Gentlemen, this is to request any information concerning E. C. Schmidt, of Boston, Massachusetts, said to have been a nineteenth century American importer of German / Prussian guns, as well as an importer of fine European guns from other regions.
I seem to recall reading here that E. C. Schmidt may have acquired or perhaps supplanted William R. Schaefer & Son in subtly importing from Prussia Lindner-sourced guns in-the-white for the American marketplace. Schmidt may have subsequently finished the imported guns in the U.S., as Schaefer had done. I cannot find any other information online or elsewhere about E. C. Schmidt, which company seems to have been a comparatively obscure company, given the frustrating absence of information.
I appreciate all information concerning the subject E. C. Schmidt company, especially that concerning its business relationship with Lindner and other Suhl gun-makers or area outworkers generally, and learning the dates it was in business. If you can name or cite the sources of the provided information, I would like to know that too. Posted pages from catalogs once issued by E. C. Schmidt, for example, would be very welcome. Beginning and ending trade dates for this company are important to know for my purposes.
Thank you for whatever information you can provide, which is always gratefully received. With my
Regards to all,
Edwardian
1912 Firearms License Applicants/Issue
Seems E.C. Schmidt hung out his shingle by the early 1890s and was active till at least 1912 & for the duration he was at 15 Cornhill(Washington Street????), Ward 6, Boston, Massachusetts. From the little available info, it would seem he paralleled the likes of Josef/Joseph Jakob of Philadephia being an artisian & somewhat unknown.
E.C. Schmidt (Schaefer's successor in Boston - William R. Schaefer 11 Dock Square, Boston for 1862)
F.G. Doell 11 Dock Square
Charles H. Euterbrouk - 17 Portland
W.R. Schaefer & Son, 61 Elm - owned by R.E. Denman(fire February 13th, 1894 - match dropped in packing material)
all in 1889 Listing
Richard Schaefer commited susicide in 1909.
http://doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=104850&page=1Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
"Raimey," thank you very much for the detailed information, which is more than I had hoped to be provided, and is gratefully received.
I am researching a 10-bore boxlock ejector gun that reportedly has "E. C. SCHMIDT, BOSTON, MASS." stamped on the top-rib, is in the 142x serial number range, carries a set of Krupp steel barrels, and evinces what appear to be full side-clips. I am persuaded it is a Lindner-sourced gun. However, I have no other information anent definitive stamps or marks (requisite proofs, country of origin, whether A & D stamp is on breech face, etc.), only that it bears "German proofs" on the barrel flats. The single photograph I have is a right-side, full-length profile.
Given the information you kindly provided, however, I can now deduce that this gun is likely of post-1898 gun manufacture and is not an earlier piece, and ergo can not be defined as an antique firearm. The fact that E. C. Schmidt was in business from the early 1890's to at least 1912 is the final bit of persuasive information, which when added to the foregoing observations, brings me to that logical conclusion. Therefore, though most regrettably, the seller is correct in stating this is a "curio & relic" gun. I buy only antique guns. I will contact the seller Tuesday, in order to refute or confirm these deductions.
Thank you, once again, for your much appreciated response. With my
Best regards,
Edwardian
No worries & glad to assist, but without any images or other info, I'd probably hold with the Lindner 2nd series serialization & I'm sure Ken can narrow the date on 142x, which began in 1893 if I'm not mistaken. Also this would have been in the very late period when a 10 bore found favour with the American Sportsman.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
"Raimey," I had the same thought respecting the heyday of the 10-bore as having passed when this gun was produced. But the curiosities do not stop there. Below is the single photograph I possess of the
E. C. Schmidt gun for now, until I can request more:
We immediately remark the English-style straight stock, which is said to have a chequered butt and no butt-plate or toe and heel clips. Every 10-bore I have seen had some sort of pistol-grip (full, 1/2 or 1/4). I believe this gun was stocked in the U.S. after importation from Prussia, although if this assumption is true, the use of an un-American chequered butt leaves me puzzled. The drop-point and side panel do not seem as refined, shall we say, as English- or Lindner-produced work. Alternatively, the gun might have been restocked, which may be the better explanation for these stocking anomalies. However, the forearm seems original (another reason to assert a restocking), complete with an ejector 'eye' and the trademark forend tip in evidence. Although the other trademarks, the elegant flute at the nose of the comb and a chequered panel, are not present.
