Warning Roll Mark

[1gunsnotenough]

Does lack of a warning roll mark add any significant collector interest or value?

 

[Ale-8(1)]

If a gun that SHOULD have the rollmark based on its serial number range doesn't have it, that might be of some minor interest to a very detail-oriented collector. I seriously doubt it would increase the gun's value significantly.

JMHO

 

[contender]

Actually,, mistakes like that aren't common,,, yet happen often enough to where it does seem to attract some interest in collectors. A small premium may often be realized if the gun is truly a "mistake" & not an altered gun.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Key word being "significantly".

Also, it might be difficult to determine if the gun had been futzed with. A stainless gun could easily have the legend polished away with no tell-tale residual evidence by someone with the skilz, and a blue gun could be similarly modified but with considerably more effort/expense. If a blue gun were being completely refinished for other reasons, removing the legend could be accomplished without much extra effort.

No way to determine how the gun was originally shipped as such an "error" would almost assuredly not be documented by The Factory.

And yet there are those who might find it worthwhile to pay a little extra for such an oddity.

 

[rugerguy]

doubt it if many were "errors" and NOT rollmarked ,if there is NO rollmark, you have to know if its older model, pre warning ( new model) or in fact like so many are removed ,redone, refinished or parts changed, who really knows.............since the days of most guns being "warning noticed" I feel there is not a price value difference save for the Old Models,early New models ( say what about 5-6 years)......you KNOW if it should be there or not..........gives you something to read out in the woods , on a cold lonely day of hunting and seeing NOTHING !!!! 8) :roll:

wish I had a nickel for every rollmark we took off guns when we had the shop.... :wink:

 

[OldRugerMan]

I don't like the "Warning" and I look for NM without it! :mrgreen:

 

[Ale-8(1)]

I don't like the "Warning" and I look for NM without it! :mrgreen:

I tend to agree, but it seems to keep the lawyers happy. :wink:

That said, do you dislike the warning enough to pay "significantly" more money for one lacking it? I don't, but that's just me.

:mrgreen:

 

[OldRugerMan]

I don't either. Pay is about the same. The greatest thing Ruger ever did was put the "Warning" on the bottom of the barrel. :mrgreen:

 

[contender]

A note of history.

Bill put the warning on the guns after he lost his only lawsuit due to an injury & the judge ruling against Sturm, Ruger & Co. (An OM that the owner failed to read the manual & loaded it fully.) Bill got pizzed off & added to warning,, TO REDUCE LIABILITY and save the company money. Hard to argue in a court of law when you advertise directly on the product to heed warnings. Just like cigarette packages.
Blame a lawsuit & Bill anger at the loss for the warning billboard.

 

[montegomx70]

I don't like the "Warning" and I look for NM without it! :mrgreen:

Me too, i hate the warning as well, the 44 super blackhawk i looked at had it on the bottom of the barrel ,not to bad but i still prefer them without it.