Over Three Thousand Two Hundred times readers have looked at this thread.
I remain unable to understand why Shooting Sportsman magazine would publish an article which includes information on some of the guns one of its advertisers acquired, and not be interested in telling their readers about the three other finished Holland & Holland-style sidelocks which were part of the very same collection but acquired by private parties, once that information was brought to their attention.
Their subtitle contains the words " fine-firearm find of the century".
However, the article reports on only "part" of the find; that part which remained and which was acquired by one of their advertisers after the first three were purchased through the very same individual, by private parties.
If the find is significant enough to publish an article about, it would seem to me, being a magazine of integrity, they would do what ever they could, just as quickly as they could to correct the erroneous information by following up with the information made known to them about the three finished Holland & Holland-style sidelocks which their advertiser did not acquire, but, were, in fact part of the very same collection.
Do they think it is acceptable to not put forth the complete accurate information, I wonder?
Do they expect their readers to just keep buying their magazine knowing this is the kind of less than accurate reporting which is published, I wonder?
A simple follow-up article could make this right, is called for, and, simply put, is the right thing to do. It would be a way to honor their responsibility to their profession and to their readers. Not to mention they could give validity to the various makers, the barrel makers, the engravers, the guns themselves.
Where is the harm in that?
Last edited by Bob Rowley; 02/26/10 06:41 PM.
