Quoted:
My local shop as well as local forums/Armslist are starting to clot with collectors trying to unload their "original" and "true" Colts at collector prices and they are stagnating.  Local shop stopped taking consignment Colts because they know they aren't selling for what their owners want.  $2500 for a flogged Python with no box.  The lowest I saw was a guy trying to sell a Trooper that admitted to timing problems for $1k.  "But, but, but... it's an original Colt, not these MIM filled, lemon fraught new ones!!!1!". lol

Quoted:

Sounds like it's worth the watch - however I have to disagree with something.
I have appreciation for the craftsmen of yesteryear, the work they put in, and the company whose reputation they help build.
Respect is due, and it is given.
The bluing job on a 1960 colt python, and the poor tolerances and complex design of the old python necessitating hand-fitting just to make it work, does not give me pause at all when looking at the new Pythons.
At all.
It also doesn't make the 2020 colts hi-points.
Additionally, many argue that the 1911s they're producing today, bluing aside, are the best guns they've ever made.
In that regard, superior to yesteryear.

In reality, we only have the choices in front of us.
As long as I've been of age to buy pistols, for a long time colt didn't really have anything I wanted.
I didn't want a series 80 1911, I still don't, it's not for me.
No one is begging for these grip safeties to return.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/51/Colt_Series_80_XSE_-_pic1.jpg

TODAY, colt offers me a bunch of nice series 70 1911s, real beavertails, good sights, quality steel, quality parts, you name it.
As per the limitations of production 1911s, the details might have question marks - sharp slides, the occasional extractor that might benefit from some tensioning.
That's not unique to colt, it's a reality of production 1911s.
But today's variety is excellent - and the Delta elites of today have the lessons of the Gen 1 guns.
The guns of today don't have the galling issues (and there is argument over that) or frame cracking some had in the past, due to the lessons colt learned.

Which brings me to the Python.
I have zero, zero interest in a guy's "$1900" python that's honestly more worn than he'd like to believe - when I can buy a mechanically simpler gun, BRAND NEW, with better steel and a stronger frame design at $1500.
Some lemons aside, it's a more desirable piece to me. Thanks to the EPA, the great bluing might be a thing of the past; though the fine people at Turnbull might have something to say about the supposed demise of good bluing.

The reality is, colt probably could have offered one exactly like the old one, At a pricetag like $2,600. Which immediately makes it a "custom shop" gun, lower volume.
The collectors that paid $3,000 for theirs would insist theirs is still better, it would still have the flaws of the old guns to boot.
The alternative - a light redesign. Simplification, better materials, with the goal of getting close to how people remember the old guns, at a price in the ballpark of the modern buyer.
The knock: At launch, no bluing. Unfortunately, gun reviewers got a few lemons.
Additionally, the guys who paid $2,200 for a shooter python, now telling everyone the new ones are "fake colts" because their investment just lost value because when new, THEIR gun was polished on a hamster-fur wheel for 5 months.

Look, I don't mean to single your post out personally - but there's this "Fake Colt" idea flying around right now and it needs to go.
It does seem to be mostly mega-phoned by guys worried that a non-immaculate or not-rare configuration python might lose value, and/or S&W fans hating colt and sounding edgy.
It's kinda ridiculous, and needs to be treated as such. I'll watch that amazon documentary at some point, and judge it on its own merits - likely not in this thread which is just about the python
But the "fake colt" idea is silly, and to bring up that manufacturing in 2020 has different realities and challenges than 1965? Is kind of a non-point, and not a fact in argument by anyone.

Quoted:
@JsARCLIGHT

You are a six gun guy! Nice review.  How about a pic of the forcing cone and top strap?

Quoted:
@JsARCLIGHT

You are a six gun guy! Nice review.  How about a pic of the forcing cone and top strap?

Quoted:

[Chris Christie] "There it is..." [/Chris Christie]
Light primer strikes in part due to the weaker spring?
The fix makes for a heavier trigger pull?
It might be "within spec"? But the on the ground opinions were, that it was lighter and nicer than advertised.

Part of the allure of this revolver for me, even with the high price, is that it had the trigger pull of a performance center revolver.
Heavier trigger? Making it lighter puts it in a "might not fire all ammo" bucket?
Sideplate issues? $1500?

I'm now leaning to "interest now below 50%".
The aesthetics alone aren't worth it to me, for $1500 it needs a trigger pull in the category of a S&W Perfomance Center gun. I might now kick the tires on a S&W PC 629 stealth hunter in .44

For the money, IMHO "well it's still pretty good, it's heavier now but smooth" is worth a bit less in my mind, and I'll now be looking at other platforms. $1500 is "awesome and I can't think of much I would change" tier.
That said I won't risk mucking up this thread by complaining further. I'll just say I'm disappointed that one of the fixes negatively impacts the gun's shooting experience, something that put the gun in the "high interest" category.

Quoted:
I mentioned that I thought this would happen in a few Python threads, and the purist collectors poo-pood the idea.Hopefully these new pythons bring some of the old Colt prices back down a bit to reality.

Not every Colt is collectible, but try telling that to a collector.  I'm glad they seem to be gearing the Python and King Cobra towards Shooters instead of collectors.

Quoted:

I had the money lined up, a dealer picked who I'd talked to specifically about it; your post is erroneous start to finish, and it was declarative in tone.

That post went past overreach and into "derp'.