remarks, Wes you seem to be leaning towards not being as nice the last month or so... Pointing out faults doesn't seem like the Wes I remember from a while back? [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Can we help, or get some people to help you out? [img]eek.gif[/img] [img]wink.gif[/img]

even with digital wizardry... I didn't come up with anything more than Ron Wood did...

All I can see is the "87" to the right of the new '1' serial number.

Obviously a rework... the question is by who? and when?

Generally a pretty sloppy job of numbering with handheld stamps IMHO.

http://boards.rennlist.com/upload/1simson.jpg

I do not believe this is a true sale, his buddy down the street placed a bid to make it look right, and perhaps start a "history trail" as an original gun...this whole thing from one end to the other is a fake.

Edward,

The statements that I posted are very good observations and I agree with their assessments. This pistol is a fake and there have been quite a few men make observations using different points of view to come to the same conclusion. The above posting is my attempt to brag on their contributions. There is nothing negative about the post.
You are going to force me to resort to those damn Graemlins if you don't lighten up!


OOOOOOOOHHHHHHHH!! I now understand that you thought that I was knocking Ron, Herb, Karl, et al. Not at all. I was replying to Tom A's post and thought that I was including them also with those that I quoted. The whole bunch are quite a sharp crowd.

And to hell with Graemlins!

Get me a drink esteemed Wes <img src="graemlins/drink.gif" border="0" alt="[cherrsagai]" />