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

I asked about this maker a few months ago.

Finally took some decent photos of the gun. It's a Lindner, BTW, and marked with the crossed pistols.

Check it out:

http://www.dogsanddoubles.com/

Thanks

OWD

It may be that Joseph Jakob acquired a gesteck or parts kit from H.A. Lindner and finished it, but I'd be skeptical. He may have contributed some effort on the embellishment seeing the engraving isn't the typical New English Arabesque(Neuenglische Arabesken ) engraving or whatever the correct term might be. The pattern welded tubes were sourced from Liege(not Suhl) and a best guess is that August Blatt of Albrechts was contracted to perform most of the tube set tasks. With the 621 Anson & Deeley patent number I'm sure Ken has a best production date. "A.B." is also seen on examples in the 35xx and 36xx range.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

http://www.picturetrail.com/sfx/album/view/20948056 - Drew has an image of a Daly(HAL 358???) that has the "A.B." stamp. I think Dr. Hause to be South of the Border?

I wonder since Lindner's Dalys and those to other American firearms merchants were abroad to be the reason for the A&D patent number? It would appear that H.A. Lindner in addition to the tubes sourced permission for the A&D action? Maybe he was the one sourcing a gesteck from a Belgian maker? But then there's the issue of Belgian proofmarks that may have been worked off or hidden. Are there any domestic or inland H.A. Lindners with the A&D Brevete stamp? A&D 1875 patent monopoly would have been in place for a period of 20 years. Possibly after the 5th year there was a renewal fee??? Does anyone know how long A&D paid for the patent to be current?

http://www.google.com/patents?id=zYJPAAA...p;q&f=false
A&D U.S. of A. Patent 172943 of 1876.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Upon pondering, it would not matter how long A&D kept the British monopoly in place seeing that A&D also filed for protection in the U.S. of A. H.A. Lindner was making a device based on the design while Daly was importing the technology into the U.S. of A. where the protection duration was 14 years. With the term Brevete I wouldn't think there to be a similar German filed version and I think 1877 was the 1st year of the German patent office. I wonder how retailing the technology or use compares to manufacture under a patent? Some patent attorney, maybe Mr. Martin Krause, could put me on the straight & narrow here? So seeing the U.S. of A. patent was granted in 1876 then the last year for a Daly sporting weapon to wear the Brevete stamp would be 1890, barring a 7 year extension on the same novel idea.

OWD if you feel my thinking out loud(& I may be talking to myself but it is in print) is hijacking the thread I'll gladly move it to a Daly thread that I've already hijacked.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Raimey-

No problem. The more you think out loud, the more I learn.

I appreciate the input.

OWD

Raimey,

Hopefully Martin will jump in here. He and I have had some private exchanges about patents. He has taught me a lot.

I have tried searching the German patent database, but keep getting errors.

Pete

Peter, I invite comment and conjecture from sauerfan and anyone willing to chime in on the patent aspect. Do you know of any A&D use stamps on Belgian sporting weapons?

I did manage to spend some time today quizzing an attorney grounded in patents and wills on his dime. The end user/retailer Daly, who did make outlandish claims that sporting weapons were made in his factory in Suhl, is the one who would have expereinced the full brunt of the monopoly/policing power of the U.S. of A. filed patent protection of A&D in a U.S. of A. courtroom, had the royalty not been paid to A&D. Whether a patent, law, rule, covenant in a homeowner's association, the policing power is via the courts. These rules, etc. are predicated for the most part on 2 ideas: 1st almost all folks are law abiding citizens and that those who enforce are not corruptable. But Daly would have in turn attempted to sue H.A. Lindner on a very weak case across international waters in Germany, where more than likely an A&D patent was not filed. That's why there are those early boxlocks very similar to those of H.A. Lindner/Daly without the A&D use number. Today A&D would have sued all and H.A. Lindner would have been the defendent in 2 cases. For now I would guess that the connections of either August Heindrick Schoverling or Charles Daly both had extensive connections and could have brokered a deal with an entity in Liege who was dolling out A&D permission/use numbers. I wonder how one tracks those use numbers anyway. Would A&D records yield anything? So Schoverling & Daly arranged and probably paid H.A. Lindner to pay the permission/use royalty, which was forwarded on to A&D. The whole patent thing is a reason with high probability why Sauer didn't concentrate their efforts on an A&D boxlock and instead toyed with the psuedo-sidelock & sidelock models that were exported to the U.S. of A. I don't think Sauer offered an A&D boxlock till the mid to late 1890s which would have been just after the patent expired in Britian & the U.S. of A. I wonder if Sauer was reluctant to offer a Daly A&D or if H.A. Lindner had the Daly A&D market cornered? Oscar Will Venuswaffenwerk of Zella Sankt Blasii offered a similar A&D model about the same time and at least by 1902.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

