New CHE on the Way

[Pa SxS]

I'm amazed that you guys keep saying this gun is the only one made in this configuration or this gun is only 1 of x number made in this configuration when you know the data in TPS is extrapolated to take into account for the missing records.

[ArtS]

I may be misunderstanding what you are saying, but it seems you are saying the known records were tabulated and then scaled up (extrapolated) to allow for a proportional increase in all the categories in the tabulation. That means the tabulation in TPS was over reported (above what the records revealed), not under reported. For instance, if 20% of the records were missing and they tabulated 4 guns of a certain specification, then the count in the book would have been listed as 5. So a 1 of 5 gun may have been really a 1 of 4 gun. Or a 1 of 6 gun. No one can really say. What you can say is that it is very rare. The other fact is that if, for instance, only 1 or 2 guns of a specification were found in 80% of the records, there is a better than average chance that no more were made in the smaller number of lost records. Additionally, the scaling could be right or wrong depending on what is being considered. For instance, there may have been more or less records lost during the time Bernard barrels were used vs Parker Special. A different scaling factor would have been required for each specification and time period.

I have never heard any mention of extrapolation, but I am surprised it was done. I always assumed that everyone realized it was a count from the known records and that some of them are missing. Generating biased data doesn't seem something that would have been really helpful.

In the case of rare specifications, it really doesn't change much. Unless the majority of the records are missing, the number doesn't even change. Extrapolating the number of 1 or 2 guns will still round off to 1 or 2. For 3 or 4 guns it may round off to 4 or 5. I think it is very, very unlikely that the records show only 1 or 2 guns of a certain specification and then a search of the lost records turn up a batch of 50 of them. They are rare for a reason in the existing records. I think everyone knows that the records are not perfect. There are many known instances where the records are simply wrong based on the gun as found. The only baseline we have to use as a measure of rarity is the tabulation published in TPS and will not change barring a finding of the missing records.

A good question is: how many guns are missing from the records vs the serial numbers used? We all know the serialization book is incomplete compared to the known records due to leaving out the many of the lower grade guns during certain periods. However, we know what serial numbers are recorded in the order books and we know there is an accepted total number of serial numbers, so how much was this "extrapolation"?

[Cold Spring]

Art, I'm happy that worked out so well for you. I'd been watching your new CHE on GB and had my finger on the bid tab several times as it timed out but in the end relied on that goofy description and decided I didn't want another project gun. Otherwise we might have gotten into a bidding war. Again, happy for you.

[ArtS]

It's amazing how many guns I have purchased at what I think is a good price due to poor descriptions. One of the best was a gun listed as a Fox Sterlingworth with a description that said almost nothing. One look at the pictures showed it was a small bore NID in great shape. I sent him a question and asked if the gun was the actual gun shown in the pictures. His quick replay was that it was the actual gun for sale. Since he offered returns, I bid his minimum and was the only bidder. I got it for only a few hundred dollars. Thst sort of thing happens a lot.

[Dean Romig]

Originally Posted by Chuck Bishop

I'm amazed that you guys keep saying this gun is the only one made in this configuration or this gun is only 1 of x number made in this configuration when you know the data in TPS is extrapolated to take into account for the missing records.

Chuck, I think the claims of “only” should be redefined as “only known”.

That would take into account any missing records that may indicate otherwise.





.

[Chris T.]

Vague descriptions and bad pictures can make for a great buy. You have to interpret what you can see in the pictures and make an educated decision. Sometimes it's worth rolling the dice...

John,
That CHE is a neat piece. I'd enjoy the heck out of it just the way it is! Just my $.02.

[ArtS]

I have done quite a bit of work on the CHE.

I cleaned the metal with Ballistol and Frontier pads. I went over the barrel exteriors with Flitz. After disassembly I cleaned and lubed all the internals. There was surprisingly little crud there.

The first issue was the recoil pad. I removed the old pad and believe it was original to the gun.



This is the butt after removal. The stock with pad equaled the LOP from the factory letter and there are no screw holes under the pad, so I believe it came with the gun. I installed a Silvers repro pad with about 1/2" more length.

The trigger plate was an basic trigger plate with essentially no engraving.



I got a D grade plate off an early gun from Brian with 4 quail on the plate. While not a C grade, it complements the gun well. It took quite a bit of work to fit the plate, as the replacement was too thick and too tight for the frame. A few hours of filing and fitting took care of this. The triggers were also way too tight in the slots so the triggers had to be fitted.

The stocks looked pretty good from a distance but up close there were a lot of issues. The left cheek had two deep grooves, the left side had a long scrape, and the right side had several relatively big grooves. Besides that, there were a lot of surface scratches, bumps and compressions.





I used steam to try and raise the grooves and compressions as much as possible. There were numerous very small dents and rubs. I got most of them out completely and a couple of the larger ones were left with a shallow defect. The only two that improved but stayed noticeable were the two on the left cheek.

After the recoil pad was off I cut off the finish with 220 to within 1/8"-1/4" of the checkering to be able to blend the finish in and not alter the checkering or or bordering. I then used 220 to carefully take the remaining defects down, with the exception of the two on the left cheek.

At that point I sanded with 320 and 400. This was followed by a heavy coat of Timberlux left on a while then rubbed out, followed by two more coats laid on and rubbed dry. I left this overnight then put a heavy coat on with 800 grit wet/dry paper to fill any sanding or scuff marks. I wiped this down when dry with alcohol than put on two more coats rubbed until dry. I should mention that I use the fast drying Timberlux.

At this point the gun is where I think I will leave it. It is original except for the pad, which was simply not useable, and the D instead of C trigger plate. It satisfies me, looks good and is serviceable. Anything past this point will not be original, the cost will escalate drastically and be no more functional.

The only minor things I want to finish are:

Remove the pad and take it down slightly on a pneumatic sander to it's final shape, then reinstall and seat the plugs.

Clean up and time the trigger guard screws.

Lighten the right hand trigger to match the left.

Deep clean the bores and polish them.

While the pad is back off I will likely add a few coats of finish, then wax and buff.

Here are a few pictures of the completed work.