Hi all, been looking around here on the forum and have ran across Rocketmans Brand Value system and a tier system by others with regards to different makers/guns. So how would you rate the various better know english gunmakers according to these systems?

I totally understand that one has to judge each gun according to its merits, but how would you rate the makers according to thier reputations?

Thanks and all the best!!!

Greg

Rocketman's list is pretty spot on, altho' I'd move Westley Richards down a few notches. They've made far more rough guns than bests, and I'm not so sure their drop-lock guns are bests anyway.

Hi, was wondering if anyone could direct me to Rocketmans post on his BV list - can't seem to find any "listing" so to speak.

Thanks!!

Greg

Greg, PM me an email address if you run Excel and I'll send you "the list." Otherwise, PM me a land addy and I'll mail you a copy. "The List" is a fairly inclusive listing of Brit gunmaker's/retailer's names. The names are pigeonholed into three BV's that pretty much correspond to the BV influence on current USA retail prices. The list has a five factor analysis as to why the various names have arrived at their BV levels.

Hope some of you guys will state your views on names. I, personally, am interested in current ideas and beliefs.

Here are the ones worth knowing (London): Purdey, H&H, Boss, Atkin, Beesley, Churchill.
Birmingham: Powell and Westley Richards.
Screw the rest.
PS. The best English shotgun was Woodward Vertical Gun.
Vertical Gun=insanely expensive O/U shotgun

It makes me feel like vomiting and passing loose stools, but $900 G.E. Lewis BLNE keeper grade (one with Birmingham proof marks not one of the Belgian POS) is far superior to my Sterlingworth ejector.

Hi Rocketman, thanks for the offer. I don't have excell, but my address is:

Greg Westberg

Hi Rocketman, thanks for the offer. I don't have excell, but my address is:

Greg Westberg
PO Box 23
St Anthony, ND 58566

Sure would like to get a hold of it, trying to upgrade my knowledge of brit guns. You seem to have an excellent knowledge of them.

Thanks so very much!!! I sure appreciate it!

Greg

wow i would think W.C.Scott could be listed in london and birmingham as best makers.scott produced guns/parts for so many best makers you would think they would get more respect, not even a mention, should get an attaboy just for the pats.and improvements to guns.i have a scott side lock and it is a thing of beauty. mc

Post deleted by mc

Despite the fact that Scott's best work is as good as anyones', he failed to achieve the social acceptance (factor = 3) necessary for attracting a high % of commissions for best work (factor = 3). He did build a lot of guns (factor = 1), but the firm was not long lived as an independent (factor = 3). The firm did contribute the enduring creativity of the Scott spindle (factor = 1). His BV score, then, is 3 + 3 + 1 + 3 + 1 = 11, which is in BV3 and correlates with observed BV influence on USA retail pricing. BV3 = 2/3 price of BV2 and BV3 = 1/2 price of BV1 for same Original Quality plus same Current Condition. The good news is that Scott guns can be a bargain in terms of quality and condition for the price (buying the gun, not the name). Keep in mind that the market is not going to ignore the name; too many people consider it to be informational about the gun.

is there a study on how many brands (best guns )were made by companys like scott.birmingham was real busy for a lot of years making really good guns for the trade.i have three english guns that were made for the trade.great guns mc

I constantly watch auctions for information on guns, prices, and makers. It is not unusual to encounter a Scott gun, but it is unusual to encounter a Premiere. Flip side - it is not unusual to encounter a Purdey, but it is unusual to encounter graded sidelocks and boxlocks.

I'm not aware of a formal study, but it sure would be interesting data. The archives of auction house catalogues should make it entirely possible, too.

Birmingham could/should include Greener, A A Brown
London could include Stephen Grant,Watson
How far do you want to go back? Joe Manton? How recent Peter Nelson? at the end of the day it is still down to personal preference.
You pays yer money and takes yer choice.

Rigby? McKay Brown? Symes & Wright? Lancaster?

There is of course, the finest rifle maker of all time, Alexander Henry; and how about his apprentice, Daniel Fraser? Oh yeah, there is another gunmaker in Scotland...... John Dickson.

There are many great makers out there. The fun of it is learning to appreciate the history, tradition, and superb workmanship that is embodied in these great creations, and available for a small fraction of the cost of the replacement value.