I forgot to note that Daly had to be involved with the H.A. Lindner-Joseph Jakob deal or H.A. Lindner would have been alone sourcing the A&D use number. Then then above post would be all wet.

I would guess the Joseph Jakob sporting weapon in question to be from the early to mid 1880s.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Raimey, I'm with OWD. Please continue thinking out loud. Fascinating and informative.

Regards,

James

Ya'll fellas must easily entertained???

I wonder where in the world this Charles Daly 32 bore Regent Diamond bore was hiding before it was flushed out by Steve Barnett?? - go to the 410 bore category and then down to Charles Daly 32 bore


http://www.stevebarnettfineguns.com/frm_inventory1.htm
Let's see the marks on it!

I wonder where Sauer sourced the crocodile for the case? I guess it and the gold bunny on the butt drives up the price a bit.


Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Raimey,

I also have wondered about the "use numbers". I have never found a good reference that lists / tracks them. I do not recall seeing them on Belgian guns. They all seemed to jump on the A&D patent as soon as it became available for public use. They were not alone. Many British makers did the same. I seem to recall the British renewal fee was something like 5 pounds.

Just remember that our friend Daly was not above twisting the law when ever it lead to a profit.

So many of the Philadelphia makers produced these guns. I am convinced there was some local marketing going on to the trade.

I just lost a TL Golcher by the way. Won the auction, then the seller refused to ship. Finally recovered my money. I think he figured out what he had....



Pete

Peter:
Disheartening about the missed opportunity. More than likely held more pieces to the puzzle. I've seen the acronym APUN and phrase Action Patent Use Number tossed about, which may have just been used in Britian or it may have been applied across the continent. I was hoping you had seen the term, or a similar term, in the Belgian gunmaking circles. Did Auguste Francotte have any boxlocks destined for the U.S. of A. during the 1880-1890 period with any similar Action Patent Use Number? He like Daly had worldwide connections and yes Daly knew the law so well that he bent it where ever he could because it was all about the Benjamins and he never dreamed that some small pool of doublegun nuts would try to scrutinize every minute detail of his business model. I think Charles Daly's son, Charles Howard Daly, Yale grad, business, attorney??, and was more than likely an attempt by Charles Daly to keep abreast of the every changing import laws. The 1890s cross-examination may have been a factor. But Daly had been to England and around the gunmaking circles attempting to get someone to put his ideas into practice. Early on he had imported examples from Tolley and others so he was aware of British sporting weapons advances and their laws but they were most unaccommodating so he turned to Suhl, probably biased by August Heindrick Schoverling, for his Daly brainchild.

I believe in British gunmaking circles that the stamp "Anson & Deeley's Patent" was used for the Action Patent Use Number or to attribute design ownership.

I think it was H&R, and possibly others, that wore the stamp "Anson & Deeley's Pat. Feb 1. 1876" during the 1876-1890 period. Anyone have any ideas on how the royalty was paid?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Raimey, the Anson and Deeley contract with Harrington and Richardson called for a Royalty of fifteen shillings per gun, up to 1000 guns per year. After that the royalty was 12 shillings and six pense. Payments were to be made quarterly, starting March 1 and due not later than the end of that month. R E Couchman, 6 Waterloo St., Birmingham was listed as the Licensor. Date Feb. 20, 1880.

http://www.bonhams.com/eur/sale/17947/lot/297/#

If anyone is interested Bonhams gives Westley Richards #5056 as the 1st A&D boxlock commenced in 1875 and completed in 1879 for Mister John Deeley. On the underside of the receiver is "The First Anson & Deeley Hammerless Gun Patented 11th May 1875". It would have been foreman William Anson(not John Deeley) that in 1877 fell out of love with Westley Richards and hung out his own shingle.

