Another Look at the Economy and Gun Collecting      (posted July 25, 2008)

 

 

At the beginning of the year, I posted an article titled “The Economy and Gun Collecting.”   The gist of the piece was that economic expansions and contractions come and go but, in the aggregate, the value of collectible U.S. martial arms has continued to increase over the years at a rate higher than inflation (often a lot higher).  This has been the situation for over 30 years and there have been very few exceptions. 

 

The general health of the national economy has deteriorated a bit since my original posting on the subject back in January.  Fuel prices have continued to increase with a resultant “ripple effect” on virtually all segments of the economy.  The near-collapse of the housing market in several areas of the country and the problems a number of the large money-center banks are experiencing add to the uncertainty and general feeling of “doom and gloom” that have permeated much of the country.  The pending presidential election in November has many people on edge as the mere thought of a “President Obama” (I can’t put those two words together without feeling nauseous) is a possibility too frightening to contemplate.  If you think things are perceived to be bad now, just wait until a singularly unqualified Marxist radical occupies the White House.  About the only thing he has ever said that I agree with is that, if elected, he will bring “change” to the country.  There is no doubt about that, but you ain’t gonna like it! Compared this guy, Jimmy Carter is the reincarnation of Thomas Jefferson, but I digress…

 

            Actually, while there are clearly some troubling aspects to the current economic situation in the country, the basic underpinnings of our financial foundation are still intact.  As long as we don’t do something incredibly stupid (such as the above nausea-inducing scenario), the current economic slowdown will reverse itself and the pendulum will invariably swing back the other way.  One phenomenon that always occurs during a time of a perceived problem economy is what I like to call the “I’m doing OK but the other guy is really hurting” syndrome.  Many people are doing about as well as they ever have but believe that almost everyone else is one step away from a soup line. The constant negative stories trumpeted by the “unbiased” media every single day only adds to this widespread misconception. Yes, there are segments of the economy that are not doing too well right now and some people are unquestionably suffering because of it.  However, the truth is that the majority of individuals who still get out of bed every morning and go to work are doing pretty well.

 

            This brings us back to the topic at hand.  There does not seem to be any noticeable retrenchment in prices for quality U.S. martial weapons and related accessories.  On the other hand, some of the items on Internet auction sites often linger a bit longer than in the past and there seem to be fewer really motivated buyers than before. Regardless, the market for U.S. martial collectibles is much stronger than many other collecting themes today.  A recent article in the Wall Street Journal reflected how the market for antique furnishings has really taken a hit with some quality pieces bringing 50% or less of what they would have sold for a year ago.  I’m sure there are many other collecting themes that are experiencing similar problems today but you’re not seeing a 50% reduction for original U.S. Krag carbines or pre-WWI ’03 Springfields. As stated, while the price increases of the past five or six years have moderated somewhat, there simply hasn’t been a wholesale across-the board reduction in values and, if history is any guide in such matters, there won’t be.

 

             Interestingly, the two segments that seem to be doing almost as well as before are the “low end” and the very “high dollar” collectibles while the items in the middle do not sell as quickly and have experienced the most “flattening” of price increases.  This seemingly paradoxical situation is easily explainable.  Those who are watching their discretionary dollars may opt to buy a $300 rifle rather than the nicer $700 or $800 example they would have considered a year ago.  Conversely, the guys who are doing really well financially are still spending money at the same rate as before and don’t think twice about peeling off several thousand dollars to buy that “high end” collectible that caught their fancy.  To some extent, this mirrors the real estate market in parts of the country.  The low price and very high price houses typically sell pretty well while those in the middle often languish on the market and sellers are often forced to reduce prices.

 

 I will be interested to see how the upcoming auction of the CMP M1A1 carbines goes.  I suspect that a number of guys have been holding on to their jealously–guarded “gun buying” money for a while in anticipation of snagging one of these desirable weapons when they finally become available.  As usual, the well-heeled guys will spend what they need to in order to acquire one of the better examples. I suspect that the current economic woes (real or perceived) will have little impact on the auction prices of the CMP guns. I also think that values of the really high quality arms of all types will continue to hold up although future price increases for these may also moderate a bit as compared to the past few years.  What happens to the “average” collectibles will be interesting to see. I think prices will remain pretty stable for the next year or so and will not continue to increase at an almost geometric rate annually as they have for the past few years.

 

            In conclusion, if you’re having trouble making your mortgage payment or putting food on the table, then buying more guns is probably not going to be a high priority for you. On the other hand, if your personal financial situation is more or less the same as it has been, then buying a good quality martial collectible might be a prudent thing to do, from both a satisfaction and investment standpoint. If the market for such items hasn’t collapsed by now (and it clearly hasn’t), I doubt if you’ll have to worry about the value of your collection in the future. As an aside, the recent Supreme Court decision regarding the Second Amendment bodes well for our right to continue owning guns. In the past, some people have worried that in a few years the government would confiscate their collections. While I’m sure that prospect would appeal to B. Hussein Obama, the recent SCOTUS ruling will make that much more difficult for him and his ilk.

 

            Remember, that while you’re worrying about your neighbor’s economic situation, he may be doing the same for you.  Just as you may be curious as to how he was able to pay for that recent room addition on his house, he may not be able to understand why you bought that pricey M1A1 carbine. While there is no question that some in this country are experiencing economic hard times right now, this is not the case for most individuals, regardless of what you may hear from renowned economists such as Katie Couric and Al Gore.  The United States is still the greatest country in the history of mankind and we all need to do our part to make sure it stays that way. If you want a gun and can afford to buy it, go ahead and do so while the market remains more or less “flat.” The item you’re looking at now certainly won’t be any cheaper a couple of years from now when the economic picture improves and U.S. martial arms begin yet another dizzyingly upward spiral. 

 

 

 

More thoughts on “tracing the history” of a Gun.             (Posted 6-27-08)

 

 

I get a lot of inquiries from guys wanting to find out the “history” of a particular U.S. military weapon and the question seems to be asked with more and more frequency.  As we have mentioned here before, in the vast majority of cases, that simply isn’t possible.  Even on those rare occasions when some information can be garnered, it is normally just a “snapshot” of the weapon at a given point. For example, factory letters can often be obtained for some U.S. military firearms manufactured under government contract.  The most common of these are the various Colt handguns such as the Model 1911, Model 1909 and Model 1917 as well as some of the Smith & Wesson revolvers made for the government. Even in such cases, however, the information only reveals the date and destination of the shipment from the factory.  While interesting, there is no subsequent information revealed regarding the gun in question.  Likewise, for those fortunate enough to obtain a “hit” on their weapon in the Springfield Research Service database are only going to find out a snippet of information in the gun’s “chain of custody” while in military service.  As mentioned before, this information can range from the mundane and relatively unimportant (i.e., the rifle was turned into Springfield Armory for refurbishing on a particular date) to extremely important and noteworthy (i.e.,  a M1896 Krag carbine was issued to a member of the 1^st Volunteer Cavalry (“Rough Riders”) or a M1873 “Trapdoor Carbine” or Colt SAA was issued to member of the 7^th Cavalry and used in the Little Big Horn battle.  Most of the SRS “hits” are in the former category and, while interesting, hardly constitute a complete history of the gun in question.  Since only an estimated 3% or less (probably a lot less) of military firearms are reflected in the SRS database, the odds of discovering even this modicum of information are pretty low.