Rocketman,
Your system fascinates me, could you please email more to me at geddes.robert.r @ edumail.vic.gov.au (take out the spaces). Thanks.

Rocketman,

Could you please send a copy of your evaluation schedule to me at:
mudcreeks@yahoo.com

Thank you,
Serban Ionescu

Rocket, where does a somewhat less well known maker like Lang and Hussey fit in your formula? I have a wonderful pre-war sidelock in near new condition which I picked for a quarter what a similar H&H or Purdey would have cost. Like a Scott, some of the smaller makers built some fabulous gems. Many are available for those willing to buy the gun vice the name.

Not only Lang & Hussey but how about that scoundrel HJ Hussey after he went it alone?

John Wilkes made some nice London guns

Paul, there's not a hotter gun on the market than the Sterlingworth ejector. I luv my standard Sterly!

Rocketman,
Could you please email me the valuation spreadsheet at:

menezesh@netmadeira.com

Thank you
Henrique Menezes

I'd like the spreadsheet as well if possible:

dawson.hobbs@wswa.org

Thanks,
DH

Jagermeister, them's fightin' words! The finest gun I've ever held in my hands is a hammer William & Powell of Liverpool. I've never seen a London "best" that could hold a candle to it.

Similarly,
I've seen some magnificent guns by the likes of Woodward, Dickson, Greener etc...
RG

Jager's just putting us on, bless him. Don't bite!

Woodward, is more a second tier gun imho.
Dickson, perhaps is the best bet to get away from the London scene.
It'd take a Greener G gun for the most part.

How many Woodwards have you owned or handled, Lowell?
You are aware that, unlike Boss who simply named their lower grades "Robertson", Woodward truly did make only bests? They perhaps occupy an upper second tier spot for the simple facts that so few were ever made (and so had less recognition), and that they no longer exist in their own right (but were good enough for Purdey to acquire them to remove a real competitor: Purdeys properly now are known as "James Purdey and Sons incorporating James Woodward and Sons Ltd").
RG

So you think Woodward's "Automatic" thingy was a best gun?

The 4 "Automatic" patent guns I've handled have all displayed best quality (as one would expect of a maker of bests); others I've seen or been told about by people who know their guns have exhibited similar quality.
I personally find the action itself to be superb in use (effectively it's a self opener on a simpler system than Beesley's patent) and very elegantly shaped, but it's not to everyone's taste. It was probably only the dominance and popularity/fashionability of the toplever SLE which ultimately killed it off.
RG

Hey Cadet, don't let my second tier rap get to you.
I shoot a solid second tier F Beesley Sle, and am quite happy with it's station in life.
Just enough, but not too much eh ol'boy!

Hasn't got to me - it's just a brand, after all!
With a fine Beesley, you effectively have a classic Purdey, just with slighly differnt engraving!
Woodward apparently occupys a curious place though, a netherworld between 1st and second tier or BV, partly for reasons I've mentioned, but partly also inexplicable. As soon as Donald Dallas publishes a book on them they'll be first tier!
RG

I'd have no problem owning a Woodward, it's just my money is in a state of decay!

It's only years of saving, going without, and passion (all while I was single and had no family or mortgage) that could afford it for me!
RG

Greg, your copy of the list is going in today's mail. The four that requested email copies, I have sent it. Let me know if anyone else wants this - email (you must run Excel) or paper.

Lang alone has BV2 and Hussey alone BV3. The combined will most likely price out as BV3 (combining companies rarely lifts the lower up). I'd expect a BV3 "good as" gun to run about 1/2 of the price of a BV1; you may well have found a true bargain. Keep in mind that the shops were generally run by a master. He, for sure could get a best gun out - he only needed a commission to do so. And, there was the rub.

Woodward prices BV1. Greener G-guns were as good as it gets. However, few craftsmen are really able to repair properly; caution called for.

Woodward, without question, made their sidelock guns, and bought in at least some of their boxlocks. They did put their name on the boxlocks, too.

Woodwards price out as BV1. Purdey bought them to get the O/U, a better design than Purdey had at the time.

Yep, from the standpoint of design, materials, and workmanship, the Woodward "The Automatic" is a best gun. Oh, they did make some with less finish and "graded" them (lower price), as did Purdey's.

"The Automatic" was made in snap underlever hammer gun, snap underlever hammerless, side-lever hammerless, and top lever hammerless. While it is clear that Woodward's failed in business, I don't think it was due to design of their product or of their craftsmanship.

Note that F. Beesley, himself, made a number of guns on his own patent (owned by Purdey's) and made/finished/sold a number of fairly typical Birmingham SLE's. Not every Beesley marked gun is a best.

Woodward is the only one of the BV1 names no CIB.

Rocket, Your statement"While it is clear that Woodward's failed in business"....Do you know this for a Fact?..Just curious..cc/dt

Do you know this for a Fact?..

Not in the sense of being present at the transaction, but in the sense of having read similar accounts in a number of seeming crediable sources. Woodward was simply out of commissions to build guns and was facing bankruptcy. My understanding is that Woodward approached Purdey in 1948 with an offer to sell based on something like Purdey was the only one Woodward would sell to. Purdey seems to have wanted the Woodward O/U. I remember that the price was near 150 GBP.

This could be urban legend with frequent repetition. But, it does seem to fit the circumstances - 1948 was tough times in the UK.

I'm not sure that Beesley made any of his own guns on the Beesley/Purdey action?
...but like all small shops at the time, anything could be ordered from the ol'chap!
Pistols, rifles, Ble and Sle.
This is a pic of my 1910 F Beesley 12b

Rocketman,

Would you please also send me a copy of your list? My email address is: dcraig@blackoakcapital.com. Thank you very much.

Douglass Craig

Rocketman,

Would you please also send me a copy of your list? My email address is: dcraig@blackoakcapital.com. Thank you very much.

Douglass Craig

Rocketman,

I too would appreciate a copy of your list. Thank you.

jvlape@cox.net

Jerry Lape

A short update on the state of Woodward at the time of sale to Purdey's. I checked the account of the sale in Richard Beaumont's book on Purdey's (page 160) and need to make a couple of corrections. Purdey's board originally rejected Charles Woodward's offer to sell. The description sounds like there was very little to sell. Later, Tom Purdey paid Woodward 300£ for the name and goodwill, about 145£ for the Woodward O/U, and 10% of cartridge and repair orders for a specific customer list for five years. Woodward production peaked in the 1892-97 era at 103 guns/year, ran at around 30 guns/year through the 1920's and early 1930's, dropped to 23 guns/year for the late 1930's and was down to 5 guns/year for the 1940's.

I'm going to stick with my conclusion of a failed business. The production rates were too low to support a London address. The purchase price was too low for what should have been a high value brand name to indicate a viable company.

Seems to me, they were out done then by the others - all the while barely clinging onto the last spot of the upper tier.
Musta been those hungry second tier fellows eh?

hOw many bricks high is that F Beesley 12b ?

I believe the bulk of Woodward's problems were, shall we say, internal. For an interesting look a "second tier", BV2, consider the Atkin, Grant, Lang, et al. amalgum.

Woodward may have been correct to sell "only to Purdey's" if the firm reputation was his major concern; considering how little he was paid for the brand, one can easily believe this to be true. Grant was surely the equaly of anyone in the 1890's. Yet the firm reputation was so damaged in the early 1900's by successors that the market still remembers to this day.

It probably bears keeping in mind that none of the great British gunmakers escaped the 20th Century anywhere like they entered it. Beaumont's book makes quite clear that had not new owners (non-gunmakers) stepped in, Purdey's would have likely failed after World War II.

Moreover, Purdey and Hollands are no longer, strictly speaking, British gunmakers. They are now French gunmakers, who happen to build their guns in London ...

OK, deliberate hyperbole but this talk about who failed and who didn't is in some sense irrelevant when you consider that the gunmaking families that founded the best London names are long, long removed from current ownership.

In some respects, yes. In other respects, no. It is amazing the information that gets passed down word-of-mouth in a shop that is kept in continuous service. It is equally amazing what gets lost when a shop closes.

Could you send me a copy of your list to:

ivanj1@verizon.net

Thanks in advance!

Snowleopard

Info on "List" is on the way to all. Greg, it is in the mail. Rest, it has been eamiled. These are excel files. Let me know if you have trouble with them.

