OK; this ping-ponging thread has begun to annoy me, so I must make the following observations"

Jim Hall's breathtaking A-1 Special has to be seen in hand to be truly appreciated; the only thing as good as the gun in hand is the wonderfully moving presentation Jim gave on the gun's history at one of our PGCA Annual Meetings long past.

The monotonous struggle in this thread for monikers selected for the faked-up gun supposedly mimicing the original gun intended for Nicholas has given me new impetus to select my own: I will henceforth refer to this recreation as the "CzaRepro."

The CzaRepro is a strange and mesmerizing gun; the feeling one gets examining it is not unlike trying on the London Fog raincoat of the reporter who broke the Lindberg kidnapping case (the faces of the eagles on the custom case gave me nightmares for days); Examining the real gun afterwards is understandably anticlimactic and underwhelming;

You can be absolutely sure that the estimated 80,000 people who viewed the gun at the NRA convention had positively no idea what all the 'hoopla' was about either, only that they were "knee deep in it."

If the CzaRepro surfaces again at the NRA Convention in Houston, there should be a simple voluntary questionnaire sheet the observers can fill out and drop in a ballot box with such questions as, "Does this look like the real Czar/Tsar 's gun to you?" If not, would you say that it appears (a) more ornate? (b) less ornate? " Also, "If you saw this gun come up at auction, how high would you bid up on it? (a) Very high (b) High (c) Medium (d) Low (e) Very low, or (f) Would not bid at all?"

Lastly and even more intriguing than this Maltese-Falconesque conundrum (is it possible that Peter Johnson actually saw the REAL one and described it accurately in his book, from whence it was faithfully 'reproed'???), look closely at the last May NRA Convention photo - the man standing on the extreme left examing the CzaRepro smacks mightily of a former Czar/Tsar himself - or is it only an apparition, like the second gunman on the grassy knoll??

Thank you, Kevin, for your level headed assessment of the Czar's gun situation. By the way, where is the real Czar's gun? Someone at a past Southern Side by Side told me who had bought it from Jack, but I was never able to confirm that. Who has it now?

The flipfloping does not bother me, but some of the posters are a tad bit vexing.

For its 100th birthday Winter Issue 2007.

Jim, I still have the color slide study series I did on your gun; I couldn't bear to throw them out, it is so beautiful.

Bill, you heard what I heard on the post-Jack P. owner, but I'm sure they "prefer to remain anonymous", per some of our upper-echelon Parkeratti.

ch, some of our posters are in desperate need of a spell-check app on their computers.

The San Francisco gun was on the list as a Whit 1 this was a very nice gun as redone early probably by Remington through the DelGrego shop. I am looking at another of the Whit 1 guns and will post it if this gun comes through.

Spell check, well I'm not embarresed I can't spell. Spell check may make you appear brilliant but sooner or later they are going to figure you out. So I am what am vocaberaly impared. But hey, I'm strong to the finish cause I eat my spinich.

Jim Hall, thanks for the DGJ reference.

:)Then it was L C Smith built for the Czar??

I have every reason to believe I also own not one, but several Not The Czar's guns. A few are not the Czars Hammer guns, and I even have a bunch of not the Czar's Winchesters. I Don't know if any of my Parker not the Czar's guns have ever left the United States, but I do know several went to South Carolina this fall.
Seriously, I remember when the Galazan gun was done, it was pretty upsetting to a lot of people in the gun community, not the least of whom was the owner of it, who was duped out of a lot of money. A very good friend was dragged into court to testify and he wasn't any too pleased as I recall. Yes, it was, and is a very beautiful gun, created by a very talented individual, but it's hard to forget his original motivation.