|
S |
M |
T |
W |
T |
F |
S |
|
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
|
19
|
20
|
21
|
22
|
23
|
24
|
25
|
|
26
|
27
|
28
|
29
|
30
|
31
|
|
|
|
2 members (Express, Tim Wolf),
299
guests, and
7
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,506
Posts545,570
Members14,417
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 149 Likes: 5
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2017
Posts: 149 Likes: 5 |
I saw this model in an online version of a 1910 catalog. It cost 45 guineas when the Royal model cost 75.
Is it a "Best" quality gun with plain border engraving? Like the "Gold Model" Westley Richards that has no engraving yet was built to "Best" gun standards?
If it isn't, how does it differ? Are the barrels not as good? Lock works not as well done?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,983 Likes: 106
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2011
Posts: 2,983 Likes: 106 |
If you are asking about the #2 sidelock ejector guns, they are very fine guns, usually are engraved but not so much as the royal guns, they are described as the predecessor of the current Badminton model, many were made in Birmingham by Frederick Scott, a relative of W C Scott. The barrels are good quality, but mostly dove tailed lump construction as opposed to the Royal guns, most of which were chopperlump. The locks appear to be equal in quality to the Royal, save the engraving.
Last edited by buzz; 01/02/19 09:48 AM. Reason: Addl info re locks
Socialism is almost the worst.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
IMO, the H&H #2 gun is more correctly classified as an "A" grade. It is not a best work gun, but is probably 95%+ as good as a Royal. "A" grade guns value about 2/3 of a best work. Those last few percentage points are very expensive. So it is with all Brit products made in the craft trades and sold with price tied to quality.
DDA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 778 Likes: 36
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 778 Likes: 36 |
I have done work on a customer's pair of H&H No 2 over several years. They have been in the family since new and have had hard use but not been abused.
Although they may have been serviced regularly in their early years, they had not seen the inside of a gunsmith's workshop for quite a few years when they landed with me.
However, although they looked scruffy on the outside, I was very pleased with the condition of the internals which ,although dirty, were bright and tight under old gun lube and 'varnish'.
With a re-joint, light lap and a thorough strip and clean they were good to go for another few years.
Quality of finish internally was very fine.
They may have been built in Birmingham but, like many 2nd quality guns built for the London trade, I believe they were finished in London and the attention to detail was superb.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 119
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jun 2012
Posts: 119 |
I own an H&H Special No.2 Model or "B" Grade Hammerless ejector gun from 1899. The barrels are dovetail lump and it has the Holland "A.B." ejector mechanism. According to a 1904 H&H catalog that I have, this model cost 50 Guineas and there was a non-engraved version for 45 Guineas, as well a non-ejector for 40 Guineas. The Royal cost 65 Guineas at that time.
I have pulled the locks and they are identical to the Royal in terms of form, fit, finish and function. The only difference it has from a Royal (that I can detect) is the engraving. I understand that most Royals from that time had dovetail lump barrels as well.
I also have a copy of the ledger entry regarding the gun and it has all of the details - striking, stock dimensions, weights, pulls, and regulating info. Of note is one line that says "Finished at factory 9.8.99", perhaps supporting Toby's observations...
|
|
|
|
|
