When a gun is reproofed, are the old proofs sometimes entirely removed?
I have seen guns that had additional proofs added after what I think were the originals - or at least I seem to remember that on at least one or three different guns. But I have an Evans that must be very early and it is nitro proofed and everything about the proofs scream very recent to me. There are no older proofs. Is this "normal"?
Not too unusual really, I certainly see it often enough. Much cleaner to read but you loose the history. You are correct, those are very recent proofs. I believe I see the "R under a crown" mark, that is a re-proof stamp.
Yes, very recent: you can see the Birmingham date stamp top right. If you post a better photo of it someone on here (including myself) should be able to date it.
I can not be sure but I think I see the original proof marks on the barrel, not the flats. Certainly the provisional proof mark is there.
Although it does happen, proof marks on the flats are rarely totally struck off. The provisional mark is usually struck particularly hard and would involve removing substantial wall thickness on the chambers.
Furthermore, to remove the proof marks one would have obliterated the serial number and it doesn't look reapplied to me, IMHO.
There was a period when some 'smiths peened the old marks to show the gun was out of proof if reproof was not being applied for. Quite unnecessary legally but who knows the back story.
Toby, there are some marks on the barrels that are very deeply struck. The upper right mark is a pair of crossed swords with the letter B to the left, and O to the right. And below, it is some much deeper striking that is uninterprettable even under high magnification.
The new markings must be on a piece of inlaid steel. But the joint is very hard to find. Nicely done to be sure.
I bought this gun out of London from a reputable dealer in about 2005 or a bit earlier.
Yes, that top right mark is the Birmingham PH date stamp. I am away at present but will try and remember to look up the reproof date when I get home. Send me a PM if you don't hear from me in the next week. The mark in the lower quadrant of the crossed swords is only the identifier for the proofer himself.
I very much doubt that the new marks are on an inlaid steel: if reproof was being done, welding out of the old proof marks was much more likely, either TIG or laser.
but I would still be looking for the old proof marks on the tube in front of the flats before I assumed the old ones had been removed.
Toby, there are some marks on the barrels that are very deeply struck. The upper right mark is a pair of crossed swords with the letter B to the left, and O to the right. And below, it is some much deeper striking that is uninterprettable even under high magnification.
The new markings must be on a piece of inlaid steel. But the joint is very hard to find. Nicely done to be sure.
I bought this gun out of London from a reputable dealer in about 2005 or a bit earlier.
According to my notes the Birmingham Proof restarted stamping the letter "A" mark positioned to the left of the sword or sceptres hilts beginning in year 1999. Therefore if your marks have the letter "B" in this position it would have been marked in the year 2000.
Anomalies with British reproof are quite common. I've seen a lot of British guns with more than one set of proofmarks, but without the R/crown reproof mark.
My reproofed 1885 Reilly 16 gauge (en route from UK).
I believe it was normal practice only to stamp with the reproof mark if it was proofed under the same rules of proof . If the new marks superseded the earlier one then it was not used .
I believe it was normal practice only to stamp with the reproof mark if it was proofed under the same rules of proof . If the new marks superseded the earlier one then it was not used .