Hi all - long time reader, first time poster. I've spent a lot of time here trying to learn about a sxs that I bought a few years ago; would very much appreciate your insights and corrections. Hope the pictures aren't too big and the blathering isn't too much; we've gotten a little cabin feverish already while staying in from the storm.

As background, I have a thing for Irish guns, although usually not enough coin for the really nice ones so no Dublin blunderbusses or cased Trulock pistols, etc - but a nice lot to enjoy. The RIC is pretty original, the ER-prefix #1 needs wood & nose cap, of course. I don't worry too much about returning a military arm to original configuration once it's been messed with like that #1.


The Braddell is another story. While the screw heads say it's been a little messed with I'm not going to dig into it past a field strip and cleaning with oil & toothbrush. Here's what I think I know about it, and I'd love to learn more about who might have made it and what next steps make sense.

While worn in places and clearly knocked about some the action is very tight. Some dings and pitting in the barrels. Top rib reads "J. Braddell & Son Castle Place Belfast." Definitely restocked, but the forearm looks original based on wear. The engraving seems pretty substantial, but I've got no idea whether this was a high quality piece or just a fancied up commodity. 3-iron oxford if I'm reading the damascus right?



Proof marks say London, 1875-87:


Water table has limited markings, but also London. 5375 is the Braddell serial - I'm betting that the other number is the maker's serial?



From what I've read, Braddell likely bought their components at this time (if not completed guns) from Bentley & Playfair - in fact, after the elder Braddell's death the business was owned by Charles Playfair, son of the B'ham gunmaker. They did make guns (Bulldog revolvers, for sure, maybe shotguns), though.

Why the London proofs if it's a Bentley & Playfair or other trade gun? I suppose that an enterprising Birmingham maker would (for a fee) run one's guns down to London as part of building them to your spec, so that they had the London gun cachet?

Even though I bought this as a curio,for the name & origin, I'd like to know if it's got particular value to insure. Haven't seen many sales to gauge value by, and there are so many factors that determine double gun value. I suspect it's a mid-line trade gun worth at best the $750 I paid for it but then again, there's the blind pig and the acorn to consider...

Regardless, I'll have it serviced and inspected to shoot. If a trade gun and not shootable perhaps have the barrels etched before it goes on the wall? Even middling damascus can look pretty good as art.

Thanks for your consideration!

I'd say you are right on the Bentley and Playfair origin. The Deeley use number could tell a bit of a story if Westley Richards files were available. They required delivery of such guns to their premisis for inspection and stamping, before the guns were finished up. Lots of Birmingham guns with London proofs for the reasons one might guess. It could have just been handier, or requested.

You have to measure the bores,walls and chokes before you can value this gun

Thanks for the advice, Justin - it'll take a while to get but I'll update the thread when available.

Darryl - thanks for the lesson about use numbers, most interesting. Are those records actually available?

I do not know if Westley Richards still has those records. Somewhere in the back of my mind I seem to remember that Braddell records may exist. Maybe a business of that name existed late into the 1900s in Ireland.

Some Braddell records are available, contact them here:

http://www.braddells.co.uk/

If a ledger entry exists, it could point to Bentley & Playfair for the source of the gun, but then again Osbourne and Tolley also built guns for Braddell.

I have done a lot of research on the Playfair family (Aberdeen and Birmingham) and one mystery is Charles Playfair's (III) connection with Ireland. We know Bentley and Playfair were supplying to Braddells but Charles also took time to buy a secondary home in Ireland, marry an Irish girl and they had two daughters with strong Irish first names, both born in Belfast, Ireland.

With records and family members long gone, one can only speculate if there was any connection between Playfairs new Irish family heritage and acquiring the trade business and finally buying Braddells outright.

Is it mere coincidence that Braddells are in Belfast and Charles second home and children were born there?

The pig goes hungry this time...

I'm going to stick my neck out and say it's more likely a Westley Richards action from the first two or three years after Anson & Deeley took out their patent. I've only ever seen the round/cylindrical ends to the cocking levers on WR actions, also the Westley Top lever arrangement was only used by them at that time. Suggest you strip carefully and look for other patents identified.I have a Thos Turner from same era which has 5 different W.R. patents listed on components.

