Hi Norm,
Here is what I saw...granted the photos do not allow much detailed looks...
1. No wear patterns at all.
2. The depth of the "1916" looked a little shallow on the chamber (i.e. as in...having been sanded down during a rework).
3. Straw looks like it was just done last week. Too new looking and too uniform in color. No trigger finger wear pattern showing on the right side of the trigger.
4. Straw is lacking what you guys called a couple of years back its coating of "sperm whale" oil or varnish...
5. The gun shows not the slightest evidence of rust or patina/oxidation under the blueing.
6. Color of the blueing looks a bit too grey and not typical DWM rust blue.
7. Gun looks way, way too clean...as if it was soaked in an solvent, ultra-sonic cleaning bath.
8. Grips screws look like they were done, last week as well.
9. Cannot tell for sure from the photos...but the size of the '1916' number fonts on the left side of the receiver appear to be the same size as on the left side of the front sight base...as I understand they should be of differing sizes...
Here are the things I would ask the seller to send me detailed, close-up photo of :
1. Shot showing the size of the rear toggle pin/flange.
2. Shot showing the stampings on the underside of the barrel to see if any "halos" are present.
3. Close-up shot of the C/M proofs and the "1916" stampings on the left side of the receiver.
4. Close up shot of the C/M proofs on the left side of the barrel, near the shoulder, and on the underside of the barrel, if present there too.
5. Close-up shot, top view, of the Navy rear sight pulled back...to show if the metal around the "200" number is "in the white" or not.
6. Close up of the serial number and C/M stamped on the bottom of the magazine...since the ad says the magazine matches the gun.
Regards,
Pete... <img border="0" alt="[typing]" title="" src="graemlins/yltype.gif" />