Kind of a shame about those barrels

[img][/img]

I get a warm and fUzzy feel'n everytime I see it.

That can't be right someone must have doctored that picture up, those barrels can't be cut that short!!
But if it is and someone cut that jewel up like that they need to take a long stay at a mental hospital.
All the best

You guys really didn't know that LG is a closet Cowboy Action Shooter? Lord Glennthorne nails 'ole west targets with a bobbed barrel best!!

I think he goes by the lOne Range'ja.

That picture has to be doctored some how those barrels aren't even legal to own being that short.

Lowell....I thought I read you'd sold the Beesley a while back?
I still believe it has long bbls either way, sleeved though,..right???
Franc

Sold his Beesley to buy that Fox Sterlingworth???

I hear tell he traded it even-up for three Sterlingworths.

One for himself....one to go behind the back door an one for the country docta.

I rate British guns a little different than many. Rocketmans list is the only real list that I pay much attention to. My own is just a personal list for my own use.

A very few are too ugly or rough to be of interest. Level 4
Many are OK to very nice. Level 3
Then you get into the that is real expensive. Level 2
And last class is that is too expensive for even my dreams. Level 1 This is my favorite level, sad to say.


So I guess I have four levels and just a few grades within the levels. Still nice to look anyways.

Franc, still have the Beesley - it's wonderful original 30" barrels are still intact.
I am shocked j0e has jumped into this air-brushing capper - is it his less-than-original gun that makes him fret so?

It twas'nOt I Lord Glenthorne that wielded the brush....

It would be nice to see a real full length picture of the long and lean Beesley....I been waiting for several years now.

ps...Ky Jon has had trouble with his shutter also.

I will have to admit that Beesley is stunning!!!
Boxed pigeons at 40 yards, Joe's Purdey against Lowell's Beesley, what a grudge match that would be!!
Even though Joe has knocked down more with his Purdey it still would be a good match!!!
All the best

I sent you a rather lengthy email with my reactions. Thank Gd for Dragon Naturally Speaking!

Let me know if you have any questions. Nice work

Rocketman,
Please send me a copy of your list. jkeiden@idcnet.com

Thank you, John

We might have to let Lowell shoot from the 20 yard line.

Rocketman, I too would like a copy of your spreadsheet.
budrichard@yahoo.com
Thank you very much.
I am trying to learn about J&W Tolley, having just earned from G&H records that a Brit 2" Boxlock was made for A&F by Tolley.-Dick

Dick,
Is that THE 2" or another one you have acquired?

Same gun. A&F records have just recently become available from Griffen & Howe. Information from G&H indicates J&W Tolley was making these guns for A&F. I will forward information by email.-Dick

What a match, Joe's 'blooded' Purdey against Lowell pristine Beesley, the odds makers in Las Vegas are already scrambling!!!
All the best

Rocketman please send me your spreadsheet. Thanks in advance SB45@comcast.net

Rocketman kindly requested I post these comments after I reviewed his materials.

Thank you for the material. It is useful.

I am preparing a thorough set of commentary that I would like to share with you. Here are my initial thoughts.

1. I think that small bores will be a problem. As you know, 20s and 28s often were considered ladies or children's guns, or as Watson Bros., for example seem to specialize in the small bores, and not just for children or ladies.

However, there was a move to make the 16 bore an alternative to the 12 bore especially when the trend came to shooting lighter weight guns beginning just before the first world war, when Nitro powders finally came into their own. For example, Beesley made a specialty, as did Churchill, of bringing to the market 16 bore game guns as an alternative to lightweight 12 bores. For example, I own a Beesley best 16 SLE that was built around 1908 that is about a nice a gun you can possibly find - it's number two of a pair. (Another move at that time was the 2 inch 12 bore which I personally think was a mistake. A late friend of mine owned a Churchill Premier 2 inch that was a gorgeous gun though.) My point is that pairs of best 16 bores or single guns with long stocks might be perhaps in their own category, as would be for example 28 bores with long stocks. Last, I checked, Purdey's made approximately 5XX 28 bores over the years. How many of these guns were guns with long stocks? How many these guns were best quality Beesley action guns? For the purposes of shooting, obviously, a long stock H&H Royal Assisted opener or Purdey Beesley actioned 28 bore is going to be a very desirable commodity. Is the .410 as desirable?