I do not perceive that straight-grip butt-stocks were ever popular in the U.S. during the 1890's or immediately after the turn-of-the-last-century. Personally, I have never seen such employed with a 10-bore. This configuration is particularly at odds with experience when one considers the very heavy charges of propellant and lead shot popularly used at the time.
This 10-bore has 28-inch barrels, not the usually encountered standard length of the era, choked improved modified and improved cylinder. Certainly odd choke selections for this bore, given the normal uses for the 10-bore afield. I do not know the weight of this gun, but it cannot be anywhere near the standard 8-9-pounds in 10-bore.
The gun's full serial number is 1424, which is within the known Lindner 4-digit serial number range (
Merz Antique Guns has a
Daly-Lindner "Featherweight" on offer that bears serial no. 1416, being sold as an antique, and another also in that range). If Ken can narrow the manufacturing date of this gun to during or about 1893, I would be overjoyed. Hopefully when I contact the seller next week, I will learn of telling marks and stamps and even Lindner-related indicia, providing additional fodder for more questions.
Thank you for all your kind help concerning the dating of this gun. I greatly appreciate all your efforts and informed opinions. With my
Best regards,
Edwardian
http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=291185&page=allI'm not exactly what the yearly production numbers might have been but a wild guess is that it would take 3 or 4 years of example to attain that number & add some time for shipping across the pond.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
One other item, if I'm not mistaken most of the Daly Guns that were made from Scott parts kits and pre-Lindner were straight hand stocks. Could have been a repeat offender client. More than likely are not in the 1st serial number sequence.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
As Raimey mentions, E.C. Schmidt was a long time employee of William Schaefer in Boston before striking out on his own following the demise of the Schaefer concern in the mid-1890s.
The presences of (real) side clips on this gun is a significant clue. Sideclips on Prussian Dalys are first seen circa 1901/2. Sideclips are mentioned for the first time in the 1902 SD&G catalog, but the picture accompanying the write-up show a gun without sideclips. The 1903 SD&G catalog has the sideclips in the description and in the photo.
It is an odd configuration for a 10 gauge. Though that said, a couple of months ago I was admiring a neat under-lever Prussian Daly hammer gun made after 1900. The customer was king apparently, even if they wanted to order something weird.
Ken
Thanks Ken for taking time to reply. Just as an aside, where would say serial Nr. 1500 fall as a date range in the 2nd series serialization; post 1898?
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
My guess is that the "serial number" quoted on this gun is actually the smaller working number ahead of the barrel flats. I own an E.C. Schmidt gun similar to this one and it is devoid of a "normal" serial number - i.e., a number behind the trigger guard or otherwise externally visible.
Based on that, I would put this gun in the circa-1903/4 range. The mechanics of the gun - shape of the action, steel barrels, sideclips, etc. - would all correspond to a date in that area.
Best,
Ken
Raimey & Ken, thank you very much for your historical cites, references and informed comments. It is a welcome learning experience to read your posts anent the E. C. Schmidt-marked 10-bore gun, as well as an opportunity to learn more about Lindner-sourced guns.
I only wish that I had more questions to ask at this time to learn even more. After I have spoken to the seller this workweek and discussed the several points raised here, there may be more questions to ask.
After consideration of the content of your posts, I am now persuaded that this particular gun must be of 1903 / 04 vintage. The sideclips seem to be a key indicator of that suggested range, especially when combined with other equally suggestive indicators, such as the presence of Krupp steel barrels, etc. Therefore, this gun cannot be classified as an antique firearm.
The lack of a serial number, other than a "working number" located ahead of another E. C. Schmidt gun's the barrel flats, is an interesting observation. I wonder if this dearth is characteristic of Schmidt guns generally? After speaking with the seller, I will report on what was learned in that discussion. If nothing else, the information obtained may be a useful addition to the information data base, and perhaps help answer future inquiries on the subject.
Again, my thanks to all for your very informative and helpful responses. With my
Best regards,
Edwardian
Considering the above, my 1st thoughts were that E.C. Schmidt being an employee of Schaefer(I wonder if Richard Schaefer & E.C. Schmidt were related, brother-in-laws or something????) had access to the stockpile of Schaefer. But the addition of thet sideclips would point to later sourcing, which I'm sure had to go thru Schoverling, Daly & Gales as I don't think Schaefer had a direct line to H.A. Lindner in Suhl. Remember this was during the tariff phase. So how would it be devoid of a serial number & be sourced thru Schoverling, Daly & Gales? Boy a peek at their ledger would be most informative.
1883 Advert/Article
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
Nice addition Mr. Hallquist. R.F. was W.R.'s son. Looks like a mix of Belgian marks on sourced tubes & voluntary German process marks.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
Raimey, can you hazard a guess as to when this gun fits into the Schaefer time line ? In some ways the R F Schaefer guns reminds me of the Euterbrouk of Boston guns, although I'm not convinced they match time periods.
Is R F Schaefer the same person mentioned in the suicide announcement of 1909 ?
I don't think so. W.R. Schaefer had 2 sons, J.R.F. & Richard, who I think was not a critical component of W.R. Schaefer & Sons, which began as a successor to John P. Schenkl.
I've seen the Crown over script A prior & I think it was on something of Dr. McPhail's??
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
I knew I had seen the Crown over Script A & it was on a Schaefer. Seems several upper rung mechanics like Doell & Schmidt passed thru Schaefer's shop.
http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...true#Post306086
1871 The Daly Gun Advert noting W.R. Schaefer & Thos. L. Golcher
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
.... Seems E.C. Schmidt hung out his shingle by the early 1890s and was active till at least 1912 & for the duration he was at 15 Cornhill(Washington Street????), Ward 6, Boston, Massachusetts.
...
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
Cornhill Street in Boston was on what's now the uphill side of the City Hall Plaza along the several-block-long curve of Cambridge Street near its junction with Court Street and Tremont Street, just downhill from the Government Center "T" station. It's an area that lost its landmarks when it was flattened in urban renewal about 40 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornhill,_Boston
I'm confident the S under crossed rifles surmounted by the VC denotes effort by V.C. Schilling of Suhl & I wonder if those O/0 below that accompany it. Then I'd guess the H.S. to be for Heinrich Schilling so now I'm puzzled if the Crown over script A is a Belgian and what effort was applied. V.C. Schilling of Suhl order a gesteck or something similar in the white & finished it for W.R. Schaefer with Daly being middle-man I'd guess.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
Here's some text I composed on W.R. Schaefer. Let's see if I can add or amend anything:
"In 1853 William R. Schaefer hung out his gunmaking shingle in Boston at 11 Dock Square(House?). Interesting that this is also where Fred. G. Doell hailed from while William Richard Schaefer was at No. 61 Elm Street. In 1858 his is still at the same location, 11 Dock Square, as before per the Boston Directory. By 1868 he had partnered with J. Fredrick Werner to advertise as W.R. Schaefer & J. Fred. Werner Boston. It must have been somewhat short lived as in 1871 his address is No. 61 Elm Street, Boston where he advertises as being adept to re-boring scatterguns, which was a very new topic at the time. Even though a Schoverling, Daly & Gales catalogue? gives that the rights to the Ballard rifle were purchase by Schoverling & Daly in 1876, it appears that the acquistion was actually in 1873 and this may be what paired Schoverling & Daly with William R. Schaefer, who was listed as a Schoverling & Daly agent in 1877. William R. Schaefer was a superb shot and offered an Improved Ballard Rifle in 1876/1877 while advertising