Sanity check on antique Belgian-made revolvers

[Pelcat]

Hello all, I am looking for second and third opinions.

Over the years, I have seen a lot of Belgian-made revolvers with post-1892 proofs being sold as antique with only an FRT printout as proof of that status. I could give examples of specific models which are the worst offenders for this but I'll digress. I wouldn't touch these with a ten foot pole, especially at the price they are being sold. An expensive hot potato in my opinion, I certainly wouldn't want to be asking the CFP's opinion about one for court.

I am under the impression that Belgian-made pistols with post-1892 proof marks don't really qualify for antique because it's hard to pinpoint the date of manufacture, since that mark is still in use today. Unless of course, the pistol has something else on it proving beyond a doubt that it was made before 1898.

I know the CFP's opinion has varied on the antique status of a variety of models in the past, but recently they seem to have been acting shy about issuing out antique letters.

Am I mostly correct here? Does anyone have a Belgian-made, post-1892 proofed revolver that has a CFP issued letter proving its status as antique? I would really like to see such a letter or at least hear that one exists.

 

[Moe]

Going to be tough on 1893-1897 guns to nail it down as antique. That E L G proof is the gold standard on Belgian proofs to prove antique status. Post 1892 through 1897 will be a real PITA to nail down.

Good luck
Moe

 

[KotKotofeich]

The lab will reject any application for a gun with a elg crown stamp and no other markings showing pre-1898 manufacture. I do not have any such to show you right now but they exist. Either military markings or manufacturer stamps are used for secondary identification.

Most cheap belgians only have the elg stamp so the sellers are being misleading.

I wouldn't buy any Belgian as an antique without a RCMP letter.

 

[Old Guns Canada]

As you stated yourself, unless you can prove that the maker went out of business (or changed names) before 1 January 1898, the post-1893 ELG with crown will not be accepted. This applies only to revolvers and fixed-barrel pistols. If you have a shotgun or musket with a screwed-in or hinged barrel, it may still be marked with an ELG in oval without the crown after 1898, and may be rejected as well. I had that conversation with the Technical Division just recently. In general though, I have never had an ELG without the crown on a pistol or revolver rejected. Belgian Bulldogs are particularly difficult because so many of them have no maker's name or even serial numbers. Really the only thing you have to go on is the proof mark. The Technical Division is actually being somewhat lenient, because the proofs are on the cylinder, not the frame. In theory they could reject these, as someone could easily swap a pre-98 cylinder into a post-98 frame... Let's not give them any ideas.
It is important to look at the proofs carefully. Some makers put fake proof marks on their guns in order to confuse the buyer. I have seen a few of those. To the trained eye they are obvious, but to the novice they may look genuine. Even the "experts" seem to get fooled occasionally. Just recently, I have been asked to comment on a seemingly antique revolver on an auction website, which turned out to be a fake. The auction house lists it as an antique, but there is no proof, as the maker was still in business in 1900.

 

[cyclone]

IMHO, the CBSA can be even rougher than the RCMP on this topic.

 

[Pelcat]

Thanks for everyone's input, that was pretty much my line of thinking. I only ever buy stuff I know will be approved as I don't want to get the letters issued by the CFP. Although, I have called them for opinions in the past.

As you stated yourself, unless you can prove that the maker went out of business (or changed names) before 1 January 1898, the post-1893 ELG with crown will not be accepted. This applies only to revolvers and fixed-barrel pistols. If you have a shotgun or musket with a screwed-in or hinged barrel, it may still be marked with an ELG in oval without the crown after 1898, and may be rejected as well. I had that conversation with the Technical Division just recently. In general though, I have never had an ELG without the crown on a pistol or revolver rejected. Belgian Bulldogs are particularly difficult because so many of them have no maker's name or even serial numbers. Really the only thing you have to go on is the proof mark. The Technical Division is actually being somewhat lenient, because the proofs are on the cylinder, not the frame. In theory they could reject these, as someone could easily swap a pre-98 cylinder into a post-98 frame... Let's not give them any ideas.
It is important to look at the proofs carefully. Some makers put fake proof marks on their guns in order to confuse the buyer. I have seen a few of those. To the trained eye they are obvious, but to the novice they may look genuine. Even the "experts" seem to get fooled occasionally. Just recently, I have been asked to comment on a seemingly antique revolver on an auction website, which turned out to be a fake. The auction house lists it as an antique, but there is no proof, as the maker was still in business in 1900.

I may know exactly what revolver and auction house your are referring to.

IMHO, the CBSA can be even rougher than the RCMP on this topic.

I've brought in two antiques through the land border. One was an antique rifle so pretty easy. Second was a Swiss 1878 revolver, that one I only had an FRT printout but that revolver was only made until 1882. Not hard to prove antique status in those cases but I wouldn't want to risk bringing something of more dubious age...

 

[Old Guns Canada]

I may know exactly what revolver and auction house your are referring to.

I should clarify that the description and pictures do not show proof, however there may be a pre-1893 ELG mark which they did not show. I did send them an e-mail about it, and they replied that their gunsmith is confident that it is actually antique. Maybe true but I would still want to see it.

 

[KotKotofeich]

I should clarify that the description and pictures do not show proof, however there may be a pre-1893 ELG mark which they did not show. I did send them an e-mail about it, and they replied that their gunsmith is confident that it is actually antique. Maybe true but I would still want to see it.

If it's the same gun I'm thinking of, it clearly shows a R crown stamp and therefore cannot have a ELG no crown even though the back of the cylinder is not shown.

 

[Bulldog667]

Ive seen them being sold with antique letters that were legitimate... not sure how to proceed on those. I bought one myself when i was inexperienced and had to do extensive work to get a letter re issued after mine was destroyed.

 

[Pelcat]

Ive seen them being sold with antique letters that were legitimate... not sure how to proceed on those. I bought one myself when i was inexperienced and had to do extensive work to get a letter re issued after mine was destroyed.

Not surprising, I bet the CFP issued out a bunch of letter for these back when they weren't as serious about it. I'm a bit curious of how you were able to get the letter reissued for that paticular pistol.

 

[Bulldog667]

Not surprising, I bet the CFP issued out a bunch of letter for these back when they weren't as serious about it. I'm a bit curious of how you were able to get the letter reissued for that paticular pistol.

It had enough brand markings and other proofs to determine it was sold in 1896. So it actually was antique. Dating of those Belgians with nothing other than a variation of an ELG stamp would be near impossible, some don't even have serial numbers.

 

[Old Guns Canada]

If it's the same gun I'm thinking of, it clearly shows a R crown stamp and therefore cannot have a ELG no crown even though the back of the cylinder is not shown.

The problem with those spurious Belgian-made revolvers is that the maker put on markings which look close to the same as the official state proof marks, but if you look closely, you can tell that they are fake. The "crown over R" usually is bigger than the state proof, and the crown is a different shape.