 

Some have wondered why records regarding a particular weapon’s subsequent disposition after it left the factory weren’t maintained and available today.  They point out, correctly, that there was strict accountability for the weapons issued to a particular unit, thus those records should still be around.  The primary reason why this is not the case is because such accountability only existed while the weapons were in the possession of the unit to which they were issued.  During peacetime, such records were maintained until the weapons were transferred to another entity or “turned in” for some other reason. After the guns were “off the books” of the unit, the records were destroyed as there would have been no reason to keep them. Pity they weren’t thinking of us collectors today!  When a unit deployed overseas, all bets were off regarding accountability of weapons as it would have been impossible to account for guns lost, destroyed, abandoned (yes, it happened), “carried home” (yes, that also happened on some occasions), captured, traded for another weapon, etc.  Theoretically, the weapons were all supposed to have been accounted for when a unit was withdrawn from a theater of operations but the realities of the situation usually meant that any gun that was missing was simply shown as “lost in action.”  Even these incomplete records were destroyed when the weapons were turned in upon the unit’s return stateside.  To the average supply clerk or weapon’s room sergeant, a rifle was simply something else to account for along with blankets, overcoats and socks and not the treasured and valuable collectible as we view it today.

 

In a perfect world, we would be able to have complete documentation on a particular weapon consisting of when it was made, every soldier to whom it was issued and when, where and how it was used.  Unfortunately, this isn’t the case. Ideally, I would love to be able to respond to such an inquiry as follows:

 

“Q.  Can you give me the history of my M1 rifle, serial number 123456?

 

A.  Your rifle was assembled on March 16, 1943 beginning at 1:03 PM by Springfield Armory employee Robert Charles Wilson. The weather was unseasonably warm for mid-March in Massachusetts and Wilson wished he could have taken the day off.  When he started assembling the rifle, Mr. Wilson had just finished lunch at the Springfield Armory cafeteria where he dined on broiled chicken (which was a bit overdone) and green beans that were too salty for his taste.  Wilson was the youngest of four siblings (two boys and a girl). He got along with his mother but he and his father has issues that he never talked about.  He tried to enlist in the Army but was flat-footed and near-sighted, thus took a job at Springfield.  He was dating Cynthia Morgenstern, a rather plain-looking young lady but with a great personality who he met at a church picnic a year earlier. They talked about marriage but she insisted that he have a “paying job,” hence his employment at the Armory.

 

After cutting his finger on a screwdriver and smashing his thumb with an assembly mallet, Wilson completed assembly of the rifle at 3:47 PM. He would have finished it earlier but the overdone chicken resulted in some intestinal distress which resulted in several “delays.”  The rifle was then passed to Bob G. Willett, an employee of the Ordnance Department for inspection. It was found to be satisfactory and he applied the proof firing mark and the final inspection stamp. He always found it curious that the stamp was “GAW” when his initials were “BGW” but he never asked anyone as he didn’t want to appear dense.  The rifle was packed in a wooden crate with nine other rifles and shipped out via truck express the following day (March 17) at 9:10 am en route to the Springfield Ordnance District receiving facility. 

 

It remained in storage there until March 23 when it was sent to Camp Beauregard (near Alexandria, Louisiana) and arrived on March 31 at 4:14 PM.  On April 3, 1943, the rifle was unpacked and logged into the arms room records by supply sergeant Timothy “Tiny Tim” (don’t ask how he got the nickname) Jones.  Jones was a recent draftee from Skunkworks, New Hampshire and was not at all happy about being assigned to Camp Beauregard. He want to do his job, “keep his nose clean,” and get out of the Army as soon as possible.  The rifles in the shipment were eventually issued to Company B, 3^rd Infantry and your particular weapon was assigned to 19 year old Pvt. Millard Duckworth, (ID #5589689878) who had just joined the unit the previous month after volunteering at the recruiting center in his hometown of Ames, Iowa. He often thought about what on earth possessed him to volunteer.  Duckworth played baseball in high school (left hand pitcher) and imagined himself going to the big leagues after his stint in the Army.  However, he wasn’t nearly as good as he thought himself to be as his fastball was actually pretty lame and his control wasn’t up to pro standards, however he was a decent hitter (for a pitcher).  Pvt. Duckworth qualified with the rifle at Camp Beauregard but thought it was too heavy and recoiled too much and he much preferred his Marlin .30-30 lever action that he used back home for deer hunting.  On the evening of June 2, 1943 Duckworth and his squad had detailed-stripped their M1 rifles and he got the accidentally got the trigger assembly mixed up with the one of the rifle belonging to PFC George Wray (rifle serial # 222098) which had different drawing numbers on the housing and hammer.  It worked fine and neither soldier was aware of the switch even though the rifle became “non-original” at that point.

 

On November 17, 1943, Duckworth and three other members of his unit were transferred to the Camp Sludge motor pool at Bayonne, New Jersey.  It may not be coincidental that all four were given poor fitness reports by their first sergeant.  Pvt. Duckworth dutifully turned in his rifle and the supply sergeant commented that he didn’t take very good care of the weapon and made him clean it again before he would accept it.  The rifle remained in the arms room as newer Garands had been received just before the unit shipped out to Great Britain to train for the rumored cross-channel invasion.  Rifle #123456 along with three other rifles (serial numbers 345681, 199098, and 333598) were shipped to the Hartford Ordnance District depot on February 12, 1944 for storage and subsequent disposition and arrived at the facility on March 3, 1944. Your rifle was cleaned by a part-time worker, Phil Hendershot (middle name not known) and put back into storage where it remained until after the war.

 

On March 7, 1946, your rifle, along with several hundred others in storage at the Hartford OD, were sent to Raritan Arsenal for inspection and overhaul where they arrived on March 15. In an amazing coincidence, Pvt. Duckworth was discharged from the Army from the Army the same day in the same state (New Jersey). 

