Originally Posted By: Ben Thayer
Originally Posted By: L. Brown
Re guns sleeved by Merrington . . . I don't think there's much question that he does good work. But he also does not stamp them "sleeved". Good work + not marked sleeved can = potential deception down the line, when the current owner parts company with the gun. If a gun is sleeved, especially "invisibly" so, it ought to be marked sleeved. As required by the proof laws in the UK.


Originally Posted By: buzz
I couldn't agree with Larry's sentiment on this issue more.


If that's the case, y'all should take up a collection and send me and my guns to the London proof house, I'll take pictures. LVI, Philly, and Newark are the most convenient airfields for me.

Thanks!


Not quite sure how that pertains to the question at hand, Ben. If an American gunsmith sleeves a gun, why shouldn't he then mark it "sleeved"--since that's the standard in the country where the practice was invented, and since it will lessen the possibility of fraud, when the gun is sold at some later date?