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
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,509
Posts545,639
Members14,419
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,816 Likes: 194
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,816 Likes: 194 |
Charles Daly - Lindner Nr. 298 w/ Saxony paired w/ Crossed Sidearms surmounted by a Crown & the tubeset knitter/mechanic w/ the initials LE was quite engaged. APUN is absent so manufacture date outside of A&D Body Action protection period. So again, sometime near 1890 there was a changing of the guard w/ respect to serialization & at the time a new series commenced and more than likely the new proof rules utilizing a crown, St. Stephens' / whatever, forced Lindner to commission a new stamp of HAL over Crossed Sidearms and in the transition period of 1890-1893 Saxony was paired w/ the stamp of Crossed Sidearms surmounted by a Crown. Cheers, Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,816 Likes: 194
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,816 Likes: 194 |
Just wild speculation for now, but the preponderance of evidence puts a thumb on the scale pointing toward a possibility that Lindner commenced anew his numbering scheme w/ the patent protection period for the Anson & Deeley Body Action patent of May 11th, 1875(Britain) or February 1st, 1876(filed Dec. 16th, 1876(U.S. of A. Nr. 172943) noting the 14 year run of the British protection period, i.e. the 1st Lindner serialization sequence paralleled the 1876 A&D Body Action period. Although, the bulk of the Lindner - Daly A&D Body Action platforms are the subsequent 1882(Nr. 4089 of August 26th-Britain)/1884(Nr. 305264 of Sept. 16th) design, Lindner seems to have held with the 1875/1876 protection period? If so, this would be a benchmark to date the Lindner - Daly offerings. Anyone have any corroborating info, or even something against? Or maybe a correction on the patent protection period as I always seem to get it mixed.
Cheers,
Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,816 Likes: 194
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,816 Likes: 194 |
The above is given as Charles Daly - Lindner Nr. 713 being a Featherweight & wearing HAL over Crossed Sidearms. So this narrows the transition field from Saxony Crossed Sidearms surmounted by a Crown @ 307 to HAL over Crossed Sidearms @ 713. Nr. 709 also wears HAL over Crossed Sidearms: https://www.gunsamerica.com/975521241/Ea...els-ANTIQUE.htmCheers, Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,816 Likes: 194
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,816 Likes: 194 |
Lindner Daly Nr. 1569 w/ 1873 on stock escutcheon. C. Daly Nr. 92 Anson & Deeley Brevete(APUN) Nr. 212 I really don't see any other solution less there were different serialization sequences for hammer & hammerless Charles Dalys? Cheers, Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,816 Likes: 194
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,816 Likes: 194 |
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,862
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,862 |
Hmmm,
With 1875 being the earliest possibe year for the A&D IPUN, and the presence of first Lindner serialization A&D guns lacking the first Lindner mark, could that indicate Heinrich taking control a little later? Say, 1877, at the time of the Daly deal and his marriage? Especially if the Daly deal provided enough security for Georg to retire?
Regards Ken
I prefer wood to plastic, leather to nylon, waxed cotton to Gore-Tex, and split bamboo to graphite.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,816 Likes: 194
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,816 Likes: 194 |
Many thanks Ken61 for following along and brainstorming w/ me & once again, a whale of a good postulate. But I'm just not sure and the sand has just been pouring in my hole in the Lindner-Daly sandbox & I haven't sorted it out just yet. I too think 1877 to be that transition period but just how many lower scear A & D Body Action might Schoverling, Daly & Gales have peddled from 1877(1875) to 1882??? Now the upper hanging & lower intercepting scear variants cannot predate 1882. Again, still a lot of sand to sift but aren't we having fun.
Cheers,
Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,816 Likes: 194
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,816 Likes: 194 |
But I can tell you one easy & simple, being accurate most of the time w/ exceptions I sure, method to quickly discern whether 1st or 2nd series & that is to note Brown/Plum on the colour of the tubes on the 1st set(possibly including a few up to the Crown/Sidearms transition to HAL/Sidearms) & Black on the 2nd, whether pattern welded or fluid steel.
Cheers,
Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,862
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,862 |
Raimey, Do you now consider this thread to be incorrect? http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...amp;type=threadRegards Ken
I prefer wood to plastic, leather to nylon, waxed cotton to Gore-Tex, and split bamboo to graphite.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,816 Likes: 194
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,816 Likes: 194 |
Yes, leaning that way but if anyone could post an image of a 1st series Charles Daly - Lindner w/ Crossed Sidearms surmounted by a Crown stamped on pattern welded tubes in the colour of black, I might be led to think otherwise? If not, or if one doesn't exist then the preponderance of evidence is going to quickly mount in the brown/plum camp.
Cheers,
Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
|