doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com Joseph Jakob, Philadelphia gunmaker...

Any more more images OWD.

Also I may have missed it or forgotten but was the Westley Richards/ A&D effort based on the Samuel Matthew's toplever which he began development in 1857 but didn't file a patent until say 1863? while Westley Richards filed a similar version under British patent 2149/58?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Hey - yeah. I've got them. Gun is 'friggin nice.

I'll dig them up and post them over the next few days.

Thanks for the reminder.

OWD

BTW: does any else think the old American big-bore cape guns were made for buffalo hunting - rifle for long range, slug for taking the animal up close or finishing it off?

From Raimey's post...

Field and stream, Volume 14 1909

D. Kirkwood, of Boston, Mass., could justly be ranked as an old-timer. He turned out good work, and the fact that his order-book was always full is the best evidence that his patrons were satisfied. He was conscientious in' mind and work, and had a high regard for those qualities which go to make up true manhood. He passed away several years ago.

William R. Schaeffer, another Boston gun-builder, enjoyed an enviable reputation for excellent workmanship. I knew him first in the early '70s. He was then employing two or three men, and they were always kept busy filling orders. Mr. Schaeffer once made an eight and a quarter-pound, 12-gauge duck gun for the writer, which was beautifully fitted and a fine shooter. It has for years lain at the

bottom of the Savannah River�"lost overboard," I am compelled to regretfully chronicle. That was a time to be long remembered. A day and night of mishaps, and they all come vividly before me now. My companion and friend�dear Sam !� dead these many years. I could drift into reminiscences of the days we have spent together.

Away down in South Philadelphia, on Passyunk avenue, there is�or was up to four years ago-�as neat a gun shop as could be imagined. A half-glass door; white curtains at the windows; a white, well-scrubbed floor, with rugs spread over a part of it; a small counter; a small glassdoored gun-case; a small stock of gun supplies, and at one time a small stock of guns � first, muzzle-loaders and then breech-loaders, and now neither. Everything was always spick-and-span clean� a place for everything and everything in its place. This was Joseph Jacob's shop, upstairs was his home, and the prevailing air of neatness may be placed to the credit of his daughter. I liked to visit Mr. Jacob and enjoy the atmosphere of the shop while we talked. Up to twenty years ago he had a good business, building guns to order. Then changes came. Gradually at first he came to realize that he could not compete with machine-made, or partly machine-made, guns, and get the pricethat he must have for good handwork. From employing two or three men, it came in time that he was alone in the shop. His old customers brought him enough orders to keep him fairly busy. Then orders grew more scarce, and eventually the shop was given over to repair work, with an occasional gun to build. Such is the history of many other skilful gunmakers. The factory-made gun has ruined their business�the immutable law of the survival of the fittest again exemplified.

John Krider�of "Krider's," Second and Walnut streets, Philadelphia�I have already mentioned in this series. He built fine guns and many of them in the old muzzle-loading days, and upon the introduction of the breech-loader he accepted the change and turned out some very neat and serviceable guns of the new type. In his later years he did very little bench work, the gun-building being done by John Siner, then a young journeyman. Siner was noted for conscientious work, his guns being beautifully fitted and finished to please the eye. Examples of his work, both muzzle-loading and breechloading guns, are still in the possession of the families of Pennsylvanians who in their day loved fine guns and could afford to buy them.

Another notable maker was Sneider, of Baltimore, who worked alone for many years, being freely patronized by appreciative sportsmen. In the course of time he entered into partnership with a man named Clark, under the firm name of Clark & Sneider. Their place of business at 214 West Pratt street, Baltimore, was a meeting-place for shooters at that time �along in the '70s. Their guns were well made and well liked. The Sneider breech-action was strong and easily operated by a top-lever. Mr. Sneider invented the check-slide whereby the lug was caught on opening the gun�taking all strain from the hinge-pin and thereby preventing the joint from wearing loose.

http://books.google.com/books?id=THeWYkw...hia&f=false

Sellers list him from 1861 to 1899 as a maker of percussion arms.

Pete

More pics:







What a gun. I love that finish. Great fences, great drop points.