 

 The rifle was logged into Raritan’s records the following day and on March 17, it was one of the rifles assigned to Armory worker Ralph Waldo Fosdick for inspection and refurbishment. Fosdick, a native of Troy, New York, had worked at the Raritan for about a year and a half was glad he was able to miss getting drafted.  As Fosdick looked at the rifle he muttered, “Gee, what idiot had this rifle?  The stock looks like a fencepost and the barrel a sewer pipe.”  Fosdick rebarrelled the rifle and replaced the stock along with some worn springs. He stamped the stock with a “RA-P” inspection stamp.  He had always been curious about the letters and guessed that the “RA” meant Raritan Arsenal but couldn’t figure out what the “P” mean until somebody told him it was the initial of his boss, Harry Petersen.  When preparing to send the rifle to the warehouse for storage, he accidentally bumped it on the side of the rack which is why you see that 2 ¼ “ ding on the left side, below the stock ferrule (assuming you haven’t sanded it out yet).  Fosdick looked around to make sure no one else saw what happened and the rifle was sent to the “cosmoline room” (Fosdick pitied the poor schmucks who worked there) before being sent to the warehouse where it remained until May 5, 1951.  This rifle, and 671 other M1s, were shipped to Benicia Arsenal for possible use in Korea.  The rifles, including yours, arrived in California on June 1, 1951 where they were sent to the storage facility there after being logged in by Arsenal employee Selma Frump.  As events transpired, the rifles were never issued and remained in storage at Benicia until August 15, 1961 when they were ordered to be transferred to Anniston Army Depot.  As these rifles, including #123456, had been unused since being overhauled at Raritan they didn’t require any work and were logged into Anniston upon arrival in Alabama by Depot employee Lester F. Myers who dutifully checked the serial number and general condition of the rifle.  Since it was covered with cosmoline and was slippery, Myers accidentally dropped the rifle on the concrete floor which is why the buttplate is indented a bit . He shrugged and then picked up the rifle and placed it in a wooden crate along with hundreds of others for long-term storage.  The rifle remained in storage at Anniston until January 18, 1999 when it was acquired by the Civilian Marksmanship Program for sale to qualified purchasers. CMP armorer Wesley G. Rogers, cleaned and degreased the rifle and inspected it for functioning, etc. and it was placed in the “sale rack.” The rifle selected to fill an order by Clark W. Griswold of Brokeback, Texas on April 16, 2000. He used his income tax refund to buy the rifle which seriously ticked off his wife who wanted new drapes for the living room.  Griswold had to sleep on the couch for a few days until he wised up and sent her some flowers which got him out of the doghouse.  He received the rifle on May 7, 2000 at 5:33 PM and eagerly opened the FedEx box. Upon examining the rifle, he was a bit disappointed as he had hoped to have gotten lucky and received a M1 still remaining in its WWII configuration rather than the usual post-war rebuild.  He took the rifle to the local range and fired 4 clips at the target with mediocre results and took the rifle back home and gave it a cursory cleaning. After getting fed up with his wife’s constant complaining about the old drapes, he took the rifle to the Dallas Market Hall Gun Show on September 18, 2000 to sell it and stop the old bag’s (excuse me…”concerned spouse’s”) incessant nagging. The rifle was bought by Doug Surpie, a part-time gun dealer and flea market merchant for $75.00 more than it originally cost Griswold.  On October 5, 2000, Surpie had the rifle on his table at the local gun show in your town.  Dan Stickett saw the rifle and wanted to buy it but only had a personal check which was refused (which is a good thing as it would have bounced as he only had $14.31 available in his account at that time).  Several other people at the show looked at the rifle until you came along at 11:47 AM and bought it after haggling $25.00 off the price, giving Surpie a total profit on the rifle of $175.00 (some of which went to buy watered-down soft drinks, stale nachos and a greasy barbeque sandwich at the gun show concession stand). 

 

I apologize for not having any information on Pvt. Duckworth’s E.R.A. when he pitched in high school or Phil Hendershot’s middle name.  Regardless, I still hope the above thumbnail sketch of your rifle’s history is of some interest to you.  Please let me know if you require any additional information  regarding your rifle as time didn’t permit me to fully research the weapon so I could give you a more detailed response.  Best wishes.”

 

OK, I guess this proves that I occasionally have too much time on my hands.  Anyway, if such a scenario could happen (yea, right!), we would have an answer to the age-old collector wish….”If this old gun could only talk.”  In the case of M1 rifle #123456, somebody would quickly tell it to shut up. 

 

 

 

Is this where the future of collecting is headed?        (Posted 6-12-08)

 

 

 The following was recently offered via one of the more popular internet auction sites. 

 

“Up for auction: A upgrade service on YOUR commercial M1A1 stock. Starting out with YOUR stock. All metal is professionally parkerized to USGI specs. Replace leather with the correct weight and color and re-assembled  with original Arsenal 7-4 rivets. The stock and handguard will be professionally refinished with boiled linseed oil for a more of a USGI look and feel. All original style markings and cartouches are then stamped on the stock. The cartouches are a mirror image of the original USGI stampings. The end result as you can see, your stock will appear very similar to a USGI arsenal rebuild stock. The next best thing to a original stock at a fraction of the cost. This AD is for a stock upgrade service only.”

 

Those of you who have read my website for some time are aware of my feelings regarding fake markings stamped on stocks, etc. However, this guy is taking the practice several steps beyond simply faking markings and is doing the “whole ball of wax” regarding the “creation” of a totally bogus U.S. GI M1A1 carbine stock.  To his credit, the person offering the “service” is upfront with what he is proposing. He isn’t doing anything illegal. Whether or not it is ethical is a matter, I suppose, of personal opinion.  In any event, I can’t image why anyone would be interested in such a service.  This isn’t a case of somebody wanting to “restore” markings on a genuine stock that have been worn off or otherwise removed (although that practice really isn’t much better).  No, this is case of someone taking a commercial stock and attempting to change it into something that resembles a genuine GI M1A1 stock.  The person availing himself of such a service obviously knows exactly what he is doing. However, if he decides to sell the stock to a subsequent buyer, will that buyer be informed of the true nature of the stock or will he be duped into believing it is the real thing?  While an honest individual would disclose the origins of the stock, you can rest assured that not all people fall into that category and there will surely be some nefarious sales of such stocks at some future date.  You may say that is not the fault of the person offering the above service. It’s hard to argue that someone is responsible for the actions of another person at some future date. That may be true, but if the bogus stock wasn’t created in the first place, there would be no opportunity for a crook to defraud a naïve or uniformed purchaser.

