September
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
Who's Online Now
9 members (eightbore, gunmaker, Jim H., KY Jon, 3 invisible), 102 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Forum Statistics
Forums10
Topics36,110
Posts507,362
Members14,076
Most Online462
Aug 5th, 2016
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 8 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,060
Likes: 17
Sidelock
*
Offline
Sidelock
*

Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,060
Likes: 17
We might have to let Lowell shoot from the 20 yard line.

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 803
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 803
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

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,658
Likes: 2
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 1,658
Likes: 2
Dick,
Is that THE 2" or another one you have acquired?

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 803
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 803
Originally Posted By: salopian
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

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,021
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 5,021
What a match, Joe's 'blooded' Purdey against Lowell pristine Beesley, the odds makers in Las Vegas are already scrambling!!!
All the best

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1
Boxlock
Offline
Boxlock

Joined: Sep 2007
Posts: 1
Rocketman please send me your spreadsheet. Thanks in advance SB45@comcast.net

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 42
Sidelock
Offline
Sidelock

Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 42
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.


Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,922
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,922
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.

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,853
Likes: 8
Sidelock
***
Offline
Sidelock
***

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 5,853
Likes: 8
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.

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250
Sidelock
**
Offline
Sidelock
**

Joined: Apr 2002
Posts: 6,250
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.

Last edited by Lowell Glenthorne; 02/22/08 01:58 PM.
Page 8 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Link Copied to Clipboard

doublegunshop.com home | Welcome | Sponsors & Advertisers | DoubleGun Rack | Doublegun Book Rack

Order or request info | Other Useful Information

Updated every minute of everyday!


Copyright (c) 1993 - 2021 doublegunshop.com. All rights reserved. doublegunshop.com - Bloomfield, NY 14469. USA These materials are provided by doublegunshop.com as a service to its customers and may be used for informational purposes only. doublegunshop.com assumes no responsibility for errors or omissions in these materials. THESE MATERIALS ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANT-ABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. doublegunshop.com further does not warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information, text, graphics, links or other items contained within these materials. doublegunshop.com shall not be liable for any special, indirect, incidental, or consequential damages, including without limitation, lost revenues or lost profits, which may result from the use of these materials. doublegunshop.com may make changes to these materials, or to the products described therein, at any time without notice. doublegunshop.com makes no commitment to update the information contained herein. This is a public un-moderated forum participate at your own risk.

Note: The posting of Copyrighted material on this forum is prohibited without prior written consent of the Copyright holder. For specifics on Copyright Law and restrictions refer to: http://www.copyright.gov/laws/ - doublegunshop.com will not monitor nor will they be held liable for copyright violations presented on the BBS which is an open and un-moderated public forum.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5
(Release build 20201027)
Responsive Width:

PHP: 7.0.33-0+deb9u11+hw1 Page Time: 0.063s Queries: 35 (0.036s) Memory: 0.8635 MB (Peak: 1.8992 MB) Data Comp: Off Server Time: 2021-09-21 15:13:03 UTC
Valid HTML 5 and Valid CSS