how much is too much?

Joined
Apr 17, 2024
Messages
79
Location
midwest
Somebody had what appeared to be an original Colt d.a. Thunderer for sale. Asking price was $25,0000. The gun looked to be in good shape with birdshead grip configuration. Personally I think one would be better off with a good quality reproduction instead. Plenty of good companies out here. Especially if one's aim is to shoot it a fair amount.
 
These are the most expensive paintings in the world, the cheapest being $183 million dollars.


If you don't have a few billion dollars to blow on art but like them. You can screen shot the image of all of them for yourself for free and they will be just as good for looking at but you still won't own the original.

That is what people are paying for, the rarity, or not, one can ask any price they wish.
 
If you want the gun to shoot, it seems stupid to me to pay $25,00.00 for the original. Buy a good copy unless you have more money than you know what to do with. Just my opinion. It's your money.
 
My opinion. I'm happier with those personal material items I've fabricated myself. One shouldn't waste time or thought on what others are capable of doing financially. Making the world small and focused on things you can do best thing for a person.
 
The Model 1877 Double Action Colt was notorious for having a delicate action which was prone to breaking. There were three versions, the Lightning, the Thunderer, and the Rainmaker. These were not official Colt designations, rather they were names given to the different models chambered for different calibers by Colt distributor Benjamin Kittredge. The Lightning was chambered for 38 Long Colt, the Thunderer was chambered for 41 Colt, and the Rainmaker was chambered for 32 Long Colt. There were a total of 166,849 made between 1877 and 1909.

John Wesley Hardin was known to carry both the Lightning and Thunderer versions, Billy the Kid was carrying a Thunderer when he was killed by Pat Garrett.

There are no shooting replicas of the 1877 Double Action Colt. Uberti makes a replica of the Single Action Army with a birds head grip, which resembles the Model 1877 somewhat, but it is not a double action revolver, it is a single action revolver.

The only actual replica of the Model 1877 Double Action Colt is made of a zinc alloy and cannot be fired.

"$25,0000" seems a bit high to me, particularly since I question where the decimal place should be. Perhaps $25,000.00?

Checking some auction sites, originals seem to be going for around $1500 - $2300.
 
There are people who make so much money that the price tag for anything but the most expensive real estate or a yacht is basically meaningless to them.
 
At some point it stops being a "gun" and instead becomes an investment. Like a quarter-million-dollar bottle of wine, the value is no longer in its usefulness, but rather in its perceived rarity and potential for appreciation.
 
I've paid a lot for guns I really wanted, but it's a relative thing.

The most expensive gun I own at present (SIG P49) cost me $2600, and I had to hunt around a bit to find one with a holster, extra mag and the right condition at that price. Nothing particularly special about it, that's just the going price for one these days.

My late father would have disowned me had he seen this particular price tag, but then the current price for a decent sheet of plywood would have given him a stroke anyway.

Paying $1K for a gun has become a relatively frequent thing for me lately. Fortunately, I have enough slack in my budget right now to do this a few times a year. Not everything I buy is in collector-grade condition, but occasionally it makes better financial sense to hold out and pay more. The subjective part is how much more one is willing to pay, and there is no one answer.

I can say that inflation would really have to do a number on the US dollar for me to spend over $20K for anything less than a car.

Incidentally, when I was talking with a couple of shooting buddies last week, I remarked that a typical $200 used gun from the 1990s costs closer to $700 today. The other two guys nodded in agreement. That end of the price scale is much more relevant to me.
 
Last edited:
I've paid a lot for guns I really wanted, but it's a relative thing.

The most expensive gun I own at present (SIG P49) cost me $2600, and I had to hunt around a bit to find one with a holster, extra mag and the right condition at that price. Nothing particularly special about it, but that's just the going price for one these days.

My late father would have disowned me had he seen this particular price tag, but then the current price for a decent sheet of plywood would have given him a stroke anyway.