2. This brings me to the next very important topic. How well were the guns finished? Now we all know that Purdey, for example, prides itself on the finish that it gives guns, and rightfully so. It's probably the standard of finish by which all other guns can be judged. There are exceptions to that of course, during early 60s the finish of many British guns went downhill, with a few exceptions. (Crossedchisels can correct me on this.) Of course the pundits will reject ANY gun from this era rather than believing their eyes or their gunmaker....So, the adage that you judge the gun by its inherent quality is still a good one. But I do think that Purdey's, best grade Churchill boxlocks and sidelocks, best grade Beesley's are among some of the best finished guns that you can possibly find. Often to ascertain this you actually have to take the gun apart and see how the gun was finished inside. And of course, there are individuals, like Nelson and Adam Davies, who build a few guns for the discerning and their guns are top shelf by any standard.

However, there are exceptions to this. I own a Churchill Imperial that was engraved, to the best of my knowledge, by Harry Kell. The engraving compared to other Imperial's I have seen is absolutely exquisite. I own a CS Rosson that although built probably by Wrights in Birmingham is London proofed, and as far as we can tell, was probably engraved by Sumner in a style very close to Boss rose and scroll in execution if not design. So the point is that even some second quality guns from (Best) Makers were often finished to a higher standard by the same people who finished the Best guns. My point - these are guns to look for if you want a good deal with pride of ownership.

3.The bottom line is that I suggest you add a fourth column of rating to your Excel spreadheet which is a “standard of finish” and that this standard should apply to their best guns only. That way you're comparing apples to apples. I think this would also help you differentiate between some of the smaller Birmingham, and/or provincial maker's guns, who did MUCH more than just take a Scott gun and have their name put on. That way people could have their eyes out for what I call a sleeper. It would take me some time to go through your list and make some suggestions about some of these guns that I felt were finished to a much higher standard than the average Birmingham or provincial gun. Please realize I would only do this for guns that I have seen several examples of; as Aristotle says “one swallow does not a summer make.” For example I would rate CS Rosson, as being higher on both the innovation and finish scale then you have it rated. Both Rosson's and Churchill were among the first to used the Smith's assisted opening principal for their best guns.

So I (and I am sure others) will be happy to go through the list and rate some of the guns for innovation in and quality of finish based on their experience. (Please, don't give me this silliness about Spanish Bests and so on - that's merely a journalistic device designed to sell books and guns.)

So, "standard of finish" should be added, I think we agree.

I think snow has some excellent points, points worthy of discussion. I have some factors under development for small bore guns. However, I think a fairly detailed explaination as to an Original Quality grade one (OQ1 - best) is in order. Actually, I'd like to see more detailed definitions all the way down my OQ parameter. Input welcome.

Seems there are some new requests for the list - patience, it will be along shortly.

I think the "Standard of Finish" category is a good one. This would make a better definition of a gun of the highest quality from a maker who built many qualities. The best finished locks I have ever seen were from a Liverpool maker. An example of another gun by that maker was about the best finish "everywhere" I have seen on a gun. Same maker, too, made more ordinary guns.

Treblig1958, wish I could say the Beesley is pristine, but that t'aint so. As with all things this old(c1910), it has it's faults - but so do I, and I live with both everyday.
Pristine and Lowell do not mix well, it is tho', a good example of ol'Fred's work.

So, how do we define "Standard of Finish"? What is a "Best Finish?" Is it like famous quote re: pornography " I can't define it but I know it when I see it? "

Do we start with the various components eg barrels: barrel striking, blacking, soldering, chopper lump, proof, balance, and so on? How about a sunburst or the engraving?

How about the internals? Gilding is a plus but is it a sufficient condition to get in the first tier?

Maybe some gunmaker can state what the standard of finish should be to be a Best Finish?

I know you are out there.....

Snowing here in NH

Barrels are the first thing that comes to mind for me. Well struck and lively throughout the entire lenght, nicely finished and perfectly blacken. Chopper-lump and lump-not-through too!

I agree that fine barrels are a necessary condition. If the barrels are not well-struck and blacked it puts the gun out of the running from the get-go.

Further, perhaps Gough Thomas was on to something when he spoke of some guns as being "eumatic." They just have to look AND feel right. The enquiry continues...