 

I am not going to rehash in detail my objections to bogus markings, etc.  Anyone interested, can scroll down the postings here and read several pieces pertaining to this topic.  My point is that there seems to be a growing trend toward acceptance of what I like to call “created collectibles.”  A legitimate restoration using genuine parts is an entirely different matter, although there are certainly some ethical considerations involved in that practice as well.  However, purposely modifying a commercial item to mimic a genuine historical artifact is, at least to my mind, a practice that shouldn’t be encouraged.   There is absolutely nothing wrong with an “entrepreneur” trying to make a few extra bucks on this side but I think the above practice crosses some imaginary line.  I’m sure some of you aren’t the least bit bothered by the ad shown above. To be honest, as I get older (which seems to happen every year!), things like this seem to bother me less and less. In the grand scheme of things, it’s probably not a big deal, especially compared to some of the things facing our country these days.  On the other hand, I just hate to see martial arms collecting evolving in this manner.

 

I guess I have two questions to ask the guy who placed the auction ad:

 

(1)    You said that “The cartouches are a mirror image of the original USGI stampings.”  Doesn’t that mean they would appear exactly backward from the genuine stampings?

(2)    Will you take photocopies of U.S. currency in payment for your services? Like the commercial stock that has undergone your “upgrade” services, a photocopy of a hundred dollar bill is also a realistic representation of the “real thing.”  I think a trade of a fake stock for fake money sounds pretty fair to me (the Secret Service types might feel otherwise, but that’s another matter!).

 

 

 

“Are you looking for a “Type 5.33” M1 Garand rifle?           (posted 5-23-08)

 

An acquaintance recently asked me about a M1A1 carbine which he was contemplating purchasing.  He said the seller indicated it was a “Type 2” and wanted to know what things he should look for.  My first question was, “What is a ‘Type 2” carbine?”  He said he didn’t know, hence the inquiry.  I gave him a brief synopsis on the key points to observe on a M1A1 carbine but the episode got me thinking about the prevalent use of various “Types” by U.S. martial collectors.  There may be a few exceptions that escape me, but the U.S. military did not use the term “type” to identify a model or variation of a weapon.  This was routinely done by the Japanese in WWII but it wasn’t an American practice.  However, today’s collectors have embraced the use of “type” or “types” to differentiate variants of weapons. In some cases, this may make sense if all parties are familiar with the vernacular but in many other cases it can be a cause for confusion (such as the above M1A1 example).

 

In the interest of full disclosure, I have used informal “type” designations in several of my books. However, this was almost always done to distinguish variations in parts and not for complete weapon “types.”  For example, keeping with the M1 carbine theme, I routinely use the terms “Type 1,” “Type 2,” and “Type 3” to identify the three variants of M1 carbine bands.  The first was the narrow band without bayonet lug, the second the wider bayonet without bayonet lug and the third the wider band with bayonet lug. The terms are also sometimes used to denote the three distinct types of rear sights (non-adjustable, milled adjustable and stamped adjustable).  Regardless, even though these terms have been in widespread use by carbine collectors for 25 or 30 years, I always try to take pains to make it clear that such terminology is informal and also generally enclose the term in quotation marks to reinforce the point. If there is any doubt as to the variant of part being discussed, then it would be better to use a bit lengthier, but much clearer, description such as “milled adjustable rear sight.”

 

Some collectors, and even some writers, take this several steps further by using the term “Type” to describe variants of weapons.  This may have been intended to simplify identification but, to my mind, it only confuses the issue.  Still staying with the M1 carbine theme, let’s try to figure out what constitutes the three “types” of M1 (or M1A1) carbines. It certainly can’t refer simply to the type of barrel band on the carbine in question.  If so, how does one distinguish a post-WWII rebuilt carbine with a “Type 3” (wide band with bayonet lug) from a late WWII example still in its factory configuration with the same pattern band?  Does a “Type 2” carbine have a “Type 1,” “Type 2,” or “Type 3” rear sight? Does it have a “high wood” (“Type 1?”) or “low wood” (“Type 2”) stock?  How about a “Type 1,” “Type 2,” “Type 3,” or “Type 4” magazine catch?  Does it have a “flat top” or “round top” bolt?  Are those two bolts classified as “Type 1” and “Type 2?”  I could go on, but you probably get the idea.

 

This is not restricted to carbines as I’ve seen “Type 1, ““Type 2,” or “Type 3,”  etc. used for other weapons such as M1903 rifles and Krags (just to name two) by collectors and some writers. I recently heard of a “Type 4-C” Krag carbine being offered for sale. I’ve got a fair number of Krag rifles and carbines and am pretty familiar with the different variants, but I couldn’t tell you what a “Type 4-C” Krag carbine is if you held a gun to my head (regardless of the “type classification” of said gun!).

 

 While the informal use by collectors of different “Types” to identify variations of parts is pretty well established, the same is not true of complete weapons as, in many cases, there are just too many variables involved to categorize them in such neat and tidy packages. Throwing about made-up “type” terms, especially when it comes to denoting variants of weapons, can be utterly confusing.  If you want to make it clear to someone exactly what type of weapon to which you’re referring, I think it would be better to take a bit more time and clarify exactly what you mean.  Rather than ask what to look for on a “Type 2” M1A1 carbine, the better question would be what to look for on an early 1944 production M1A1 carbine purportedly remaining in its original factory configuration (if that is indeed what a “Type 2” is).  Likewise, if someone is trying to describe a Model 1896 Krag carbine that has been restocked with a Model 1899 stock and fitted with another pattern rear sight, then they should go ahead and say that without resorting to some made-up arbitrary and possibly misleading term.

 

By the way, I just saw a post-war rebuilt M1 Garand rifle. It looked like a “Type 6” but had some features of a “Type 3” and some of a “Type 7.”  I’m going to call it a “Type 5.33” (add the three types and divide by 3).  Anyone interested?

 

 

 

Clichés                                    (posted 5-2-08)

 

 In a previous posting here I alluded to over-used and/or annoying clichés. We also discussed some “pet peeves” before but clichés don’t quite fall into the same category. Since I’m in the mood for a bit of levity, I thought it might be a good time to kick around this topic a bit. By the way, are the terms “and/or” or “kick around” clichés?  If so, I just used two in the first paragraph.

 

While this subject is certainly not worthy of much in-depth analysis in these days of high gas prices, scary Democratic presidential nominees and uncertain economic times, let’s look at a few of the more common clichés used today (with tongue firmly in cheek).

 

“Win-Win” 

 

I understand why this term is sometimes used, but isn’t “win-win” really the same thing as a tie?  Also, why don’t we see the term “lose-lose” more often?

