What is that proof mark in the upper right corner of the bbl flats, the one with the numbers under it (probably a date)?



Also note that this gun does not have chopper lumps bbls, even though it is a Royal. I've seen this one other Royals. Anyone know why they did it?

I can't imagine it was customer choice. I'm sure most of their customers had no idea what type of bbls H&H was using. I can't see H&H doing it to save money, either.

BTW: the hole in the rib in another nice feature. Typical hack reblue job.


OWD

Importer stamp?

I am pretty cirtain that the mark is nothing to do with H&H. The suggestion of being an importer's mark makes sense.
I this gun may have been rebarreled by 'another', I have never seen a Royal that didn't have chopperlump barrels but 'never say never'! Are the barrels correctly numbered to the gun? In the same stamp face?

I am looking at a Royal about 50 serial numbers less than yours. It was made as a two barrel set and the proofmarks are the same as your gun, except for the questioned mark. I can see no sign of the chopper lump line on either set of barrels.

I don't know about the bbls being numbered to the gun. I'll have to check.

I have seen a number of Royals with round-bar bbls. I've also seen a number of Bosses made the same way. Christopher Austyn mentions this in one of his books, too.

For some reason the makers used both choppers and round bars.

I've never been able to figure out why.

OWD

First let me say that for a 1896 gun your H&H has remarkably fine breech face--must have been well cared for. The dovetail barrels (in lieu of chopper lump) have the correct 1896 period proof marks, so likely they are original. H&H had only built a factory 2 years earlier in London to begin making most of their guns themselves. The barrels may have come from Birmingham, or even the entire gun. My Birmingham gunmaker friends who apprenticed just after WWII tell me that London barrel makers "could not make dove tail barrels but that Birmingham makers could make chopper lump and dove tail barrels". In the time frame of your H&H, I suspect that London barrel makers could make both style, although I do not know this for a fact.

What I do know by reading old gun catalogues is that the Birmingham A&D gunmakers, who also could make London patter best quality SLE's advertised options of either chopper lump, dove tail and Whitworth steel barrels (as well as damascus) for SLE at the time of the making of your gun.

Daryl, at the risk of teaching how to suck eggs, the dovetail joints are usually even more visible than the chopperlump joint. OWD, I assume that 'round-bar' equates to dovetail?
I bow to the more knowledgable on the issue of use of chopperlump v. dovetail but , Bushveld, on a minor point the proof marks are 1896 thru to 1904, not just 1896, this is the start date of the 'Maximum' mark, dropped in 1904.
As I understand it, H&H didn't start a date based numbering system until 1899 with 22000 so a call/email to H&H to establish date might be useful if for no better reason than idle curiosity.
Since the last gun number used in the period to 1899 was 16999, I suggest that this Royal dates from the very end of this period and so most likely barreled and finished in the London factory. Contrary to popular belief, the 1st Harrow Rd factory dates from 1891 and the 2nd premises in 1898 (according to Nigel Brown) and increasingly the Royals were brought 'in house' to improve quality control throughout this period.
Forgive me if I have missed something!

OWD:
Is the stamp "FRANKA"? Also what might be the 3 initials on the left tube near the lower rib?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Tony;

Thanks. I suspect that you and I use the same reference book (Donald Dallas), and I have a question for you.

Donald Dallas in his book "Holland & Holland the Royal Gunmakers" states on page 234 that H&H Nos. 16,563-16,999 are for guns for years 1896-97. And on the same page he records later that Royal guns begin with serial Nos. 22,000. Do you think that the gun is question is a early Royal without H&H recording it as a Royal?

By-the-way, re-read my comment on the proof mark date which was: "...have the correct 1896 period proof marks." I did not imply that this proof mark was only for 1896. As you and I know these proof marks were used 1896 to 1904.

Also of note and interest: Dig's book has one of the best chart's on British proof marks I have ever encountered.

Bushveld, If I may interject.

I have an early H&H royal c.1890 serial number 12418 it is a Royal with a trebele grip and the dipped edge lockplates. if you follow the serial listings in donald's book in the "type of weapon column" it list's "Guns and Rifles", So I take the "type of weapon" not too seriously as far as being the only type of weapons made during that time frame.

I also have a very early No.2 Hammerless that dates to 7/17/1883, serial number 7572 and It pre dates (by serial number) the "first" No.2 hammerless that Donlad lists in his newer book,The british sporting gun and rifle" pg. 243. "the first No.2 Hammerless recorded in H&H number books is 7586 April 25, 1883". So this may be a good example of how "accurate" the records can be.

So I think it is safe to assume that different types of weapons were being produced beyond what the "type of weapon" column in the number books has listed.

H&H

H&H12bore;

Thank you for your most informative update on H&H Royal date of manufacture. Your data floods the subject with light. I need to make a note in my H&H book. What ejector system(inventor) do your early dipped edge Royals use?

Kindest Regards;
Bushveld.

The H and H serial no. records are not the easiest to read. After the reader gets the definition of Guns and rifles and Paradox in his head, it becomes a bit more clear. Dallas' book lists Guns in the 16,000-16,999 range as beng built in 1893-1897. He lists guns built after 16562 as being built 1896-1897. I am assuming these "Guns" could be shotguns of more than one grade, but that may not be true as serial No's from 17,000-18000 list "Guns and Rifles" from 1893-1905. Rook Rifles of this period are in another numbering sequence. For sure, factory records record my gun , with both sets of barrels, in the 1896-1897 period. I don't have the Factory Ledger date on the top of my head, but remember 1896. As far as a dovetail sign, or a chopperlump line, I cannot see either on either set of my barrels, but that does not mean either might not be there. Maybe the fit is too good to see.

Various copies of the H and H production numbers list 20,000-22,449 as "Royal" Guns made in 1898-1900. The progression goes on from there, labeling the serial no. groups for "Royal" Guns.

It might be interesting to see some examples of "Guns" in the 16000-16999 range which were not Royals. It would also be interesting to hear about "Guns" in the 17000-18000 range and see what type they are. Anyone looking in their safe or at old auction catalogs ?

Daryl;

In the past where I could not see a dovetail or chopper lump joint, removed the extractors from the barrels and then in almost all occasions where they were chopper lump barrels could see the centre line joint where the chopper lumps were brazed.

Bushveld

Steve, here is what I see. Is this the "round bar barrels' OWD has seen and seen mentioned ? Much like the Bonehill Patent used on their higher quality guns, but some differences.

Bushveld

Actually.........None

They are both extractors. not a big fan of ejectors.

H&H

#14018 "Royal Ejector / Patent No 11623"; completed in 1891.

With kind regards,
Jani

That type of dove tail is known in the trade as "through lump". It requires more fitting and careful attention than the standard dove tail. More addaptable to heavy wildfowling guns as it was not favoured in light game guns as it requires wider action and barrels are not as easily balanced and lightened as otherwise can be attained from typical dove tail lump and of course the chopper lump.

In heavy load wildfowling applications the through lump allows (as in your photo) the drilling of the extractor holes with little if any removal of metal on the barrels, providing much wall area to absorb chamber pressure.

I have no doubt that you are all correct that any dogmatic use of Donald's numbering is risky. I suspect that this may be down to a variety of issues. One is the holding back of consecutive numbers for a pair that might be ordered at a later date. Also the delay between the order and delivery and the construction of guns for 'stock' may have messed up the numbering.
Since my dating interest as a importer to the US is in the antique status of guns, I use the early numbering blocks as a negative rather than a positive indicator of age ie if it is numbered higher than 16000 it is very likely post 1898.
The only way to be certain is to request the record from H&H who I have always found to be extremely helpful and efficient.