Just sold at Rock Island.

Beautiful gun, but.. thoughts?

https://www.proxibid.com/Guns-Milit...Model-1899-Rifle/lotInformation/72456977

I dunno...

Beautiful, well kept specimen with an interesting history.

I think it brought what it's worth, all things considered.

It's serial number is 154264, not lettered but that would be Apr/May of 1914 by serial number.

No perchbelly on buttstock.
Pistol grip cap - too early to have one, but that could be explained if it was finished late.
Front sight base is the long integral base from the mid-20’s.

Stock and barrel appear to be from 1920’s.. forearm even has a different serial number, with the receiver serial stamped lightly as well.

I would guess a factory restock/rebarrel. Maybe even engraved later? Tue was still there, who’d be able to tell?

here is a gun that I own 162xxx with marlin S and perch belly. does seem like this gun doesn't quite make sense.

Can't speak to this rifle specifically, but after perusing the new Savage Engraving Book it is very clear that many embellished rifles do not fit squarely into any catalog template.
Lots of variations in engraving, checking, pieces and parts.
As always, do your homework, buyer beware and buy it or not.
As others have said many times, never say never....

I also own 1646xx that letters as Nov 1916 and has a marlin S, perch belly, no cap.

I'd be awfully suspicious of that gun... and is that a repair to the left side of the forearm... looks like some patched in a triangle of wood that doesn't quite match.

Fug was holding it while I looked it over. I'm very much convinced it was a 1920's full restock/refinish. Notice the lack of a screw through the takedown collar? That's post-WWI.

The left forearm is fine, as far as I remember. Neither of us noticed a thing. That's just a dark streak in the grain.

Interesting.
I don't see a factory letter anywhere. Is there one?

I have a feeling that some receivers engraved by Tue were shelved/saved for whatever reason. Not many, but some.
That could explain some early 99K's that look like Tue's hand.
It could also explain this rifle. The receiver was engraved around 1914 and shelved/saved. A work order occurred in the 20's for an embellished rifle. Save pulled the receiver and assembled with current materials.
Of course a letter may actually indicate shipped in 1914 and the above theory would be kaput.

That's possible, I guess, and a good guess. The bottom of the receiver had to be left blank for future finishment. I made that word up, it just sounded good to me. But, I can see them setting aside receivers knowing that there would be special people, who needed special guns, in the future.

If I were at bat in that game, I might take a swing at it?

Not lettered as far as we know. The long integral front sight base on the barrel would indicate early 1925 to mid 1927 normally...

But the date on the bottom says June 14, 1924.

Tue was still there in 1924-1926 and still doing engraving. So a lot of possibilities. Including that it made multiple trips back to the factory, wouldn't be the first fancy gun we've seen do that.

The elk and belly engraving all looks secondary.
It was presented by the Elks in '24, thus the elk.
The lettering, date, etc. doesn't remind me of Tue scrolls.

Another Savage "parts" rifle? Albeit a nice one!

You should letter it.

Totally agree on the bottom engraving. Could be Gough, no way it's Tue.

Gough was high brow when it came to engraving rifles or shotguns. Don't think he'd bother with a mere belly. Plus he was still at Fox in Philly at the time.
The Elks may have done that part on their own. It looks like the local jeweler did it. Just a thought.

Yep, I was commenting more on the style. The known timeline definitely doesn't fit Gough.

To play devil's advocate tho.. Owner may have taken it back in after Gough started doing 99K's for them. Or another lesser skilled engraver. The gun was in Utica. If I wanted something added to a gun and I lived in the town where the gun company was made, I'd probably ask them first.

Wonder how many work orders are entered in the ledger for that one.

might have been one of Gough's employees.