 

“At the end of the day”

 

OK, this one has really taken on a life of its own. You can’t listen to a “talking heads” television program without someone spouting the phrase.  It never refers to an actual day but I guess it is considered more lyrical than “at the end of a specified period of time.”

 

“Talking Heads”

 

Actually only the mouths are talking! 

 

 

“I could care less”

 

I think one of my old English teachers beat me up over this one a long time ago.  The phrase actually conveys the opposite meaning of what is intended. If one “could care less,” it means that they have not exhausted the extent to which they could still care less about something.  What should be said is “I couldn’t care less.”

 

 

“It’s not about the money, it’s about the principle of the thing”

 

When you hear this, always think to yourself “BS, it’s about the money.”  Nine times out of ten you’ll be right.

 

“Think outside the box”

 

This had to have been invented by some corporate motivational guru. It may have been clever at one time but, for Pete’s sake, let’s put it back in the box and throw it under the bus.

 

“Throw somebody under the bus”

 

I’m not sure where this came from. If you want to dump on somebody, why throw them under a bus?  Why not a train or a truck?  What’s special about a bus as compared to other wheeled vehicles?

 

“If I had a nickel for every time I …(fill in the blank)”

 

Geez, let’s update this one already. What with inflation heating up and gas going at nearly four bucks a gallon, let’s wish for a dollar for “every time we … (fill in the blank).” The tooth fairy had a rate increase years ago so it's time to do the same with this hoary cliché.

 

“Bankers only lend money to people who don’t need it”

 

This one holds particular interest for me.  Actually, it is another case of “BS.”  In truth, bankers only lend (or should only lend) money to people who can pay it back.  People who don’t need money rarely borrow it as nobody likes to pay interest when they don’t have to.

 

“Weapon of choice”

 

I’m not really sure why this cliché bugs me, but it does.  It is common to hear a talking head (sorry about that) news bimbo say that some gang-banger used an “AK-47” (which it never really is) as “their weapon of choice.”  It probably would be more accurate to say that he used some cheap Chinese import gun because that was all the guy he got it from would trade for a couple of grams of crack.

 

“Assault Rifle”

 

This one has always bothered me as well.  I think I have a fair knowledge of military weaponry but I can’t give you a cogent definition of what constitutes an “assault rifle.”  I think if you shoot somebody with a Remington single-shot bolt-action .22 rifle, you just utilized an “assault rifle.”  The term “assault weapon” is even more ridiculous.  A decent size rock can make a pretty good “assault weapon” if wielded correctly!

 

“Serious Collector”

 

I had never been particularly bothered by this one but, recently, it has fallen into my “annoying cliché” category for some reason.  What, exactly, is a “serious collector” as opposed to, say, an “unserious collector?”  Does it mean someone who spends all of his waking time involved in his collecting hobby? Does it imply someone who spends a lot of money on his hobby?  Is a serious collector better than a casual collector?  Maybe a “serious collector” should lighten up a bit.

 

“Quality Time”

 

While these are in no particular order, this one is really, really annoying.  It is usually used to describe the time spent with one’s spouse or children.  Hopefully, all the time you spend with your family constitutes “quality time.” Otherwise, is some of the time you spend with them “garbage time”?  I think the term is sometimes used to assuage the guilt some feel by only spending a limited amount of time with their family, thus try to characterize the time they actually devote to them as “quality” time, thus implying that it is something special.  When you pass on, your kids need to remember that you were there for them as much as possible and that there wasn’t various degrees of “quality” in the time you spent with them.  “Quality time” doesn’t only mean the time spent at Disney World or a movie (although there’s nothing wrong with either). It also means the time you were there to show them how to hit a curveball or dry their eyes when they skinned their knee or help comfort them when their heart was broken by an unrequited first love.  Worshipping with your family every Sunday in church is about the best “quality time” you can have. 

 

If I had a nickel for every annoying cliché I’ve overlooked I could probably buy a couple of assault rifles.  You could probably come up with many of your own. In any event, at the end of the day, it would be a win-win situation if you think outside the box more often. Even if you happen to be a serious collector, nobody is going to throw you under the bus for not spending more quality time with your kids as most people could care less.

 

 

 

What’s a box worth?                           (Posted 4-4-08)

 

I recently had an inquiry from a friend regarding the market value of brass 00 buckshot shells.  Many collectors of military combat shotguns are seeking this ammunition to go along with the guns and other accoutrements for their collections.  As a brief aside, it cannot be denied that such ammunition is in high demand these days. However, it is often forgotten that most of the shotgun ammunition used in World Wars I and II was actually paper case 00 buckshot. The all brass variety didn’t get into widespread use in WWII any earlier than 1944 and most of it wasn’t made until 1945. Likewise, it is doubtful that much, if any, of the all-brass shells made it to France before the Armistice in November, 1918.

 

            Anyway, back to the issue at hand. My friend had the opportunity to buy some loose all-brass shells for $20 a piece and was asking if that was an appropriate price.  I don’t keep tabs on current market values as much as I used to, but even with the tremendous run-up in prices for U.S. martial items, including (and especially) military shotguns, this seemed a bit high.  He stated that he had seen full cartons (25 rounds) of the all-brass 00 buckshot sell in the $500 to $550 range which equated to a price of at least $20 per round.  I have also seen full cartons of such shells sell for comparable prices.  Does that mean, then, that the individual shells are actually worth at least 20 bucks apiece?

 

            While the math works, I don’t think the assumption is necessarily true.  Anyone who had viewed “Antiques Road Show” and comparable programs is aware of the huge premium that normally accompanies an item still in its original box. Whether it is a 1890s era mechanical bank, a 1940s vintage Lionel train set or a 1960s era “GI Joe,” if it is accompanied by the original box, the value can be double, triple, or even more, over the value of a comparable item without the box.

 

            To some extent, I think the same holds true for original military ammunition still in its original boxing.  In the case of the all-brass 00 buckshot, there is no real difference between commercial ammunition of this type and the military variety, thus shells still in their original cartons can be confirmed as the genuine stuff.  I don’t think there is any question that military ammunition remaining in its original boxing is more valuable by a significant factor as compared to the same amount of comparable ammunition “on the loose.”  It is probably fair to say that the older the vintage of the ammunition, the more of a premium the original boxing will bring.  For example, Civil War era Spencer cartridges usually bring a high price on the market but original full boxes are much rarer and will sell for two or three times what the same number of individual rounds might fetch.  This holds true for the .50-70 and .45-70 ammunition of the “Indian Wars” era as well as 6mm Lee Navy and .30-40 Krag cartridges from the Spanish-American War.  World War I vintage .30-06 cartridges in the original box are worth significantly more than the same number of identical loose cartridges. The same is true for WWII. I think you get the idea.