as "guns bored to shoot close and hard." W. R. Schaefer donated prize money for shooting events and in 1878/1879 donated a Daly Gun for an event. The 6 1/2 P.G. Ballard Rifle with Rigby pattern tube in 38-50 arrived on the scene about 1880 and I'm curious if W.R. Schaefer was involved. The organization of W. R. Schaefer & Son occurred in the 1881/1882 time period when J.R.F. Schaefer came aboard. In the next few years another son, Richard F. Schaefer, joined their ranks and the looks to have reflected it in advertising as W.R. Schaefer & Sons. Richard F. Schaefer, Dick as he was known, like his father was quite the shot and by age 17 could put on quite the exhibition of glass ball shooting at the Raymond Sportsman's Club in Melford, Massachusetts But this too was short lived and by 1890 there was a divorce with Richard F. Schaefer leaving William R. Schaefer & J.R.F. Schaefer at the helm. From here, Richard F. Schaefer's life doesn't appear to be a smooth one as he bounced around from city to city and on July 21st of 1909 was a clerk at a hotel in Norway, Me.(Maine?) he committed sucide abandoning a wife & son. I can't say if they were still a family unit or not but it would seem that William R. Schaefer would have taken in his daugher-in-law & grandson. Another interesting tid-bit is that just a few days later on July 23rd,1909, Fred. G. Doell also expired after a long bout with poor health. William R. Schaefer may have been a cock fighter or really liked chicken as in a 1900 advert, he promotes the wares of the Cyphers Incubator Company. Probably just the latter as he was peddling dunghills and/or showing dunghills. He may still have been active in 1917."
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
Raimey, thanks. That's much more than I knew before. The R F Schaefer gun does seem to predate his 1880s joining with his father and brother. ??
Also, it would be fun to fully understand how the Belgian started guns went to Germany, and then the U.S. I wonder if G. Lindner was the go between in those early years for Belgium, Germany, then on to the U.S. for Daly, Schaefer, etc. It was always my thought, though I cannot substantiate it, that the guns of this type came to the U.S. from Europe into the hands of Daly. Then on to Schaefer, Thomas Golcher, Jakob, Schmidt, etc.
Daryl, is it your opinion that these guns came here with no markings on the receiver and had the Daly, Golcher, Schaefer and other stamps applied here?
Mr. Hallquist:
I'm working of the full story. I'd have to ponder a bit, but I'd date it from 1871 to 1874, possibly a bit later. I'm somewhat confident that bulk of the adornment was applied in Suhl. Choke bore, etc. more than likely was performed in the U.S. of A.
I really don't have much faith that Dick Schaefer made many examples. He was more than likely demonstrating how they wares performed at functions.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
Charles Daly, possibly thru either Hermann Böker or either Auguste Schoverling, was the conduit for the gesteck/parts kit. 1st he went to Britain and sourced from Scott, then he more than likely sourced the gesteck/parts kit from Liege thru Auguste Francotte and a bit later, just pattern welded tubes when H.A. Lindner arrived on the scene. I just don't think the mechanics in Suhl sourced the components for Charles Daly.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
1879 Advert
1885 Advert
Elson & Schaefer - Breech-loader U.S. of A. Patent Nr. 86378 - Feb. 2nd, 1869
Sons went by J.F.R. Schaefer & Richard Schaefer(? - 1909)
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
eightbore, I'm not sure of a definitive answer to your question. As to the % of completion of the guns of Daly when they came from Europe, I think that most were done completely overseas. For Schaefer, Thomas Golcher, Schmidt, and others, I think a higher percentage of their German and English sourced doubles may have come over in the white. Was this their connection to Daly ? Did Daly furnish partially finished guns to the others ? These others certainly sold Daly guns, so there was a working relationship. Years ago I had a Daly and a Schaefer hammerless gun to view side by side. They were identical, including engraving. What % of completion was done in Europe might have varied from time to time. These "others" did have gunsmiths and we see Schaefer guns marked with Nimskie [sp?] signatures. I have seen Kirkwood drillings with no metal finish, but fully stocked, appearing like they would be finished up stateside. [these are not related to Daly, Schaefer, etc. but may be a guide as to how business was done.]
