The two interesting points here, as far as I'm concerned, are:

1. Kyrie claims that the driven shooting was as big a deal in Spain, late 19th-early 20th, as it was in the UK. If so, that would mean one heck of a lot of Spanish doubles floating around. Assuming, of course, most of those upper class types were actually shooting Spanish doubles. I'm still wondering where the heck they've gone to--because there's certainly no problem finding a LOT of British guns from that same period.

2. I don't see any shame in admitting it when you copy a good idea from someone else. Holland sidelock, A&D boxlock, Greener crossbolt . . . all good ideas. All came from the British trade. Clearly, American gunmakers went their own way. Equally clearly, the Spanish did not. No different admitting that a Spanish Holland pattern sidelock or A&D boxlock is closely based on a British design than recognizing that a Krieghoff OU is just a slightly fancier Remington 32. (Even though, as those who've delved more thoroughly into doublegun history know, Remington wasn't quite as forthcoming about crediting the French Petrik as being the genesis of the 32.)

Oh well. Dog people who are sold on one breed (or even bloodline) to the point they run down all the others are said to be kennel-blind. I guess those who denigrate guns by other makers or from another country than their favorite--even when their favorite copied the most significant design features from other makers or countries--have a similar blind spot. I don't take it as criticism of the Spanish when one admits they largely copied the British. If one wishes to dispute that fact, then one had better be prepared to come up with a list of patents for things like actions, ejectors, bolting systems etc submitted from Basque country.