Condition, configuration, or the name of the company has nothing to do with it. Davenports were actually quite decent guns.
English and European standards for usefulness do not apply here, when it's "American Classic" being considered. Seems you would understand that, Ted.
JR
John,
The post was NOT about "American Classics", it was a topic which questioned if the term "Classic" and "American Gun" should be used in the same sentence. You would have to make it back to the original post to see that.
One thing I perceive very clearly is just how useless the typical American gun that was built to the dimensions I described (and, we have all seen, thousands of times) really is when it is compared to what was coming out of Europe in the same time frame. Not all the LC Smiths and Parkers that have been restocked were done because the lousy fitting and design caused the wood to go bad (although, we have to admit, there was plenty of that) some were done just to get dimensions that allowed for someone to hit something flying in front of the gun.
I don't believe anyone here (except, perhaps, you) would begin to speculate on the Davenport I posted a link to being considered a "Classic". But, it falls into the definition you posted. A definition I find a bit broad when we look into what a shotgun is really supposed to do for us.
Best,
Ted