It seems there was a court case between the US and Daly where Daly was accused of evading taxes on finished imported guns by shipping different pieces of completed guns at different times. Then reassembling the finished pieces into completed guns stateside.
I found it amusing in this W.R. Schaefer & Son advert from 1888 that notes "...Engraving a Specialty." I don't recall seeing much adornment on their examples unless it refers to effort by Cuno Helfricht or L. D. Nimskie??? Anyone have any idea of the period of time during which Schaefer sourced L.D. Nimskie for engraving effort?
W.R. Schaefer & Son at 61 Elm Street, Corner of Dock Square, Boston, Mass.
Also in 1896 permits were issed for advert signs at 11 Brattle Street(W.R. Schaefer & Son) & 11 Cornhill(William R. Schaefer & Son) being one in the same as E.C. Schmidt.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
Mr. Hallquist, thanks for feeding the beast. The Gebrüder Ritz stamp is another piece of the puzzle. All the Boys Ritz I'm aware of were in Zella-Mehlis. Alfred & Emil were action guys but I'm not sure they were active that far back. Maybe Bernhard. Permit me to search a bit.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
Raimey, the name Wm. R Schaefer appears on the hammer gun and the less decorated hammerless. The gold adorned hammerless has Wm. R Schaefer and Son. [not Sons] I guess I am surprised the lesser engraved hammerless is not marked "Sons".
Raimey, you have one newspaper or magazine column marked 1869, but it references Wm. R Schaefer and Son. Is the date correct ?
From my research it appears that in 1883 William Schaefer's elder son, John Schaefer, was brought on as a partner in the business. Interestingly, it appears that the younger son, William, was never made a partner. I have only seen the "Schaefer & Son" name in period advertisements and business records, never "Schaefer & Sons". Similarly, I have only seen the "& Son" markings on the guns themselves.
The hammerless Schaefer & Son guns appear to be sourced from two makers - Westley Richards in England and Lindner in Suhl. The Westley sourced Schaefer actions have a flat action while the Lindner sourced guns are scalloped (along with other stylistic differences). From an admittedly small sample, I would also make the observation that the Westley Richards sourced guns usually feature engraving while the Lindner guns often have no engraving
Ken
Finally received the photographs requested from the seller and they indicate what was earlier thought would be the case when eventually viewed, in that the standing breech of the E. C. Schmidt (serial no. 1424) 10-bore gun does not have the inverted
Anson & Deeley patent / use stamp, whether in French or English, which A & D original patent of 1875 expired worldwide in 1889, does not have a country of origin stamp, but has post-1891 German nitro-proof stamps. Although there is no serial number on the tail of the trigger-guard tang, the serial number "1424" is indeed present on the gun's water-table, barrel flats, etc. The surprise is the revealed Scott square crossbolt that came in to use in 1892. The twentieth century sideclips are indeed mechanical and not simply decorative. The unrefined appearance of this gun, however, leads me to believe that while it may have come from the Suhl area or somewhere else in Germany and looks in appearance to be the common article, it was not touched by Lindner or his select outworkers. Though it just may be my disappointment in the condition of this gun and its lack of finish or engraving that causes me to have this perspective.
The photograph below demonstrates the 10-bore's lack of a serial number on the tail of the trigger-guard tang, which too is as was suggested:
The next photograph is a view of the 10-bore
E. C. Schmidt gun's standing breech, in which you can also see the Scott square crossbolt in its recess. There is also what appears to be a single locking screw for the bolt in the upper right-side of the breech face. The fit of the pieces is well-done and expert. The action body, excepting the many detracting surface blemishes, seems well-made although not quite equal to the standards, even those for an exported semi-finished or finished in-the-white gun, of the Prussian-made or finished
Daly guns when encountered in their plainly finished models, or of a gun intended to be finished subsequently by its U.S. importer:
Below is another view that pictorially buttresses my above point:
The water-table marks are informative, not only for the fact that one sees the crown over "U"
untersuchung (and nearby associated eagle stamp) or view stamp, as well as the serial number "1424," but also because the initials "E.S." appear, which additionally inform the viewer that this gun was imported by E. (C.) Schmidt:
With the following photograph, the markings and stamps on the barrel flats and the undersides of the barrels help complete the story of this particular gun. Again, the serial number "1424" is shown, the post-1891 nitro-proofs are present, the bore is shown by "10" and "11/1," and the smooth bore proof is also shown (crown over "S"). The gun is marked as being proofed for a choked barrel (crown over "W"). Per the stamps appearing on the underside of the barrels, the barrel-maker is "R.S." and his proprietary maker number opposite is "1670." The stamped "D" on the barrel flat is curious:
To speculate, this gun seems to have been imported into the U.S. by Schmidt no earlier than 1892 (and likelier in or around 1893 when he started in business), after being nitro-proofed by the Germans prior to its export to the U.S. Perhaps it then remained in inventory until an order was placed with Schmidt for an out-of-fashion 10-bore gun built in the odd for the period configuration we see to-day, in approximately 1902-4. In completing the order, the action body was upgraded with period sideclips, etc.
All the foregoing make rough sense until you come to the anomaly. That anomaly is the lack of the country of origin stamp usually seen on the water table, underside of the barrels, underside of the forearm wood or metal, etc. on a gun otherwise marked / stamped in accordance with and that evinces mechanical aspects of a post-1891-2 manufactured gun. In comparison, I own another similarly disconcerting gun, built on an English
W & C Scott action body that, in addition to having no country of origin stamp anywhere (nor patent or use stamps), has only British black powder proofs and yet has the aforementioned sideclips too, as well as the Scott-patented crossbolt, which highly finished, privately labeled and U.S. imported gun, complete with black and white
Kilby-marked and numbered damascus barrels, was provably completed in Prussia by H. A. Lindner (although it does not bear the maker's trademark stamp).
The obvious question is "
Why not anywhere a country of origin stamp?" Were separately imported parts, as opposed to complete operative units, entering the U.S. for sometime post-1891 (and before
Schoverling, Daly & Gales were successfully sued for avoiding taxes / duties in this manner by the U.S. Treasury) somehow exempt from country of origination markings and / or import duties / taxation if lawfully defined at the time as unassembled parts? The answer(s) might help sort out some of the questions that have always surrounded these 'hybrid' European guns imported into the U.S. during the so-called Golden Age, with any number of them being owned by the correspondents here, which possess otherwise inexplicable out-of-time characteristics needing reasonable and historically based explication.
I have greatly enjoyed reading everyone's posts regarding the
E. C. Schmidt gun, and I have learned a great deal not previously known to me; always a very enjoyable and worthwhile experience. The photographs accompanying texts are great and the guns depicted enviable. I appreciate every response and am grateful for the interest shown. Thank you! With my
Best regards,
Edwardian
D is always omni-present in that same position on non-Sauer doubles made in Suhl. Schilling forge tubes & tube work by H.A. Lindner's staple Robert Schlegelmilch Meiningen/Suhl. E.S is the Suhl mechanic who either filed the frame & worked the action or both.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
Raimey, you have one newspaper or magazine column marked 1869, but it references Wm. R Schaefer and Son. Is the date correct ?
No, No. Faux pas, Faux pas on my part. Somehow saved the wrong date for the 1885 advert/image. Thanks for following along.
In 1882 they are listed in 3 formats:
R. Schaefer & Son for J.F.R. Schaefer
W.R. Schaefer & Sons for Richard(Dick) Schaefer
William R. Schaefer & Sons(J.F.R. & Richard(Dick))
All at same address of 61 Elm
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
Is the overhanging/intercepting scear screw lacking on the right side? I can't really tell from the image. Also is the rectangular/square crossbolt hidden?
I'm all but positive H.A. Lindner's HAL over Crossed sidearms is present forward of the flats. They've just been worked a bit or disguised.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
As an aside, I've heard some rumblings of a Christian Daly of Suhl who hung out his gunmaking shingle in 1885. More than likely just pure happenstance??
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
I have seen only 3 Schmidt guns, including yours. All were hammerless, uningraved guns. Has anyone seen engraved Schmidt guns?
I have seen a total of 4 Schmidt guns (including this one), probably some overlap with Daryl's obserations (maybe a lot of overlap :-)). I own one of those guns. All four were unengraved (unless you count the engraving on a couple of screw heads and the word "SAFE" on the safety).
Ken
I reexamined the photograph earlier posted that depicts the 10-bore E. C. Schmidt's barrel flats and the area a tad forward of the same, looking more carefully for Lindner marks. I now perceive there is but the "HAL" stamp, sans a suggestion of any interceding crossbar above the usual crossed pistols, on the underside of both barrels just forward of the barrel flats and immediately below the respective proof stamps just above. Indeed, I am very glad that these marks were noticed by Raimey, and I stand corrected on this point, where I had wrongly stated there was no attribution to Lindner evidenced by the Schmidt 10-bore gun.
I have read elsewhere that the "HAL" trademark stamp appears by itself occasionally. Regardless of how this determinative stamp is depicted here, the stamp establishes the gun at least passed through Lindner's skilled hands, though where applied and to what degree I cannot say. For that estimate of masterly attention, I would rely on the probable appearance and overall finish of this gun when new. When I envision this 10-bore as a new gun, I see a very plain-finished, undecorated domestic gun designed for and purpose-built to withstand hard use and some abuse, yet continue to perform admirably.
It seems more obvious than I earlier thought that this 10-bore gun was imported into the U.S. and finished, to the degree we can view for ourselves, in accordance with the prevailing U.S. standards of the time. This also helps one better understand the configuration anomalies previously mentioned, if we are persuaded that this gun was finished in the U.S. and not in Europe to their standards and tastes.
The unanswered questions concern when the gun was imported and when it was finished or completed. Should we expect to see country of origin stamps on an unfinished imported gun, which when it entered the U.S. was not as a completed single unit but instead reduced to its several unfinished constituent parts, having been so reduced in the country of origin for business reasons prior to its importation? What was lawful to do during these decades of our national history? And if this was once the way to conduct business, when did the practice begin, and when (and where) and why did it stop?
There is a right-side intercepting safety screw (See the full length photograph above that shows such a screw.) on the upper part of the gun's action body, which presence is duplicated on the action body's upper left-side. I cannot tell from the several photographs provided to me, however, whether or not the gun has a hidden crossbolt. If I had to venture an educated guess, I would say that it is not hidden, but is as typical: push the top-lever to the side and the finely fitted square crossbolt emerges slightly from the left-side ball fence.
My grateful thanks to all who have so graciously provided the perceptive and informed opinions, as well as the wealth of information addressing E. C. Schmidt guns generally, in their posts. I am greatly impressed, humbled by and appreciative of all your efforts, and for your time and kind consideration.
