doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Charles Daly Modells 43/53/55/60 - 401/402/403/404

"The second set of barrels are what is called "Manufacture Extra". This nomeclature is from the company catalog of (forgive the missing accent marks) Manufacture Liegeoise d'Armes a Feu. Portions of this catalog are printed in Manfred Sachase's book on damascus steel. At the time of manufacture it appears that these barrrels were 5 times more expensive that the cheapest barrels from this company. This set of barrels have been redone in the classic black & white."


http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=66415&page=4

Better stated, when you see original black on tubes of a Charles Daly example, you can all but be assured it is in the 2nd sequence of serialization.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

http://www.rogerbain.com/product/charles-daly-by-lindner-2522/

Charles Daly - Lindner Nr. 939 is in the above link & I'd bet a $ to a donut hole that it falls in the 2nd sequence.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Ken61:

If you have a handle on the top end of the 2nd Lindner series, it would run from 1890 to say mid 1915 & then see what production numbers were in that effort.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Wouldn't it be more plausible that the second series numbers started circa 1892, coinciding with the proof law change?

If we extrapolate from there using the 15 gun per month model through 1915, the estimate for the last serial numbers of the second sequence would be approx #4500. If 18 guns per month it would be approx. #5400. The last of the "Lindner Daly's"....

Using the same calculus, they continued using the first mark for a couple of years into the second series, transitioning to the second (HAL) mark at around two to three years of the second series, (1894-1895?) using the estimate of approx the #500 gun.

Even the estimate of #5400 may be low, depending on the degree of expansion during the 1905-1906 period when Ernst came into his own. Which also coincided with the Edwardian Period and the "Golden Age of Shotgunning".

Regards
Ken

"H.A. Linder - Suhl
Founded 1874
Berlin Salesrooms
P. Helbig Wilhelmstrasse 53
Specialty
Charles Daly Guns
For Export to North America"

Interesting bit of information. Is it plausible that Heinrich spent a few years in Berlin at this time in order to learn the Marketing side of the business? Then return to Suhl in 1877 to marry and to take over the business from Georg?

It must of been an exciting time in Berlin in those days, coming off the victory of the Franco-Prussian War, The unification of Germany into the German Empire under Bismark, and the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine. The true ascendant period of German history.

Regards
Ken

Ken61:

I see little info, if any, that extends the cutoff date for the 1st sequence forward of 1890. H.A. Lindner's Crown was changed to HAL circa 1892/1893 but not the serialization.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

Charles Daly hammergun Nr. 836 whose custodian is Edwardian and it wears a Schilling style forend bump & I for one would guess it is pretty much a Schilling product w/ Triebel components.



Cheers,

Raimey
rse

To hash out any difference between the hammergun serialization & the hammerless serialization, we need to find a hammergun & hammerless w/ the same serial number.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

OK,

If this gun is from the second serialization sequence and is a higher number than #500, it should carry the second Lindner mark as well.

Note the gun's action crosspin is in a different location than the earlier (we think) Birmingham-sourced locks, with it being to the rear of the hammers, but higher up on the side plate. This would appear to validate that by this time they were sourcing the components locally, using the as-stated Triebel components.

So far it seems to me (and I may be wrong) that the serial number sequencing is holding true, with both hammer and hammerless guns falling into the established ranges. I suspect the A&D APUN numbers are out of sequence, possibly using a Francotte numbering series for assigning the patent, with the numbers being bought individually or in blocks. So, having little relationship to the Lindner numbers.


Just curious, but why do you put the change in serialization at 1890 rather than 1892? It just seems more logical to me that the change to the second number sequence would be in response to the proof law change.

Regards
Ken

Ken61:

Maybe a bit off track, but the above is a Charles Daly badged hammergun wearing a number of 836 and the only marks given were the tubeset knitter CK. So a S,D&G badged and evidently didn't pass thru H.A. Lindner's hands but maybe Georg??

On the 1890 date, to be convinced otherwise, all I would need to see is a 2nd series wearing an inverted APUN on the standing breech. Payment of royalty & application of APUNs @ a satellite stamping station would have dropped off mid 1889. 1st serialization sequences mimics patent protection period for the A&D Body Action. More on the calculus later....

Cheers,

Raimey
rse