Quoted:
For those interested, this SP-1, with incorrect barrel and BCG, sold for $7475 at the Rock Island Auction this past weekend.

Quoted:
Hate to say it but from those pics somebody came by their coins pretty easily.  Guess that 017 has a lot of pull.  Seen similar parts in a Suppy Center dumpster.

Quoted:
For those interested, this SP-1, with incorrect barrel and BCG, sold for $7475 at the Rock Island Auction this past weekend.

Quoted:


I, for one am very surprised by that high of sale price...especially with the incorrect items.  Maybe the individual that purchased it has the proper parts to bring it back to it's original configuration or just doesn't know the difference.

With that said, number 017 would be a great addition to any collection.

Quoted:


This was my thinking.  I bid $4k with the expectation that I probably already have any required replacement parts on hand.  The challenge, though, wouldn't have been finding parts as much as documenting exactly what those parts should have been.  Unless Colt kept meticulous records of those first few builds, the only way to be certain would be to track down a few of the other 2-digit rifles and compare them. And unless you happen to know a bunch of former Colt execs––AND you're sure they never modified their rifles––that wouldn't be as easy as it sounds.

Still, the payoff would be worth the trouble.  If the owner is able to accurately restore and document it, it would be a very rare piece of Colt history.  From a collector's perspective, you can't even compare a 1963 rifle to a 1964 rifle.  There are 100 times as many 64's as 63's, and anyone could buy them from the local shop.  A '63 with documented provenance is a whole different beast.


This raises an interesting question about "collectible" ARs, though.  
When it comes to most old guns, any repairs or "restoration" really hurts the collector value.  That means re-bluing or wood refinishing, and it often includes parts replacement.  A replacement hammer on a 1st gen SAA, after all, wouldn't have been hand fitted by a Colt's craftsman at the factory and may have different case colors than the original.
But how would this affect a collectible AR like 017?  Assuming you could document the original build––and then find identical parts to the originals (in original condition)––would the "restored" AR be significantly less collectible than an unmolested one?

I was thinking about this not long ago, when I bought the pieces for this old SP1.  In this case, I was able to retrieve all of the actual parts that originally came on the rifle so they aren't "replacement" parts.  But considering the history of the rifle, I could never claim it was "unmolested".  I have no intention to ever sell it, so the matter is purely academic, but I'm curious how much AR values are affected by a reassembly (like mine) or a parts-replacement restoration (like 017 could be).

Since the ARs are so modular, I just doubt they'd suffer as much as a rifle that requires substantial factory fitting. (Even if a seller were honest enough to admit a part had been replaced.)

Opinions?  
I know a lot of what we build here aren't original rifles, but I know a bunch of us have real M16s and SP1s.  So what factors do you consider most important when evaluating a collectible old AR?

Quoted:


Actually Olgunner,while I agree for the most part with what you've said,I have to add this. Halschick had spoken to Joe Canali at the Colt archive center a few times regarding this rifle. They gave him some helpful info but to the point where they informed him that they really could not go further unless he wanted to pay $100 for the research letter.
Now,here's where it gets tricky,,another member with a very low SN rifle chimed in the original auction post stating he had heard,or had info that the 1st 23 rifles were held by Colt and offered to Colt employees or board of directors members.He also mentioned that the lowers may have been put aside and not assembled until it was given to that employee or Board of Directors member,,whoever.If this is true,it could possibly account for the MP barrel and later bolt and such..Now,this is about the only way I can think of that might,I stress MIGHT help get the restoration (if even needed) done correctly. My Colts letter states the date of manufacture and the date it was shipped out from it's birth home. 4 days apart. If the Colt letter for this rifle shows a manufacture date after 1963 (assuming they consider manufacture date as the date it was a completed rifle),then the new owner would be able to restore to that year parts as we know them. The only thing in question, which could be answered if new owner does commit with Colt's to purchase the letter, would be to verify with Canali what is it that Colt considers the "date of manufacture",,,is it the date the receiver was made and stamped with a SN,,or when it finished it's trip down the assembly line..
The one single part on this rifle that I was keying in on but the pics were not clear enough on,was the bolt stop. I could not be certain if it was a transitional one or late type. If it was a late type,,then it is entirerly possible that the rifle was assembled at a later date then 63.Bolt stops are not a part that gets replaced that often.
I have to admit,,over the past few years,guys have picked my brain about what I thought some of these early rifles will sell for on GB and such,and not bragging,I have been damn near dead nut on all of them. This one I honestly felt would sell in the $4,700 to $5,200 at best. I was way off.