 

            With this in mind, I maintain that $20 per individual shell is too much for all-brass 00 buckshot but an original carton of 25 rounds in decent condition is well worth $500 or so.

 

            While this is the case with ammunition, it also holds true for other items, including firearms.  U.S. military firearms still remaining in their original factory boxing are quite rare.  There are many cases where individuals had received rifles from the DCM in the past and assumed that the cardboard carton in which the gun was shipped was the original carton, especially if the weapon was “still in the grease.”  By the way, we will discuss the myth of “still in the grease” weapons in a subsequent posting here.  Using WWII guns as an example, with few exceptions, the rifles and carbines shipped from the factory were sent in wooden crates holding a number of weapons (ten being the most common). This was also true of some military shotguns, including Ithaca Model 37 trench guns, etc.  However, there were some military guns shipped from the factory in individual boxes.  Perhaps the most commonly encountered guns of this type today (“commonly” being a very relative term!) are WWII Remington Model 11 riot guns. These were shipped from the factory in commercial-pattern Remington boxes, but the end label contained the military designation for the guns. I don’t think anyone can argue that a gun of this type is worth at least double or triple the same gun (even in the same unfired condition) without the box.  You might think that paying that much of a premium is ridiculous, but that is the nature of the marketplace. We collectors often do strange things! 

 

            I have also seen some edged weapons such as M3 trench knives and M4 Bayonet-Knives still in their original boxes and these are, likewise, highly prized by collectors with prices to match.  Perhaps the most “extreme” example is what the “new in the wrap” CMP post-war M1 Garands sold for within the past few years.  I don’t recall how much some of these rifles brought I know it was well in excess of $5000 each. I believe some went for even more. It should be noted that these rifles didn’t even come in the original factory crates, just the original factory wrapping.

 

            The main point of this posting is to illustrate that one cannot simply count the number of rounds in an original carton of U.S. military ammunition (of any variety) and then assume that the value of each round can be determined by dividing the price of the full carton by the number of rounds contained therein. In the collecting realm, it doesn’t work that way. The same is true with guns (and other items) still in their original boxes or wrapping.  In such cases, a $1500 gun may turn into a $3500 gun simply by the virtue of remaining in the original factory boxing.  Some skeptics might ask how in the world a cardboard box can be worth more than the gun itself.  That’s not the case.  The value is inherent in the gun and box combination.  The gun and/or the box individually would be worth substantially less than the value of the complete set.  This is a case where the “sum of the parts” is not equal to the value of the whole.  While the arithmetic may not make sense, the value of a collectible item still in the original box cannot be calculated by any mathematical formula.  This is another case that proves collecting is an art and not a science.

 

 

CMP, M1A1 Carbines and the Free Market     (Posted 3-14-08)

 

 

            The Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) recently announced it had acquired a significant quantity of original M1A1 carbines (approximately 750) and would be putting them up for sale in the future.  The selling price and time frame have not been announced as of this date.  As we’ve discussed here before, the M1A1 (a.k.a. “paratrooper) carbine has been one of the hottest martial collectibles for the past couple of years and prices have steadily risen well above what anyone could have foreseen even five or six years ago.

 

            Needless to say, this announcement has resulted in a frenzy on some of the Internet discussion sites.  Most of the “buzz” centers around the estimated price for these carbines and how they should be marketed.  Since the CMP routinely auctions off some of the more desirable weapons in its inventory, some believe that this will be the method used to sell the M1A1 carbines.  Others have pointed out the quantity available is too large to make an auction feasible and that’s probably true.  If the CMP chooses to sell the carbines for a fixed price, the current estimates are “all over the board” but the most frequent guess is $2000.00.  I have no idea how much these carbines will sell for.  I do think that $2000 seems like a reasonable figure given the current market value of these weapons and the “CMP premium” that typically accompanies guns sold by that entity.  In fact, I will go so far as to say that $2000 would be something of a bargain in the eyes of some.

 

            This brings us to the “controversial” aspects of the pending sale.  A number of guys have complained that they can’t afford (or don’t want to pay) $2,000 for a gun and it’s not fair that only “rich guys” will be able to afford them.  I understand this sentiment but I think it’s somewhat off base for a couple of reasons.  First, and probably foremost, the mission of the CMP is to raise funds for marksmanship training programs, firearm safety programs and the like.  It is not the CMP’s mission to provide firearms for collectors at below market prices.  The more money that the CMP can obtain from the sale of these carbines, the more funds it will have available for the purposes for which it was established.  Also, there are lots of things in life that most of us cannot afford.  For guys struggling to pay their mortgage, keep gas in their cars and put food on the table, $2000 is an amount well beyond their reach.  On the other hand, there are some guys who can write a check for $2000 and never miss it.  Is that fair?  Maybe not, but life has never been, and will never be, “fair.”  There are always inequities in the material blessings bestowed on each of us. There is always someone out there who has less than we have and there will always be those who have more.

 

            The CMP is in something of a “double bind” situation here. If it sells the M1A1 carbines too cheaply, the entity isn’t living up to its fiduciary responsibility to raise the maximum amount of money feasible to fund the many programs for which it was chartered.  Also, if the weapons are sold at discount prices, some dealers will feel that that the CMP is undercutting the market and has an unfair (there’s that word again!) advantage since the arms cost them nothing (shipping, storage and administrative costs notwithstanding).  On the other hand, if it sells the guns for what many feel are “premium” prices, there will be cries of unfairness for the “little guys” and favoritism toward the “rich guys.”

 

            I believe that the CMP should price the M1A1 carbines at a level commensurate with the perceived market value of the weapons.  That would be pretty easy to determine by perusing dealers catalogs, on-line gun auctions, etc.  Once the price is determined, the tried-and-proven “marketplace” will take it from there. If the guns are priced fairly, they will sell out in a reasonable period of time and bring an appropriate amount of funds into the CMP’s coffers. If priced too low, they will sell out faster than the CMP can process the orders and it will leave a lot of money “on the table.”  If priced, too high, the CMP will be up to their necks in M1A1 carbines for a long time.  Such things seem to always work themselves out rather nicely which is the beauty of capitalism and the free market.

 

            In conclusion, I will be curious to see how the CMP handles the marketing of these very desirable firearms.  Whatever is decided, someone will not be happy!

