More Early Parts!

[ISUCyclone]

The mailman brought more than just bills today!



The pinion is unique in that the '46009' is deeply stamped, but there is no hint of a 'C' or a 'C-'.



Very unique and in line with my interest in variations in serial numbers and part number stampings.

Whaduhya think?

[Bubba1]

It's always interesting to see misstampings. I've seen the weong drawing number stamped on the wrong part, upside down stampings, double stamps, no stampings, numbers ot letters in the drawing number sideways compared to the rest of the stamping, numbers or letters slightly out of line, etc.... The font on the numbers appears correct just missing the C. Was the stamp loaded incorrectly or possibly broken, unknown . It looks fine to me. Am I missing something or does anyone else see any issues with this part ?

[Bodyman]

Awesome! Very few people ever get to handle some of these earliest parts.

Do I see anything? Heck Paul, on these earliest SA variations I would be asking you

[Pederson]

Doesn’t look right to me. The font doesn’t match up to other examples. No C, no dash. Letters are out of alignment. I’m skeptical. Lots of early skeptical pieces floating around.

[Bubba1]

The 4, 6, 0, and 9 do match the font on several examples I've seen . Some numbered pinions were stamped very hard and others seen to be very light, probably from the pressure setting on the machine that did the stamping. As for why there isn't a C, I can only speculate. Drawing numbers out of line, upside down, etc... are not uncommon during early production through early war. Not so much later but it does happen. I have a bag full of original USGI parts with stamping anomalies. Four trigger housings in particular are 1. Same housing stamped D28290-8-SA & D28290-7-SA , 2. IHCD6528290, 3. D28290-14-SA & SA , 4. completely unmarked later housing. Other examples include drawing number out of line on early -1 op rods, unmarked WRA safeties, 3 different font used on numbered rear handguard clips (note the rear handguardclip is stamped before it's formed / bent), barrel dates and heatlots out of line , different fonts use on the same barrel for the drawing number and handstamped heatlot, #'d stock ferrules handstamped and or out of line, #'d apertures out of line, handstamped -1 hammers, Robert shows an example of an early trigger housing that was handstamped -1 possibly for a rebuild, machine added revisions on many parts that are out of line, etc.... It's always good to be sceptical . None of the components built for the garand was built for collecting, it was all a manufacturing process.

[Bubba1]

Almost forgot a good one, two different arrows on an early Winchester elevation cap.

[Pederson]

Would like to see more examples of that 6 font on that drum. Can’t recall last time I saw a curly cue like that on the tip of the six. I’ve seen several numbered pinions but none like that. We have to remember that years and years ago, people were making reproductions or even faking this stuff to complete projects. I’m always skeptical until I can prove it.

[ISUCyclone]

Good discussion. I've done a little investigating and thinking on this one....

I was just looking at Pyle's book on page 114 and it shows an image of 3 pinions. I zoomed in on the image of the one he calls C 46009:

I've lightened up the image and there is no hint of a 'C ' to the left of the '4'.

I also found another image on this site of another C 46009 pinion with a very lightly stamped number:



It's a little blurry but I've zoomed in on the part number. Notice the first '0' is just a bit out of line with the rest of the numbers.

Now look at the number '4' in thr images of mine and the other 2 examples. All look to be the same font to me with short horizontal and vertical strokes that extend out past the main body of the number. Also in all 3 images of the part numbers, the '9' looks like a flipped over '6'.

These observations along with bubba's word lead me to believe the pinion is real.

[Bubba1]

The curl on the six may be a flaw in the drum and not the stamp. Notice the 9 doesn't show the curl.

[Pederson]

Cyclone, compare the 0’s. Notice how the photo in Pyle’s book the 0’s has some flatness to the sides. The earlier drum you show doesn’t. To me, the fonts not the same. Really close but not perfect. The proportionality and shape of the 4 to the 6 on yours to Pyle’s doesn’t appear to be the same, again my opinion.

Im just giving y’all my opinion. Fakers try to get close but there is always a small detail or two they get wrong.

To me it’s either right or it isn’t, if it gives me concern I tend to stay conservative. If I have to explain it away, will it hold up?

[ISUCyclone]

Pederson, I welcome your opinion and respect your experience. I agree the zeroes in mine are 'rounder' compared to Pyle's example. However looking at the other example those zeroes appear more round like mine.

In regards to the missing 'C', if I was a faker and I knew the part number was supposed to be 'C 46009', you can bet I'd make sure the 'C' was there.

I will see if I can get some better pictures of the part number on mine. Does anyone else put there have some pictures of numbered pinions they would be willing to share?

[Bubba1]

The 0 in both of Pyle's pictures look different from each other. Not arguing, just odserving.

[Pederson]

[ISUCyclone]

A couple more of mine.

[Jersey Devil]

Check for raised surfaces around the numbers.