Hugh Lomas +1

This gun is before Bentley and Playfairs involvement with Braddells.

@Daryl, Braddell is a going concern for general sporting goods. Web site says that most of their records were lost in a fire at the Castle Place building, but I have an email in with them. I've read that the current business doesn't much care for these sorts of questions, though.

@Fletchedpair, Braddell themselves mention that Charles owned the business (http://www.braddells.co.uk/about.htm), so making his home in Belfast seems right - or are you curious which came first, buying the business or making the family? That would be a good story.

@Hugh, I'm not brave enough to turn the screws but will ask whoever ends up servicing it for pics and follow up.

I think Hugh is on the right track with Westley Richards. It is an early gun proofed between 1875 and 1887. Late 1870's at a guess. Lagopus.....

Indeed that is the puzzle, Charles had what can only be described as a 'palace' as a home in Birmingham and so his house in Belfast would not have been his main residence.

But I never found out if the business of Braddells brought him to Belfast and he met his wife there or through the heavy Irish presence in Birmingham he married and through a family trip back to the emerald isle, he came across the business of Braddells and things moved on from there.

It's hard to figure out but the underlying question is why would a established and professional man (fought in a war, ran a big gunmaking business and then association with the proof house) such as Charles Playfair (III) have time to buy into a small business some 400 miles away over the sea?

In case you are wondering, Charles Playfair (III) mother was Louisa Bentley, Thomas Bentley's daughter. Nothing like marrying your business partners prized possession!

Hugh, you could be right. But I think there is a possibility of the Braddell/Bentley and Plafair connection quite early. The following scenarion appears in my files.

June 22, 1876, R E Couchman [for Anson and Deeley] license the pat 1756 of 1875 [action] to Westley Richards. No mention, as I read the contract, is made of a "sole" license.

Nov. 3, 1879, Couchman [I think for Anson and Deeley] licenses the A and D action to Charles Osborne and Co. [Charles Osborne, Ellis and Edward, and Wm Wilkerson]

Feb. 20 1880,Couchman licenses [for Anson and Deeley ?] the A and D action to Harrington and Richardson for sole license in USA. By the way, these guns had the round cocking rods Hugh refers to.

It was sometime later , but at least by 1889 that the licensing of the Deeley patents, at least was being done by Westley Richards and Co Ltd. So it seems sometime between 1880 and 1889 that Westley Richards may have acquired the sole rights to the A and D action. [or when did the 1876 patent expire and was it renewed ?] In 1889, the Deeley ejector was licensed to Pryse, Turner, P. Webley, Bentley and Playfair and others by Westley Richards. It is not inconceivable that the A and D action was licensed to others closely following the original license to Westley Richards , similar to the License for the A and D action granted to Osborne in 1879. My "guess" is that Westley Richards acquired the A and D patent sometime in the early 1880s as their own.

To me the high use number on the Braddell A and D action suggests quite a time period from the late 1870s when it was manufactured. Use numbers for the A and D patent built by Westley Richards started at No. 1.

Well, what does all this mean ? Maybe the Braddell is a Westley Richards made gun, but maybe not. Could be Osborne, or Bentley and Playfair . History of the companies might make me lean toward the latter.

Paddy: it may be 4 rod English 'Best' c. 1870s-80s. Could you please post another image of the pattern?

I have seen a similar gun stamped under the cover plate by Brazier .Made under licecne so I would guess there may well be others who also did so .

Thanks, Drew - is this useful?

You are correct Paddy - it's 3 Iron 'English Best' or 'Turkish', and very nice!

Hmmm, Paddy Garcia, while at Halliburton I worked with a Christine Garcia in Houston, but she was Chinese.

Ah, the handle comes from a Pogues song rather than my real name. I liked the ring of the San Patricio sort of Spanish + Irish name, but adding Chinese into the mix is beautiful.

Got a very nice reply from Braddell, unfortunately no further information available:

Following up to close this out, eightbore was kind enough to measure the Braddell's barrels at the Chantilly VA gun show last weekend.