 

 

Is a SRS letter worth the money?      (Posted February 25, 2008)

 

I recently had an interesting inquiry regarding the Springfield Research Service.  For those of you who may not be familiar with SRS, it was started back in the late 1970s by Frank Mallory. Frank, who regrettably passed away last year, was a great guy and a very dedicated researcher.  He lived in Silver Spring, Maryland (in fairly close proximity to Washington, DC) which gave him ready access to the National Archives and other fertile sources for research. Frank was intimately familiar with the vagaries and frustrations of the government archival filing system and had a flair for locating material that no one else could find, or could only find with a great deal of time-consuming digging though countless boxes of unrelated minutia in order to uncover that valuable nugget of information.  Frank would conduct research for a fee and I engaged his services on a number of occasions when researching my books. I would tell Frank what topic I was interested in and he would scour the archives for data related to the subject.  He charged for his time and for each photocopy made. I felt his fees were quite reasonable and he could find stuff I could never locate, or which would take me a great deal more time. After making a frustrating and not very rewarding research trip to the National Archives years ago, it made much more sense (and was a lot cheaper) to let Frank turn up the documents.  Frank was always very gracious about granting permission to use the serial numbers he gathered of particular weapons in my books. He also published a quarterly newsletter and I was one of the charter subscribers.

 

 Frank had a particular interest in U.S. military weapons, primarily from the Springfield ’03 back to the Civil War era.  Every time he would come across a document reflecting information on a particular type of U.S. martial arm, he would record the citation and the serial number or at least make a note of the location in the files so, if needed, it could be easily accessed later.  Over the years, Frank had compiled a database of information for all manner of U.S. martial arms.  He published four or five “serial number” books and a CD with these serial numbers, categorized by the type of weapon, the date of the document, the serial number of the weapon and a brief summation (usually only three or four words) of the particular citation. Typically, this information only reflected such things as the identity of the unit to which the arm was issued, or when it was “surveyed” (inventoried) or when it was shipped back to a particular ordnance facility for disposition, etc.  The SRS records that were published only reflected this basic, and very brief, information. Sometimes that was about all that was in the document, but sometimes there was some ancillary information as well. For a fee, Frank would give the interested party a letter on SRS letterhead giving the provenance of the weapon as stated in the archival record and photocopies of the document or documents.  As I recall, the fee was initially $25 and, over the years, eventually went up to $100.  After Frank’s passing, his database, the “Springfield Research Service” name and the quarterly newsletter is being carried on by an individual although I’m not sure if any “contract” archival research is still be conducted.

 

Collectors considered themselves fortunate if they could get a “hit” on one of their guns in the SRS database.  I have about a half-dozen firearms with accompanying SRS provenance letters and wish I had many more. Unfortunately, only a small percentage of the serial numbers of most U.S. martial arms have been cataloged in the SRS database.

 

            Those looking for a complete “history” of a specific weapon are going to be disappointed because neither the SRS records or anywhere else will have that information. The data in the SRS records was generally only a single “snapshot” of a particular weapon at some point in time.  Such snapshots range from very mundane to extremely valuable.  As a historian, I think all such information is interesting and worthwhile but some collectors only want data that increases the value of their gun.  For example,  they really don’t care if the gun was in the inventory of some stateside unit or was sent back to Springfield Armory on March 3, 1947 for repair. They are only looking for something “sexy” or is perceived to increase the market value of the weapon.

 

            This brings us back to the recent inquiry.  The individual had obtained a SRS “hit” on one of his guns that revealed it was in the inventory of some non-descript military unit. He asked me if he should invest the $100 in a SRS letter and how much it would increase the value of his gun.  Below is my e-mail reply to him:

 

“While interesting, such documents normally add very little to the value.  An exception would be if a particular weapon was documented to have been used by a noteworthy unit or individual (a Little Bighorn .45-70 carbine, a "Rough Rider" .30-40 Krag or a gun belonging to George Patton, Audie Murphy, Alvin York, etc.). In the majority of the cases, the actual document in the archives states very little beyond what is already available in the SRS database.  In such cases, I might recommend simply printing out the citation in the SRS listing and keeping it with the gun.   If you choose to invest the $100 for a SRS letter, you may or may not be able to get that back if you sold the gun. Some buyers are really "into" any kind of documentation and will gladly pay a premium even if it only reveals that the gun was issued to a motor pool at Fort Dix in 1954. Others aren't particularly turned on by such documentation and will pay little, or nothing, extra. If you plan to keep the gun, it might be a worthwhile investment to add a bit of knowledge to the background of the gun. If you do so, however, make sure you're not doing solely to pump up the value of the gun because you may be disappointed.” 

 

            In rare cases, such as confirmation that a Model 1873 SAA or Model 1873 Trapdoor Springfield carbine was issued to one of Custer’s men or a particular 6mm M1895 Lee Navy rifle was onboard the USS Maine at the time of its demise, a SRS letter would increase the value by many, many times. For example a well-used original Model 1896 Krag carbine with no provenance might be worth $1000 or so. The value of the same gun, if confirmed to have been used by the First Volunteer Cavalry (“Rough Riders”), would be increased by a factor of at least fifteen and possibly as much as twenty-five (or more). However, such cases are very much the exception and not the rule.  A “Rough Rider” Krag carbine is an extreme example and most SRS “hits” reveal much less historic data, ranging from very interesting (a rifle or shotgun may have been issued to a USMC combat unit during wartime), to mildly interesting (rifle may have been involved in some sort of ordnance testing), to the not-very-interesting (such as the Ft. Dix motor pool example).

 

                        Regardless, I think such information is worthwhile and should always be preserved with the firearm. It may or may not increase the resale value of the gun in question but it does give a glimpse (albeit usually a very brief glance) into the gun’s “history.”  If someone has one of the SRS serial number books or CDs, the page containing the brief citation on the weapon could be copied or printed out for free or a SRS letter that may or may not fill in some additional details could be ordered for $100.  Even if the information is mundane, whether or not a letter “confirming” the data in the SRS files is worth a hundred bucks is up to the owner. Personally, I would be inclined to do so but, as stated, except in rare cases, it isn’t going to increase the value of the  “lettered” gun enough for me to buy that villa on Orient Beach in St. Martin I’ve always been wanting!

