Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Savage Collectors 1899 Production

January 26, 1900:

So Rory, have you unearthed some old Savage ledgers or found their press release templates in an old barn recently?

Are our production figures of about 1500 for 1899 wrong? I think Arthur was prone to exaggeration sometimes.

David, that's the question...

I don't have dates from letters on very many of the early 1899's. Most of those are on special order rifles which were often assembled at later dates.

I do have dates on four 1899-B's that would indicate that assembly was not in serial order. It could make a big difference in statements of numbers:

1899-B, 117xx produced 12/21/1900, shipped 12/22/1900
1899-B, 13223 produced 12/18/1900, shipped 12/22/1900
1899-B, 16527 special order, 11/24/1900, shipped 12/18/1900
1899-B, 21115 produced 12/15/1900, shipped 7/11/1901

Close, dug up a bunch of old newspaper articles online.

One has to remember the low accuracy rate involved with newspaper reports, but they are also from the time and not from 120 years of hearsay and repeating what was written in books and articles. So... more info to keep track of.

My 1899 half octagon serial #10449 was received at the warehouse April 14, 1899, if that sheds any light. We have to assume production was gaining momentum as 1899 progressed. But since we think only 1900 were produced in 1900 that sure throws the production figures off for a few years. David

I can answer this. After looking in Davids new book on page 134 at the serialization chart, I got suspicious and began spot checking some of what was there. I don't know where Kimmel got that info , but I did not find much right with it. Anyway, Arthur was pretty close to right in his statement. A close tally of the 1899 built rifles, shows that 9765 were built in 1899. So here is another little tid bit for you to mark in your book. JTC

If it was me for reliable information I'd still rely on primary sources such as factory records more so than secondary sources such as news papers. Having said that I have to ask if the factory records from that period still exist?

You just read the words of the Savage Historian, the source of all factory letters. He has all existing Savage records. Are you saying you don't believe him?

Arthur was saying 4,000 in 1899, and about 10,000 in 1900. Are you saying they actually did almost 10,000 in 1899? Or did you accidentally type the wrong number?

Appreciate the time and effort to look this up for us, John!

Nope not at all and didn't even imply that. I just stated how information is organized in doing historical research on 99s or any other subject and then followed it up with a legitimate question on the state of factory records for the early 1900s.

So I'll ask the question again. What do the factory records say about production figures in 1899, assuming that the records still exist. I'd trust that source of information long before I ran down the road chasing down the validity of a newspaper article.

So again, I'm just stating where my trust in historical information lies.

The records still exist, and that information is what JTC was reporting to us. He owns them.

Thank you for answering my question. Maybe I have my wires crossed, but based on wyo1895's first response it seems to me that the issue revolves around a recently found news paper article or articles that challange the validity of the factory records for production figures in 1899. I see the factory records as the primary source of information and the news papers as secondary sources, and in doing historical research primary sources are always better than secondary sources. So if it was me I'd vote for the factory records as the most trustworthy candidate in this campaign. But that's just me and maybe I don't know everything there is to know about this issue.

Close... the recently found newspaper article challenge the validity of some previously published serial number ranges by folks like Kimmel and Murray. All secondary sources. JTC is being kind enough to give us some data from the ledgers.

If production ran to serial 19765 (probably a higher range if receivers were not assembled in order) at the end of 1899 then all the "SAV 30" marked rifles were produced in 1899 vs. 1900. Doesn't sound right.

The NRA numbers put production (serial #) for 1899 @ 13500 and 1900 @ 21200. Those numbers tie in better with the Arthur statement. I wouldn't think that Arthur would have under stated the first years production by 6000 units.

Just me thinking at the keyboard.