• Breech ID RH 0.738" LH 0.743"
• Mid ID RH 0.738" LH 0.736"
• Choke RH 0.006" LH 0.038"
• Chamber thickness about 0.110-0.120"
• Barrel thickness was no less than 0.030", and mostly over 0.035"

So that's all positive; with some dents worked out and some RST shells I will don some goggles and try it out at some point. Thanks to all for your help and information - I've learned a lot and really appreciate it.

Positive enough;even with one tube out of proof it's still a nice gun. Why don't you have a 'smith take it apart and make sure the innards are ready to be used. It would be a shame to mess it up now.

Strong evidence for Bentley & Playfair sourcing is this Bentley & Playfair on sale at Vintage Doubles - barring some very minor engraving differences is is an extremely close match:

Based on the A&D use number, I would say 1887-1888, but the proof mark would narrow it down to 1887.
Those patents were good for 14 years, so the A&D patent expired in 1889, even though guns were finished sometimes later later with a Patent use number.
Both Anson & Deeley worked for WR. Anson was the foreman and Deeley was the managing director at the time. I don't think that they would have licensed the patent to others without the firm's approval and/or benefit. Deeley owned most of the WR stock in 1899.
The 1864 patent C bolt lockup is special to Westley Richards and would point to their direction.
Even though other brands have used a C bolt (Bland and many others), I would think that they would have sourced their action from WR.
Enjoy the gun!
WC-

That gun looks alot like my Alexander Blair 12b from the mid 1880's.

Actual retail value is $1600-$2600. Over $3k if in proof. Sadly, it seems that bore diameter mean it is not. I'd have it rebrowned in the UK and sent off to proof if you're going to own and enjoy it for awhile.

That would be retail price in a well advertised gun room in the USA.

Strike the above comment, thought ejectors were installed. $700-$1200.

Is this an ejector or non-ejector gun?

DDA

The Bentley &Playfair and Blair shown above look very similar to my 1887 Westley Richards "Highest Quality"(especially the engraving patterns and the church windows).

Question re proof rules:

The "not for ball" on this gun tells us that it was proofed prior to the rules of 1887, which is when the fractional bore sizes (12/1, etc) came into use. Thus, prior to 1887, a gun could have a bore diameter of up to .750 (11ga starting at .751) and still be a 12. If that gun had been submitted for reproof when the fractional bore sizes were still in use, then the left barrel would have been marked 12/1. However . . . since 12/1 did not exist when the gun was originally proofed, would it now be judged to be out of proof because it is more than .010 over the .729 12ga standard?

Good point, that's a good question for the proof house!
WC-

The A. Blair is a non-ejector gun.

The Braddell is a non-ejector and the Bentley & Playfair is also non-ejector.

Providing there are no further proof marks since the pre 1887
not for ball then your gun remains in proof.Marked as 12b/14 means it could have been up to .740" at time of Proof. 1954 General Rules of Proof state:-
#7 ( Barrels enlarged in the bore) unproved if 9"/diameter....."is .010 or more of an inch greater than the nominal diameter marked on the occasion of the last proof or re-proof."

Thus .740 t0 .749 in proof, .750" out of proof (only if latest proof is 1887)
Hope this helps, I'm still betting on WR as action manufacturer

Thanks, Hugh!

Hugh, I'm taken aback by your statement. If a 12 bore was proved before 1887 and "marked on the occasion" as 12 then it will be out of proof when it measures .741. I believe the operative word is marked. If the gun measured .739 at the pre 1887 proof it would not have the .010 to go because it was marked 12.
Please show me where I'm wrong.

Justin, that was the crux of my initial question. But look at it this way: There were no fractional bore sizes prior to 1887. 12 was .729; 11 was .751. Thus, a gun that measured .740 from the factory would have been marked 12; couldn't have been marked anything else. And it would have been in proof. IF there had been a later reproof, then it would have been marked 12/1 if it measured from .740-.750.

I'm not sure here. I think that would apply until the proof laws were changed. The 1954 law that Hugh quotes puts the gun out of proof when the bore diameter passes .010" from the designated size which is .729. If this were 1880 Paddy's gun would be in proof. If Paddy wants to sell this gun now as in proof it must be reproved.