Check out this unusual Westley Richards

[Garvin]

https://forum.vintageairgunsgallery....ble/#post-8755

As Steve (45flint)points out, they were offered with the option of alternative sights:

[ccdjg]

It is certainly a very interesting pistol Danny, with many contradictory features (at least as far as can be made out from the pictures). Without seeing the gun in the flesh it is impossible to say if this is an original WR modification, or a later modification made by a skilled enthusiast. The rear sight is consistent with the early version, yet the blued finish is suspiciously black and glossy for a century-old gun. The grip plates are of a type I have never come across before, and have elements of both the early and later versions. Thus they appear to be made of vulcanite as in the later version, rather than the horn used in the first version; the WR monogram is normally found only on the early version, yet the checkering is peculiar to the later version. The plates look very professionally made and would be difficult (but not impossible) for an amateur to duplicate. From what I can make out, the lettering is faint (you can only just about make out the word “Highest” on the cylinder, almost as though it has been surface etched) where the name “Highest Possible” would normally be heavily impressed. This suggests the metalwork may have been heavily abraded to remove pitting and then reblued. The serial number 5 would make it the earliest yet reported, and would make it virtually a prototype and so perhaps account for the different front sight, grip plates, and perhaps different type of lettering.
The date 1907 does not mean much of course, as it appears on all the Highest Possible pistols in the same location, and refers to the patent date.

I would love to have the opportunity to take this gun apart look at it properly!

Cheers
John

[Garvin]

It is certainly a very interesting pistol Danny, with many contradictory features (at least as far as can be made out from the pictures). Without seeing the gun in the flesh it is impossible to say if this is an original WR modification, or a later modification made by a skilled enthusiast. The rear sight is consistent with the early version, yet the blued finish is suspiciously black and glossy for a century-old gun. The grip plates are of a type I have never come across before, and have elements of both the early and later versions. Thus they appear to be made of vulcanite as in the later version, rather than the horn used in the first version; the WR monogram is normally found only on the early version, yet the checkering is peculiar to the later version. The plates look very professionally made and would be difficult (but not impossible) for an amateur to duplicate. From what I can make out, the lettering is faint (you can only just about make out the word “Highest” on the cylinder, almost as though it has been surface etched) where the name “Highest Possible” would normally be heavily impressed. This suggests the metalwork may have been heavily abraded to remove pitting and then reblued. The serial number 5 would make it the earliest yet reported, and would make it virtually a prototype and so perhaps account for the different front sight, grip plates, and perhaps different type of lettering.
The date 1907 does not mean much of course, as it appears on all the Highest Possible pistols in the same location, and refers to the patent date.

I would love to have the opportunity to take this gun apart look at it properly!

Cheers
John

Thanks John, I was hoping to get your take on it. I would only add that the 'V'-shaped chequering seems to be unique and it's hard to imagine anyone going to the trouble of duplicating grips later, but adding this varioation to the usual chequering pattern!

[Abasmajor]

Thanks to Danny, Steve and John for sharing the pictures and their insights into this very unusual example of the Westley Richards Highest Possible air pistol.
I haven’t seen too many variations in the Highest Possible pistols I’ve come across and certainly nothing as unusual as this.
It would great to get a closer look in the flesh so to speak before making a guess as to it’s authenticity or otherwise.

Brian

[DrGunn]

I don’t know much about the Highest Possible but I have to agree with John that the finish is suspiciously black and glossy for a gun of this age. There is evidence of pitting at the back of the cylinder and this also appears to be very uniformly black which would imply it has been re-finished. The patent year engraving also appears to have been picked out in white which doesn’t look right.

[micky2]

If l believe this pistol was sold quite a few years ago in a poor condition, l will have to try and find out where l got the info from. l think it might have been in Dr Joe Gilbert's sale from 1982 but can't be sure. but it is not a WR original made one. like John as said above every thing about it is wrong.

[45flint]

It was described as “NON-PROFESSIONALLY REFINISHED”. So no question it has been refinished. The polish looks out of place against original pistols.

[micky2]

If l believe this pistol was sold quite a few years ago in a poor condition, l will have to try and find out where l got the info from. l think it might have been in Dr Joe Gilbert's sale from 1982 but can't be sure. but it is not a WR original made one. like John as said above every thing about it is wrong.

What l should have said was, it is not a original WR factory up grade sights and grips. but the pistol is original.

[Garvin]

What l should have said was, it is not a original WR factory up grade sights and grips. but the pistol is original.

So do you think both the sights and grips might not be factory made, Mick?

[45flint]

Here are some pics I blew up to show the pitting that was originally on the pistol. They couldn’t get all the way into where the tube meets that block. Also look at the back of the front sight. No question they had to abrade quite a bit to polish it. The reason almost none of the lettering is left on the tube. I think to some of these older collectors refinishing is not as tainted as we may think now? Though to me it just kind of ruins the gun but from a historical point of view, I find it hard to believe that the grips are not original and probably the front sight is what is mentioned in the advertisement? If it was a later serial number more doubt would creep in.

[micky2]

So do you think both the sights and grips might not be factory made, Mick?

Hi Danny, having looked at Flints latest photos of the rear sight, that looks to be original to the pistol as it has the same amount of pitting, but l don't think the foresight is, l have not seen one like that, but l could be wrong.

[Buck25]

If l believe this pistol was sold quite a few years ago in a poor condition, l will have to try and find out where l got the info from. l think it might have been in Dr Joe Gilbert's sale from 1982 but can't be sure. but it is not a WR original made one. like John as said above every thing about it is wrong.

A quick look at my records show that the March 1982 Phillips auction listed 5 Westley Richards pistols with the lowest serial #11.

Well Steve, I guess you are no longer interested in my nickel Westley Richards pistol serial #115.

[rapidresponse1]

not seen one of those before

[45flint]

A quick look at my records show that the March 1982 Phillips auction listed 5 Westley Richards pistols with the lowest serial #11.

Well Steve, I guess you are no longer interested in my nickel Westley Richards pistol serial #115.

Lol, yep but mine are blued.

[Garvin]

Hi Danny, having looked at Flints latest photos of the rear sight, that looks to be original to the pistol as it has the same amount of pitting, but l don't think the foresight is, l have not seen one like that, but l could be wrong.

You could well be right, Mick.