It appears that some Francotte VL&D's/Von Lengerke & Detmold, US Agents, New York were marked Anson & Deeley or something of the like.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Mr. Hallquist, that is great info and many thanks for the effort. I wonder if Robert Edward Couchman was their retained counselor although in 1878 he is listed as a Surveyor with Couchman, Willmont & Counchman if he is one in the same? Any guess if Robert Edward Couchman was the Licensor or were there multiple in Birmingham as well as some in other gunmaking centers. Ok, who has H.A. Lindner's quaterly sheets; maybe Mr. John Mann?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Raimey, it appears Couchman was a representative of Anson and Deeley. His name appears on the June 22, 1876 contract with Westley Richards, allowing WR the use of the Patent for the sum of 15 shillings per gun.

Is it your thought that somewhere in the early 1880s the Westley Richards Co. acquired sole or all patent rights to the May 11, 1775 pat No. 1756 of Anson and Deeley ? In the later 1880s it appears Westley Richards was issuing Patent Use contracts to others such as Scott, Bentley and Playfair etc.

Yes, I think Couchman was listed as a surveyor. I am told they were the brightest people of the time.

Apparently I misread as it was William Anson that fell out of love with Westley Richards. John Deeley stayed on and had some 30 additional patents. Also Robert Edward Couchman was a/the director of Westley Richards and was the one who brought the A&D patent infringement suit against W.W. Greener, which Greener won. So Robert Edward Couchman would have been the one who was accepting the royalty payments and then policing to some extent. It appears that about 1890 that a Leslie B. Taylor became the director and would have had the same responsibilities. It was Deeley & Taylor that patented the Westley Richard's droplock in 1897. I think Westley Richards acquired the rights in 1883 when patent 1883/83 was filed by William Anson (& John Deeley???) on advancements to the 1875 A&D patent. Ken can give a correct date, but I would guess that this was also the time of the 1st H.A. Lindner Daly examples based on the A&D patent.

I bet Dig would have some info in researching for his boxlock text.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

It appears that Auguste Francotte's von Lengerke & Detmold were stamped with Anson & Deeleys Patent or something of the likes. Auguste Francotte was at 110 Cannon Street, London till about 1883 and his patent agent was John Piddington in 1872, if I read it correctly. VL & D must have arranged payment thru August Francotte to Westley Richards for the use of the A&D advancement. Anyone know?

William Anson's U.S. of A. #305264 patent of 1884 for a top/overhanging safety scear:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=58lCAAA...882&f=false

It appears that examples from both H.A. Lindner and Auguste Francotte are more similar to the Anson 1884 patent.


10 Bore from this thread: http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=126591

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Ok, you hardcore Anson & Deeley Brevete stamp fans, much like Mr. Hallquist notes for H&R the same applied to Joseph Brazier, who was an erstwhile tube maker a few years prior to striking a deal with Westley Richards. So in 1876 Joseph Brazier signed up for the quaterly payment schedule thru Robert Edward Couchman for A&E patent 1756 of 1875 (and the Anson forend patent 4513 of 1876??) for a total of 30 shillings per action, which was to be submitted to Westley Richards for the stamp to be applied. So if Westley Richards was applying the stamps in Britian, I would now say that H.A. Lindner, or Charles Daly, was having the frames stamped at a Westley Richards satellite station or approved frame stamping location(Westley Richards & Auguste Francotte were real chummy). Possibly in Liege, I can't say for now but it gives a direction to search. H.A. Lindner would have sourced the frame forgings locally and either he or his subcontractor performed the filling and action work then had the "Anson & Deeley Brevete" stamp applied.