Paying $1K for a gun has become a relatively frequent thing for me lately. Fortunately, I have enough slack in my budget right now to do this a few times a year. Not everything I buy is in collector-grade condition, but occasionally it makes better financial sense to hold out and pay more. The subjective part is how much more one is willing to pay, and there is no one answer.

I can say that inflation would really have to do a number on the US dollar for me to spend over $20K for anything less than a car.

Incidentally, when I was talking with a couple of shooting buddies last week, I remarked that a typical $200 used gun from the 1990s costs closer to $700 today. The other two guys nodded in agreement. That end of the price scale is much more relevant to me.
Guns will always hold a value !

Not much out there that you can enjoy and sell for about what you paid, if held long enough
 
Sometimes it's hard to figure out what is too much. If comparable examples only come up for sale rarely, it's hard to tell where demand is at.
 
How much is too much depends on what the gun is, and whether you can find the same gun for less. For most collectible firearms there's an average that we see them sell for, so if a particular gun is close to that average it's fine. If it's 10% higher maybe you'd still pay it if you don't want to wait longer. But when sellers begin to price guns like they're one of a kind and we know what they usually sell for then they're just looking for someone with more money than brains, and we can choose to pass them up.
Even less expensive guns will have an average, but one might not be as quick to pass up a firearm that's usually under $1000 if it's a bit higher than normal. But if it's a firearm that's usually $10k then paying 10% higher makes a bigger dent than it does for an inexpensive gun.
Of course a very rare one of a kind, or made in very small quantities gun wont have an average since not many are seen. So in those cases the pricing can get to ridiculously high amounts and we expect that.
 
It’s all relative. If I were a wealthy man, I would be buying those 6 figure shotguns and blazing millions of rounds through them.




IMG_2052.gif
 
If you bought a gun for $300 in 2914 you would have to get $394 today just to break even. I used a low number to keep from becoming confused. I am only going to read for a while now as I'm tired of correcting my typing mistakes. My fingers are not wanting to do what my mind is telling them to.
 
Guns will always hold a value !

Not much out there that you can enjoy and sell for about what you paid, if held long enough
Not true.

Try selling something to the average gunshop and you will probably only get about 50% of what they need to sell it for to make a profit.



But most of you are missing the point I made earlier.

The "$25,000" for a Colt Thunderer is either a misprint, or somebody does not know the true value of one of them.

Remember, I said that the 1877 Double Action Colts were fragile and the lockwork was prone to failure. A quick web search found that the auction prices paid, not the auction prices asked for, ran about $1500 - $2300.

Why would anyone pay 5 figures for a revolver that was troublesome and prone to breaking down?



All this stuff about ridiculously wealthy collectors misses the point.

I am a collector.

I am not ridiculously wealthy.

I once paid $3200 for an antique Smith and Wesson Schofield revolver. I had no intention of shooting it, I paid that much because the Schofield was only made from 1875- 1877 and there were less than 9,000 of them made, so they command premium prices.



But talking about someone who is ridiculously wealthy paying too much for a revolver is beside the point. Most serious collectors know exactly what an antique firearm is worth, and bid accordingly.
 
Firstly, there are no replicas so the whole argument is dead in the water. Further, I can say with absolute certainty that for the collector who wants an original Colt Thunderer and is willing to pay $25k for one, a replica is not even a consideration, nor is shooting it. I'm not a collector. I don't understand it and I think many of them are mental but I do understand that much.

It's interesting that people think those who pay a much higher price for things somehow don't care about how much it costs. I guarantee the reverse is true.
 
Collectors of museum quality pieces will pay crazy prices. Personally I wouldn't shell out half a million for something that will just collect dust in a locked display case guarded by sharks with laserbeams on their heads. Guns are meant to be shot not just gawked at over high priced coffee. I have an interest in classic/vintage firearms but 25,000+ is too rich for my blood. If I am going to pay an arm and a leg then I darn well expect to be able to load and shoot it at a target.
 
Back
Top