No, I don't think I have any such pictures in my files. I've seen such pictures in the past and didn't think to save them. But I don't think there is much difference between the Krupp trademark lettering on a set of Damascus barrels whether it is a stamp or engraved. The reason I don't feel it makes any real difference is because these markings are most likely applied after most or all of the finish grinding, striking, and polishing is completed, and any such stamps on a rough set of tubes would most likely be totally removed during such grinding and striking. It would be an easy mistake to make on a set of barrels in the white, especially with the lighting in a New York gun manufacturing plant circa 1900. I agree that there is a big difference between a stamp that was made in error and one that was applied as an attempt to counterfeit or deceive. But in either case, the presence of the word Krupp would not help us to identify the steel maker who made the material in those tubes.
To answer another concern, I did not say that spectroscopic analysis was not accurate or precise. This is typically what is used today to test steel during and after melting in order to arrive at specs within tolerances specified by the manufacturer or end user. The point I was making is simply this: There have been literally millions of heats (or batches) of steel made by thousands of past and present day manufacturers since the inception of mass produced steel late in the 19th century. Many of them are too similar to say with any certainty that a particular sample was made by one certain manufacturer. Even the same grade and type of steel made by the same manufacturer will have slight variations between heats, and even within the same heat.
I seriously doubt if even the FBI would have an adequate database of all the heats of barrel steel ever made to be able to take a sample from a 100 year old shotgun, and tell us with any degree of certainty who made it. But there are thousands of Met Labs that could analyze it and tell us the composition of that sample with a high degree of precision. I thought I made this point perfectly clear the first time.