It appears that Westley Richards and director Robert Edward Couchman may have been fully involved much earlier than previously surmised, being as early as 1876?

All this begs the question of how Charles Daly circumvented the 1873 Deeley & Edge forend latch U.S. of A. patent #140482 by John Deeley and James Simeon Edge, Jr.:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=F5lPAAA...p;q&f=false

As a sidenote John Deeley had a son named John Deeley, Jr. that held several patents.


Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

The story of Schoverling, Daly & Gales permeates so, so many facets of weapons retailing that I don't know of anyone who knows the whole story and hopefully someone will pen an overview much like is needed on firms Auguste Francotte & Henri Pieper. In chasing the A&D Body Action it appears that Anson & Deeley were patrons of the arts at the very least and more than likely they, or their children, Edwin Anson(Hanson) & John Deeley the younger, were artists in their own rights. So let's begin with a little info on William Anson's(previously Hanson??) who was christened/baptisted on August 2, 1830 as the son of Edwin Hanson. I assume the event was shorlty after his birth so more than likely he was born in 1830 near Wolverhampton. William Anson(Hanson) had 11 children with one being William Westley Anson/Hanson who expired at the age of 23 after a decade of suffering with the infliction of epilepsy. So it would not be too much of a stretch to say that William Anson named a child after the Westley Richards firm for which he worked. There is speculation that both William Anson & John Deeley crossed the pond at least once in the 1880 - 1886 period. William Anson(Hanson)'s son Claude Alonso emigrated to Worcester, Massachusetts where he & his son Wilfred Anson worked for none other than Harrington & Richardson. Now I typed all the above just to set the stage for the following: Gilbert Henderson Harrington & William Augustus Richardson founded H&R in 1874 at 18 Manchester Street, Worcester, Massachusetts held the exclsuive U.S. of A. rights to manufacture the Body Action of A&D/Westley Richards from 1880(March 1st) to 1885(some sources give 1886 & 1887) when H&R decided to go with their revolver money making venture. So there's the Westley Richards - Harrington & Richardson connection. Now in 1881/1882, J. Palmer O'Neil & Company of 68 Fifth Avenue, Pittsburg, Pa. was the sole agent of Westley Richards(referenced as established in 1820) where are noted as investors and sole owners of A&D Body Action patent. During the same period H&R advertises that all their A&D Body Action scattererguns are inspected by Mr. Deeley. I think H&R tooled up to meet the rising demand for doubles for buck-shot. Later their scatterguns doubled as flare guns, but I digress. Also in 1882 Schoverling, Daly & Gales were "Sole Agents" for the Harrington & Richardson Body Action/A&D, inspected by Mr. Deeley, & the Daly Gun which was noted as the "Scott Action"/hammergun with Models 42, 53, 55, 60 and 100 which was the Diamond Quality. No hammerless Charles Daly import weapon was noted in this November 2nd, 1882 advertisement. I haven't seen any advert up to say 1883 where Schoverling, Daly & Gales peddled any other A&D Body Action scattergun other that the H&R(someone feel free to correct me.) Therefore, there was little reason for there to be a Charles Daly scattergun, which was almost always defined as an import gun, made on the Body Action until Schoverling, Daly & Gales fell out of love with Harrington & Richardson and just for arguments sake let's say that occurred in 1885. So Charles Daly had to be well associated with William Anson(Hanson) & John Deeley, and setting up a permission of use on the contient in the mid 1880s is not that much of a stretch. I'm sure I can conjure up much more if anyone is interested.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