OWD

I wonder if there are any initials just forward of the flats and if there is a serial number? I guess one could bound the date somewhat with H.A. Lindner's "Crown" over "Crossed Sidearms" and the crosshatching on the end of the tubes along with the large diameter strikers & flange. It appears that you are looking at Kolb's tap, tap, tap on the locks, paired with Lindner's control stamps I would say for the most part the combo left Suhl in a very similar state and Jakob added very little effort. Jakob was very talented but didn't embrace mechanization and instead sourced. I can't remember if I found the date he passed but from circa 1899 till circa 1905 his sons were reduced to peddling hunting boots along with hunting haberdashery. A real untold story of a true craftsmen like many of the others. That's why you have firearms merchants and the unsung mechanics who facilitate their raking in of the cash.

Thanks Peter for the effort and grabbing that article.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Gentlemen,

just came across this thread while doing a google search for John Deeley, Jr (inventor of the ejectors used by Westley Richards).

As some interesting patent relating matters were discussed, I like to ad some info. These remarks may be regarded as being off topic, but I want to add this info anyway.




Raimey, the patent term in the UK was - according to the British Patent, Designs and Trade Marks Act of 1883 14 years from date of grant; see Article 17 on page 272 here:

http://www.archive.org/stream/relatingtoletter00terr#page/272/mode/2up

I'm assuming, the 14 years term is valid also for patents granted under the older British Patent Law Reform Act of 1852 (valid until 1883), but I didn't find the text of the 1852 Act.






Hum, hard to make a final statement. Yes, the German Patent Law came into force in 1877, but before 1877, there existed German state patents, e.g. patents granted by the States Prussia, Saxony, W�rttemberg and Bavaria. After the German Patent Law came into force in 1877, these older State patents remained valid. It was also possible for a patentee to file a new patent based on an older State patent under the new Law (the State patent was extended to a Reichs patent). I will check if there was such an extended Reichs patent.

Surprisingly, I found Meffert's German patent No 4770, filed in German Patent Office on 10. September 1878. Said patent is nothing else but a true copy of the Anson & Deeley invention (except for a side lever instead a top lever). I can't explain, why this patent was granted.






This "Action Patent Use Number" is a strange thing. If you do a google or yahoo search, you'll find only citations in connection with English sporting guns. No military guns, no corkscrews, no fishing reels or whatsoever. In commentaries regarding British Patent Acts (1852 and 1883) I did not find anything about a requirement of the patentee to number his patented goods. There even was no provision at all in the British Patent Act, that a patentee would have to mark a patented product with a patent indication to inform possible infringers about the existence of a patent. Contrary:

"So it is immaterial whether the defendant was aware that the thing was patented or not, since in law every person in the realm is taken to have notice of a patent in the same way that he is taken to be aware of the law".

http://www.archive.org/stream/relatingtoletter00terr#page/146/mode/2up

In fact, at least some English gunmakers did use APUNs - but I don't know the reason why.

Regards

Martin

Martin, this may help a bit on your last question. I have roughly a dozen original contracts between Anson/Deeley, Westley Richards, Mr. Couchman, and other makers such as W C Scott, Bentley and Playfair, Charles Osborn, etc licensing the use of various patents, starting with the A and D patent of 1875 . Some of these require the licensee to deliver the various guns or rifles made with these patents to the licensor for inspection and approval. I think at this point, the guns or rifles would have been marked by the licensor. At least that is my impression reading the handwritten contracts. I would assume their might be a similar arrangement made if guns and rifles were made in Belgium, France, or ?? , but logistics would possibly prohibit sending the guns or rifles to the licensor. It sounds like the use mark numbers were the requirements of the licensor, and not a government requirement.

So Daryl. You believe that they had to physically submit the guns for counting? It had to impact the price as well as the Mean Time To Completion. Unless of course we used boys to run the guns down the street aways.



What a cumbersome and potentially unenforceable method. Though it does explain why there is no comprehensive list of APUN's.

Pete

I think I've posted it here or somewhere, but it seems there were A&D approved satellite stations where the permission use number was applied.

Interesting find there Martin and it may be that the term dipped to 14 years but it seems that from the stained glass patent of John of Utynam, the intent to prevent the prescriptive use of "something" has held steady at a 20 year interval, http://www.ipo.gov.uk/p-history.htm , but then again I'm not a patent attorney.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Interesting read on the Statute of Monopolies:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute_of_Monopolies

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse