March
S M T W T F S
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Who's Online Now
10 members (Der Ami, JDH, craigd, JayCee, 2 invisible), 364 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics38,373
Posts543,991
Members14,389
Most Online1,131
Jan 21st, 2024
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,828
Likes: 12
Sidelock
**
OP Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,828
Likes: 12
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


Good Gun Alerts & more:

www.DogsandDoubles.com
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 81
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 81
Importer stamp?

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 775
Likes: 35
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 775
Likes: 35
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?

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,264
Likes: 196
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,264
Likes: 196
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.

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,828
Likes: 12
Sidelock
**
OP Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,828
Likes: 12
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


Good Gun Alerts & more:

www.DogsandDoubles.com
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 915
Likes: 243
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 915
Likes: 243
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.

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 775
Likes: 35
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: May 2004
Posts: 775
Likes: 35
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!

Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,736
Likes: 181
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,736
Likes: 181
OWD:
Is the stamp "FRANKA"? Also what might be the 3 initials on the left tube near the lower rib?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 915
Likes: 243
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: May 2008
Posts: 915
Likes: 243
Originally Posted By: Toby Barclay
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!


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.

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 220
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 220
Originally Posted By: bushveld
Originally Posted By: Toby Barclay
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!


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


NOT A FAN OF PERCUSSIVE MAINTENANCE
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2024 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u11+hw1 Page Time: 0.076s Queries: 36 (0.054s) Memory: 0.8542 MB (Peak: 1.8988 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2024-03-28 13:44:24 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS