Sold for $1,200

.36 caliber. 7.5" octagonal barrel. SN: 110622 (mfg. ca.1861) and 111863 (mfg. ca.1861). Blued and color casehardened finish, brass backstrap and triggerguard, one-piece walnut grip. Single action percussion revolver with smooth round six-chambered cylinder, hammer nose notch rear sight and brass post front sight. One line barrel address is a somewhat incongruent ADDRESS. COL: COLT LONDON flanked by arrows, a typical later London production barrel address and possibly indicating that this was a left over barrel returned to Hartford from the failed Colt London Armory. Lower left of frame with COLTS/PATENT mark. Matching serial number 110622 or a shortened version of that number on frame, barrel, loading lever, wedge, cylinder and arbor pin, with the last digit on the barrel obscured. Butt and triggerguard with the mismatched number 111863. Grip unnumbered. Standard roll engraved naval scene is barely visible. An old typed GAR tag is attached to the triggerguard and reads: "LONDON COLT NAVY LOST BY W.R. PARSONS AT ANTIETAM BATTLEFIELD REPAIRED BY REG'T ARMORER HANS PETERSON MASS. 2nd INF CO K ISSUED TO A. PETERSON SAME REGT. 1863."  The butt of the gun is stamped 243 and WRP and inside the backstrap cut out of the grip is a partially legible stamping in individual letters that indicates the gun was repaired by regimental armorer Peterson. A large binder of information regarding the men mentioned on the tag, as well as Colt Factory letters for both of the serial numbers found on the gun are included. The letter for 110622 indicates it was shipped to Schuyler, Hartley & Graham in New York on September 3, 1861 and that 111863 was shipped to JP Moore in New York on September 19, 1861.

The associated story suggests that William R. Parsons, who was wounded in the hand at Antietam lost the gun at that time, with the supposition that the bullet damaged the triggerguard, backstrap and grip of the gun. The gun was later recovered from the field and repaired by the regimental armorer put back into service. While the story seems apocryphal at best, Parsons was wounded in the hand at that battle and later discharged for his wounds. At the time he was the company 1st sergeant, so he was one of the few enlisted personnel in the regiment who could have justified his possession of a handgun, even a civilian, non-military one. Peterson was actually detailed to serve as the regimental armorer in 1863, so it is possible that he repaired the gun. While almost impossible to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt, the GAR tag is old, the available primary source information makes the story plausible and there is sufficient circumstantial evidence to indicate that story is possible.