Colt Bisley tends to be less expensive?

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

 

Something that I have observed, and find puzzling, is how a 1st Generation Colt Bisley tends to be a LOT less expensive than a comparable standard 1st Gen SAA.  I mean, when was the last time you saw a 1901 made SAA in rather good condition for only $1100 and change?

 

 

 

It's not perfect, but it's pretty darn close, and the grips look brand new.

Compare that to this one made in 1904

 

 

Pretty rough in comparison, but still a solid shooter.  I got this one for 1200.   

 

Both are .32-20's by the way.  But I have seen .45's and .44-40's for around the same price in comparable condition.   But standard SAA's that otherwise look like these from the same time I have seen running 2 to 5 times the price.  

So what is it about the Bisley?  Is it just of less interest to collectors?   I would have thought since it's rarer that they would command a higher premium, but that does not seem to be the case.  

Anybody else shoot Bisleys?  Did you find them to be less expensive to acquire?   Inquiring mind wishes to know.

 

 

 

 

[Cholla]

Bisleys have always been a better value. Many don't realize they are a SAA in front of the grip frame. I am guessing it's because they don't have that classic cowboy plow-handle look. The grips are hard to get used to for many as they were designed for the Bisley matches in England. The proper stance was elbow bent, wrist bent. This photo of Pancho Villa shows how it was done. They were popular in the US southwest and Mexico.

 

Your grips may be reproductions. You can buy them on eBay and other places.

 

 

[irish ike, SASS #43615]

I had a pair of Colt Bisleys, repo's, they just don't feel right for cowboy speed shooting. Long range/target shooting OK.

[Cibola Al]

I had a Uberti Bisley that I planned on shooting at revolver side matches, and it seemed perfect for that purpose. Now I am keeping my eye open for a Colt Bisley in 38-40, shooter condition. If I saw one for $1,100 I’d pounce on it.

[Abilene, SASS # 27489]

Yes, Bisleys are less expensive than SAA's.  Why?

1)- EVERYTHING is less expensive than the SAA, thanks to Hollywood, TV, and the fact that they are well made.

2)-Bisleys are ugly.

 

IMO, of course. 

[doc roy l. pain]

Bisleys!!  I love them!

[H. K. Uriah, SASS #74619]

I'd always thought the Bisley was an interesting looking pistol, and thought I might like to have one, just to have one in the collection.   A few years ago, I had the opportunity to handle one, and I found myself not liking it.  It felt weird in my hand, and I didn't think I'd do well with it.  So, for many years, I just kinda wrote off any interest in them.

Them I found the second one in my original post, and since it was in .32-20 and I did need another pistol in that caliber, so I bought it.  When I tried it at a match, I found that I didn't really notice the difference in the grips.  It seems that "the heat of the match" just made me not worry about it.

Now that I've got a sort of a matched pair, I'm sure I'll have more fun with them.

[Tom Bullweed]

I sold my Colt Bisley in .32 WCF made in 1902.  It was as tight as a new gun.  The inside of the guttate perchance grips were roughly inscribed YAKIMA LOG CAMP 1906.

I paid $1000 for it around 2010 and sold it for a bit more in 2015 when I decided to never shoot one handed.  I have since done well in GF, FCD and Be Western (shooting GF about half the time).

A collector at the Colt Collector annual show looked at my gun and shooter-grade Bisleys are 50-70% price of an SAA; Bisleys top out around a third of a similar high-grade SAA.

[Driftwood Johnson, SASS #38283]

Howdy H. K.

 

You seem to be doing a little bit better in the Bisley department than I am. I paid $1700 for this 38-40 1st Gen Bisley that shipped in 1909 a few years ago. Almost no blue left on it at all except in the cylinder flutes, and yes the ejector rod handle is a little bit bent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I paid a lot more than that for this 38-40 Bisley that left the factory in 1907. (No I ain't saying how much.) But the condition is much better than the other one. I do not believe it is a refinish job, but I suspect somebody did a little bit of fire bluing to the screw heads.

 

 

 

 

 

A bit more Case Hardening colors on this side of the frame.

 

 

 

 

 

I love the photo of Pancho Villa with his Bisley. Here are a couple more photos of him with his Bisley.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree with Cholla. I have always felt the odd shape of the Bisley Grip was designed for 19th Century target shooters who often tended to shoot with a bent elbow exactly as Pancho is doing. I find that when I point a Bisley with a straight elbow, it tends to point down at the ground a bit. When I bend the elbow a bit just as Pancho is doing, it points straight forward.

 

 

Regarding the price vs a standard SAA, I don't think rarity has anything to do with it. There were two versions of the Bisley Model, with adjustable sights and with fixed sights. The adjustable sight models had a rear sight dovetailed into the frame that could be drifted for windage, and the front sight could be adjusted for elevation. Interestingly enough, although the Bisley Model was designed as a target revolver, there were only 976 Bisley Target Models made, vs 44,350 fixed sight models. The adjustable sight versions do bring a pretty penny when they show up. (A total of 311,255 "plow handle" 1st Gen SAAs were made.)

 

I think the disparity of prices between the two is because the 'standard' SAA is simply in more demand, probably because almost every silver screen cowboy carried one.

[Vaquero Kidd]

On 10/4/2022 at 11:55 AM, Abilene, SASS # 27489 said:

Yes, Bisleys are less expensive than SAA's.  Why?

1)- EVERYTHING is less expensive than the SAA, thanks to Hollywood, TV, and the fact that they are well made.

2)-Bisleys are ugly.

 

IMO, of course. 

I was thinking the same thing about #2. But I didn’t want to yuck anyone’s yum… lol