With my
Best regards to all,
Edwardian
Me thinks it has a hidden rectangular 3rd fastner and is a very rare sporting weapon including bore size. If I'm not mistaken Joseph Jakob turned out a few 10 bores. And also that as I mentioned earlier that Daly, either thru Böker or Schoverling's contacts, was the key for sourcing. It's a pretty easy fall back position & I'd hazard a guess that the bulk of the Suhl-esk sporting weapons, not including some Belgian outliers or that Francotte was the source for the APUN stamp, were made on the backs of the most talented pool of Suhl, and possibly Z-M, mechanics. Seeing that Schmidt worked @ Schaefer, I see no reason he would change the modus operandi. Daly's outlets are going to continue to capitalize on the value of the expertise of the Suhl talent pool & then add some intrinsic features like choke, shooting performace, maybe weight reduction, etc. that they deem essential. Now Lindner was either most capable or he could recognize quality from being around other mechanics who could turn out examples that oozed of quality. His touchmark of either Crown over crossed sidearms or HAL over crossed sidearms is a quality control stamp. It just isn't possible that he could have attributed significant effort to every piece that wears his mark. So he too had a most talented merry band of mechanics.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
Golcher Nr. 1741 & C.F. Schilling, St. Louis, offerings included 10 bores also:
http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...true#Post253264Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
Do we have any evidence that Shoverling, Daly, and Gales actually had any significant gunsmith employees on site ? I cannot remember any information on that.
We do have S D and G relationships with several gunsmiths who actually made a living at it with their own businesses. We have Schaefer, T. Golcher, later Schmidt, Overbaugh, and others. I wonder if any work S D and G needed in the US was farmed out to others like above. I'm sure I have missed a few names. All of these names seemed to have a Lindner connection. Was all of that through Daly ?
Yes, Charles Daly, et al, was the string that binds them all. I hope we one day find S,D&G's ledgers. I am curious who there sourcing lines might have been prior to Schoverling & Daly.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
To my knowledge, SD&G never directly employed any gunmakers in their retail locations. William R. Schaefer, however, employed several "gunmakers" (or "gunsmiths" as they were noted in period census records), mostly German immigrants (including E.C.. Schmidt). Period publications discuss Schaefer's rather large shop and the gunmaking that went on within. The shop was mostly destroyed in a fire in 1893.
Yeah according the Fire Marshall the fire was started by a match being dropped into some packing material. Would be nice to know what the names & address were on the shipping box. I haven't really searched to see if any of Daly's outlets are listed in travel logs from the U.S. of A. to Europe. If the logs are devoid of the names of our merry lot of American makers I just don't see how they would have direct sourcing lines to Europe.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
Ken:
Any idea of W.R. Schaefer's output? How did he compare to S,D&G, 10 to one, 100 to one or more? I just don't recall seeing all that many W.R. Schaefer examples so to what might Schaefer's gunmakers been engaged?
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
If I were to guess, and it would be just a swag as there is not enough Schaefer data, is that the ratio of Prussian Dalys to Schaefer guns is somewhere north of 10:1. Schaefer was in business for approx. 40 years compared to the Prussian Daly period of approx. 65 years. And obviously the SD&G concern was significantly larger.
In addition to making guns, Schaefer's team also did repairs, conversions, etc. Schaefer also did considerable business supporting competitive rifle shooters. And since these guns were pretty pricey, the relatively small volume of production would still be enough to keep the 3 - 6 workers he employed busy.
Again, just a swag, but to have a number to debate, I'd go with 10:1, maybe a little higher.
Ken
Thanks Ken & I assume that's overall production? Any idea how Suhl/Georg-H.A. Lindner sourced examples would compare?
THOS. L. GOLCHER. MAKER No. 116 W. GIRARD AVE. PHILADELPHIA PA
This example was reminded me this week. Nr. 1161 with encircled H. KLT for a Klett, either Hans Hermann Klett, Heinrich Klett, etc.
Not sure why Golcher applied his name. I'd say to infer he played some part & that it passed thru his shop. It was made on the backs of the talented mechanics in Suhl. Only thing that makes me pause is the adornment @ the end of the forend wood, typically British fare.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