I'm going to revise this guess and say 1884-1885 due to the 1883/1884 advancements on the Anson & Deeley's Body Action such as the overhanging secondary scear and the safety. To parallel Axle's somewhat raw description of the Suhl firearms merchant/gun maker H.A. Lindner, I can find little variance in the Charles Daly Body Action/A&D sporting weapon and the advancements by Anson & Deeley on the 1876 patent in 1883/1884,i.e. H.A. Lindner contributed little to the refinement of the Charles Daly import longarm, which is basically the culmination of the Anson & Deeley advancement patents. About the only difference is the secondary scear spring was mounted on the top tang on the A&D Body Action and was much lower on the Charles Daly import scattergun and I don't think that to be enough to be outside of the filed patent protection. Also the scear proper and secondary scear to trigger interface seems to be inverted on the offerings by H.A. Lindner. The safety is the same and pretty much all points to a bonafide(?) A&D Body Action along with the Deely & Edge forend fastener.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Raimey, your above posts give us a good framework for the History of the Anson and Deeley/Westley Richards here and abroad. Just to add a bit to the puzzle, we see WR/AD actions on William Schaefer, E. Thomas, and several other American makers. The WR hammer gun actions appear on literally dozens of American makers.

Mr. Hallquist do you have any idea when the H&R-A&D/WR relationship was terminated? Just to make sure I understand, were the American makers using the WR or Scott Action as found on the George/H.A. Lindner/Sauer Charles Daly import hammerguns? Now I will note that there were Charles Daly hammerless import sporting weapons like the #98 that wears the Anson & Deeley Brevete stamp and based on the U.S. of A. A&D Body Action patent of 1876: http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...809d6c860bbaadb

I contend that Charles Daly had made the rounds and after being rebuffed by the British makers for his Charles Daly import longarm and headed to Suhl, had made the many, many sourcing connections. SD&G just had their fingers in about every sporting weapons pie there was.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Although probably just happenstance, but would this Charles Daly sleeved by Westley Richards at Pugsguns bring us full circle????
http://www.pugsguns.com/findItem.action?id=2022



Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

New revision due to additional info.
As usual while I was searching for something else I stumbled across more information on South Philadelplhia gunmaker/firearms merchant Joseph Jakob. It appears he hung out his shingle as the War of Northern Aggression commenced and at least the firm, or some variant & maybe Joseph Jakob himself, till 1905. He made percussion dueling pistols and muzzleloaders to the customers specifications. In the 1870s he seemed to parallel William R. Schaefer in effort as both had 2 to 3 craftsmen working in their respective shops. He must have been an obsessive-compulsive as his shop in every detail was as clean as a pin. One could not find the shop of Messieurs Purdey any more immaculate or more organized than that of Joseph Jakob. Also his workmanship was compared to that of Purdey at the time. Upon entry to the shop, one would pass thru a portal, where a half glass door hung, noting white curtains covering the window panes, and passing across a white surfaced floor that was so clean one could take lunch off of it. A few small rugs were neatly placed in the shop. All this cleanliness was due largely to the efforts of his daughter. Prior to say 1890, one would have found several Joseph Jakob examples in a gun case with a set of glass doors. During the 1890s the guns were replaced by sporting weapon components and sporting related items. The demise of the firm of Joseph Jakob can be attributed to the lack of embracement to mechanization. After the truce of the War of Northern Aggression in 1865, one could not find a machine made sporting weapon in the U.S. of A. and the Brits had cornered the market. But over the next decade the scales were going to tilt in the other direction with respected to partially machine made and machine made sporting weapons. This transition forced Joseph Jakob's shop from a multi-man effort shop to a single man shop, to pretty much a repair facility peddling shell cutters and the like. By 1890 the firm was listed as Joseph Jakob & Sons and the reorganization may have occurred earlier say between 1885 & 1889. It was either the name change, or an address change, from 1890 foward till 1905 when the shop appears to have been closed. Something occured in 1899 and it may be that Joseph Jakob retired or expired and the sons continued for about another 5 years. This is purely conjuecture but it was a bumpy road for the firm from the mid 1890s to 1905 and possibly as late as 1909.

