1911 North American #5

[Scott Gahimer]

Perhaps a better apples to apples comparison of slide address markings on #5 and #77. I straightened and sharpened the image of #5 provided by the OP and here images of approximately the same size.
NAA #5

NAA #77

[oldcanuck]

Here's link to a pic of #55 that oldcanuck uploaded on a different site. Haven't seen posts from him for awhile; hope he's ok.

I'm OK...but unfortunately my wife isn't. Here is a close up of the slide SN on 55. BTW the slide stop is serrated and the hammer is smooth on this example.

[SPEEDGUNNER]

I have no dog in this fight, and find this discussion interesting and informative. If you go back to the original photos posted by the new owner of #5, at first glance the pistol sure doesn't pass the smell test. Just something about the "look", it just isn't right for an almost 100yr old pistol. I hope for the OP's sake I am not looking at it correctly, but the discussion seems to be heading the same way...just no one is saying it.

[Scott Wilson]

If you look closely at the photos posted above by Scott Gahimer, you will notice that the CO. (as in company) is rather slanted and misshapen. That in itself would be strange for a roll mark. Given the number of examples shown so far, and the stark differences when compared to #5, I would strongly suspect it's originality.

[gbethu]

Thanks to you all for your views. As I bought from a reputable dealer, who used the same reference books as most of us, he ( and I) made a mistake. I received a full refund. Guess it really is helpful to use this forum.

[Johnny P]

I believed it served a more useful purpose in presenting the pistols problems rather than just simply telling you that it was a fake. It appears that you came to your own conclusion. The finish and slide marking are so bad that it amazes me that the original mechanic was successful in selling it much less going through multiple hands.

[Allen]

A very good discussion and picture comparison thread. You won't find this kind of detail in the reference books. Glad you didn't get burned.

[gbethu]

North American #5

Thanks to you all for your views. As I bought from a reputable dealer, who used the same reference books as most of us, he ( and I) made a mistake. I received a full refund. Guess it really is helpful to use this forum.

I'm trying to replace the NAA (?) #5 with a fairly priced 75% original finish , North American 1911 . I haven't seen one that meets both conditions. Usually it's one or the other !!!! Any ideas would be welcomed. gordon bethune

[Promo]

Did anyone here already notice the NAA #40 in the upcoming Amoskeag Auction? Not that it's in my price range nor that I plan to bid on it, but as a M1911 novice it looked really nice to me.

[Scott Gahimer]

We always appreciate anyone bringing something like a NAA to our attention. As a novice, you appear to have a pretty good eye. I agree, based on the photos, it might be a good one. But obviously, things aren't always what they appear. But it sounds like you have a handle on that. Too many newbies jump in with both feet. That's risky, but at least on common examples, it's not the end of the world if they're wrong. But on the rare pieces, like NAA, Singer and a few other M1911 and M1911A1 sub-variations, it pays to do the homework first. For example, Singer barrels, stocks and magazines are nearly impossible to find, terribly expensive if found.

For those of us who are purist collectors, originality is priority one. Swapped out parts might be correct, but they'll never be original. Swapped parts make even the most significant collectibles less than desirable to many collectors. Hopefully, the bidders will verify authenticity on this one before plopping down the cash. It's a lot easier to buy smart than find out later.

[anton67]

It is funny how someone can be so condescending when someone else has an opinion in his post:
Ummmm …it does have them . That is a subjective and questionable opinion about the manufacturing capabilities in 1918 and your vision.
Yes you are the only one "see" them. Funny that Clawson and Julis Kosan never noticed……. What a couple of novices…. Glad to see there is one expert who can spot things from a crummy photograph that invalidates opinions of well informed
people who actually have had them in their hand to compare with other known models. What a bunch of dummies to have been sucked in to a Clawson opinion. Thanks for your insight. I sure have learned a lot by reading your post…..and it wasn't about the originality of #5.

And yet so humble in this post:
Thanks to you all for your views. As I bought from a reputable dealer, who used the same reference books as most of us, he ( and I) made a mistake. I received a full refund. Guess it really is helpful to use this forum.

And it only took him 50 posts to figure out there was a problem with the pistol.
Yet he proclaims to be such an expert.
Or if not he lays down thousands of dollars anyway.

[stan4]

I have not posted much---but I do enjoy the information. I hope I am doing this correctly.

For you experienced collectors---How do you identify a real Singer barrel and a real Singer Magazine? (Any pictures that show the details?)

Thanks

[stan4]

I have not posted much---but I do enjoy the information. I hope I am doing this correctly.

For you experienced collectors---How do you identify a real Singer barrel and a real Singer Magazine? (Any pictures that show the details?)

Thanks

[Johnny P]

If you are contemplating buying a Singer, best to seek the aid and advice of someone that knows the difference. When completely bogus markings can be applied to an entire pistol, there is no quick explanation on how to tell the difference.