 

 

 

The “Low Number” ‘03s revisited     (Posted 2-8-08)  

          

I recently received a polite and well-reasoned e-mail regarding my “Q&A” in the American Rifleman about the “low number” M1903 rifle controversy.  I’m sure this is old news to many of you, but perhaps a brief recitation of the issue may be in order.  Basically, M1903 rifles made by Springfield Armory with serial numbers below 800,000 (approx.) and Rock Island Arsenal M1903 with serial numbers below 285,500 (approx.) are considered to have the so-called “low number” receivers.  It is the general consensus that such rifles are inherently unsafe to fire although there are, to put it mildly, some who take exception to this belief. The problem initially occurred because the steel in some of the receivers was “burnt” by being subjected to excessive temperatures during the forging process which made them overly brittle.  Such receivers were prone to shatter, especially in the event of a cartridge case head separation or similar occurrence.  The production problem was rectified in 1918 by the installation of “pyrometers” to more accurately gauge and monitor the temperatures during the forging process.  Some of the “low number” receivers were properly forged and some weren’t.  The problem is that there is no way to determine which is which, so all must be suspect.  The Ordnance Department was well aware of the problem at the time and undertook extensive research to ascertain if such receivers could be re-heat treated or otherwise modified to eliminate the problem. It was determined that nothing could be done and orders were given to destroy the “low number” receivers when the rifles came in for overhaul, etc.  As it turned out, many of the receivers remained in use due to the fear of crippling shortages if such a large number of rifles were removed from service.  Many of the “low numbered” rifles remained in use throughout WWII as it was believed that a potentially dangerous rifle was better than no rifle at all.

 

There problems with “low number” ’03 have been well publicized over the years.  Gen. Julian Hatcher in his excellent book, “Hatcher’s Notebook,” listed some “low number” receiver failures from the First World War to about 1929.  Sixty-eight (68) different cases were presented along with rather specific details, including any injury to the shooter.  The results ranged from very minor injury to serious injuries and, if I recall, at least one fatality.  Many people took this information to heart and refused to fire a “low number” ‘03s,

 

As is always the case, there are those “contrarians” who do not accept “conventional wisdom” at face value and state opposing views, with varying degrees of passion. (By the way, this is not necessarily a bad thing.)  Hatcher’s findings that the “low number receivers” are potentially dangerous were all but dismissed by some who felt that the actual cause was faulty or incorrect ammunition being used (which was true in some of the cases) or proffered reasons other than defective receivers.  Another common complaint was that the number of actual receiver failures was so small as to be insignificant.

 

This brings us back to the recently received letter. The writer stated that the likelihood of a receiver failure was ridiculously low and, while not coming out and saying so, one had a greater chance of being struck by lightening or winning the power ball lottery than to be the victim of a shattered ’03 receiver.  He “ran the numbers” and came up with a 0.000085% chance of being the victim of a shattered “low number” ’03 receiver.  Wow, that is a pretty slim chance!  This percentage was derived by dividing the ”total number of failures” by the number of “low number” rifles (using 800,000 as the divisor). I checked his math and he was correct.  Given this very, very, very low probability, should the fears of a “low number” receiver coming “unglued” be relegated to little more than paranoia?

 

In a word…”no.”  Math is definitive. 2 + 2 will always equal 4. That is unless a student is in a “progressive” school where the child’s feelings and self-esteem are more important than mere facts, but I digress.  The problem with the above rationale and calculation is that faulty parameters will always result in faulty results.  What are the faulty parameters in the above scenario?  Actually, there are several.  First, he used 800,000 as the approximate number of “low numbered” ’03 receivers.   The number used must also include the Rock Island rifles, thus the figure should actually be 1,085,000 (the approximate total of SA and RIA “low number” ‘03s).  A larger divisor would, of course, make the likelihood of having problems with such rifles even lower.  There is no question that the approximate number of rifles with potentially defective receivers can be ascertained with a high degree of certainty.  That’s not the issue.  The huge flaw in the above reasoning (and a number of others have made the same error) is to assume that the 68 “problem” rifles listed in Hatcher’s book represent the sum total of all the receiver failures that ever happened.  This assumption simply isn’t true.  Hatcher only published the results of receiver failures that were reported to him. Also, the reports only went up to 1929.  To think that there is some “magical database” that automatically recorded any and all receivers that may have failed from 1903 through today is illogical.  There is simply no way to determine, or even speculate, how many actual receiver failures have occurred over the past 105 years.  However, it is inarguable that it would exceed Hatcher’s reports, and almost certainly by a large margin.  I, nor anyone else, can tell you if it was double, triple, quadruple or several hundred times the figures given in Hatcher’s book.  To think that he somehow knew of all such occurrences from the inception of the ’03 rifle through 1929 is very naïve. Also, to assume that none occurred after 1929 is even more unreasonable.  In other words, the true percentage of failures cannot be estimated, not even a “ballpark” figure. It certainly wasn’t an extremely large number but the problem was real and some people were hurt and some rifles destroyed.  We can quibble over the likelihood but we can’t quibble over whether or not it happened.  I don’t mean to pick on the above letter writer as he is a very nice guy and simply made an erroneous assumption that others, including some purported academia types, have made.

 

I have stated before, and will state again, that I would not want to fire a “low number” ’03 rifle.  If I have a burning desire to shoot an ’03, there are too many “high number” rifles around to risk using one of the older rifles. Am I overstating the problem and being silly in my reluctance to risk my eyesight (or worse)?  Maybe so.   However, ask yourself this question. Assume you wanted to fly from New York to London and had a choice of taking two airplanes.  One type had an unblemished safety record. The other type reached its destination “most of the time” but was documented to occasionally fall apart in the air, although nobody is sure of the exact number of times that it happened.  Which plane would you want to board?     

  

 

 

The Economy and Gun Collecting            (posted 1-25-08) 

 

One can’t open a newspaper or turn on the television today without being bombarded with news about how bad things are with “the economy.”  As a banker with a couple of degrees in finance, I never ceased to be amused at how our “unbiased” national media relate news about the “economic health” of our country. Every time the stock market takes a dip, there is a cacophony of cries about how the economy is weakening. The majority of these clowns don’t seem to understand that the stock market is driven by many factors including (and mainly) reaction to current events or expectations of future events (good or bad).  An up tick or downturn in the Dow Jones average really doesn’t mean a great deal in and of itself. The stock market is not the economy!  Not that you’d know it from listening to news reports, but we have been in one of the longest economic expansions in history. However, for the past couple of years, you’d think we were back in 1929 despite having record job growth, historic low unemployment, increasing median income, relatively low interest rates and inflation being almost nil. Having said this, there are clearly signs that we are beginning to experience an economic downturn. There is no way to estimate either the length or severity of the downturn or if it will morph into a recession.  Economic expansion and retraction are cyclical in nature and that has been the case since such things were first measured.  Frankly, I am surprised that we haven’t experienced a downturn before now.  Since this is an election year, all bets are off regarding fiscal restraint from either political party.  In such times, it is more important to try and make voters “feel good” about economic matters rather actually doing something that would help the economy over the long haul.  In any event, there is little question that we are in for one of those cyclical economic downturns and we’ll have to wait and see how bad it becomes or how l