Ron, your points are valid, but it still looks good to me. My feeling is that it may be too darned good for a gun that old, but everything looks right. The finish and markings are identical to mine, and there are none of the common signs of "restoration". The only thing odd is, as you note, the toggle lock, which could be a contemporary replacement (see below).
IIRC, it was common for persons wanting an Army test to submit at least two pistols. One would be tested (rust, sand, etc.); the other would be kept intact as a reference model and a source of spare parts if needed (the toggle lock, later replaced?).
The order to perform a test would not necessarily indicate how many pistols were submitted. If this was a test pistol, it was the reference model. It could have been the test pistol that was in the holster rather than this one.
As to the holster itself, I don't think it would stand up, but then this was not a field test. The holster(s) would have been produced only to see if RIA had an idea of what was involved in case the pistol was adopted, not to develop a production model.
The RIA stamp is either correct or an excellent fake. I sure can't come up with any previously marked holster that it could have been made from. FWIW, "E.H.S." was Emil H. Schmitten, an inspector in the leather shop.
I didn't see any mention of a serial number? Did he give it?
I still think I would pay the current bid price ($6500) if I had the money. It would (IMHO) be a bargain.
Jim
|