When H.A. Lindner hung out his shingle, he seems to be "THE" source for Joseph Jakob's sporting weapons. #2962 was a combo with a 16 bore pattern welded tube partnered with a rifled in 45-70. Either the scattergun tube or both wear H.A. Lindner's "Crown" over "Crossed Pistols". #3246 was a side by side DR in a 0.45"(45-70?) calibre with a doll's head extension on a Body Action with "Anson & Deeley Brevete #1152" on the standing breech. Both 28" tubes were stamped with H.A. Lindner's trademark and accompaning the DR was a 20 bore tubeset which I guess also to wear the trademark.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

I guess I missed the discussion about the 20 gauge combo gun. Now I have to read the entire thread again.

Raimey-

Thanks for sharing. Where did you find the info?

And I wonder if combos were a specialty for Jakob? A guy emailed me about owning another one.

Yeah, I was trying to track one down. I'd like to see the marks. For some reason in my mind I can't bring forward that possibility that H.A. Lindner made a combo. Most of the info was from the 1908/1909 Field & Stream articles by W. L. Colville in a V or VI article series on "Old-Time American Sportsman". Alexander McComas, Patrick Mullin(expired in 1895 at 90 years?- http://query.nytimes.com/mem/archive-free/pdf?res=F40D1EFD355416738DDDAF0994DA415B8585F0D3 ), D. Kirkwood, John Krider, John Siner and others are all mentioned to some extent. Then city directories, James Gopsill's, and tid-bits here and there.

But almost without a doubt the serial number range, when one exists, is that of H.A. Lindner.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

I forgot to note that Colville must have spent a fair amount of time in the Joseph Jakob(sometimes seen as Jacob) shop. To tell the truth, I don't know what his specialty might have been but he would scratch one off of whatever you might desire. I'd guess he made 7 to 10 a year up till the 1890s and then just a couple a year dwindling to about zero. He may have made more per year when sourcing either of the Lindners from the mid 1870s to the mid 1880s. I forgot to add his sons were named Andrew & Henry and they appeared to been reduced to peddling footware toward the end.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Just got a pic of this combo. It's a 12g X 45.70. Looks Lindner-esque to me. Hoping to get more pics soon.




OWD

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

Pete, good find.

Pete,

I have read that the Gun Quarter in Birmingham, England, was full of boys running here and there delivering parts between one maker's premises and another. I suspect that in A&D's time, Mean Time to Completion was a less pressing issue than it is now!

Nigel

Hi Daryl,

that is most interesting information! And yes, this answer my question quiet well. So you have roughly a dozen of original contracts between WR and some licensees?? Wow. How did you get them? I�d be most interested to see at least one of them.

Regards

Martin

Martin, I got the contracts, with other paper, at an auction. All very interesting. For example, the Osborn contract with WR requires the guns Osborn is building with WR patent [s] to be brought by in the white, fully functional with barrels fitted, but I think no stocks. WR would then inspect them and mark them with the patent and consecutive "Use Numbers" when approved. The contracts also contain a WR contract with Harrington and Richardson in the U.S. giving them exclusive rights to produce the A and D action in the U. S. If my memory is correct this covered about the first 5 years of the 1880s. By the way, the first contract with Anson and Deeley and Westley Richards, dated 1876 specified quarterly payments of 15 shillings per gun or rifle using the patent. Here's a picture of some of them.

Great information, Daryl. Not only as it relates to the firms mentioned, but the implications it holds for the trade as a whole.

Two small items; on the combination gun it looks like the rifle barrel is Damascus, while the shotgun barrel is fluid steel? Of the many I have seen, it is usually just the opposite.

Also, I asked Simon Clode specifically about the Lindner patent stamps and he relied that "all of the records from that time were lost in a fire" Might have been during the Blitz, can't remember.

C.

Clair, I think the left barrel is a Damascus shotgun barrel and the right a fluid steel rifle barrel. The picture of the two barrels with the Lindner mark may be confusing since it is taken on the bottom of the barrels. From that view the Damascus barrel is on the right, but is actually the left barrel [shotgun].

Hi Daryl,

thanks for showing a photo of the contracts. Wow! That�s really impressive.

Thanks for explaining the specific conditions of the license agreements. Would like to see the eyes of a potential licensee, if I�d dictate comparable conditions in a draft of a license agreement�.. well, with the A&D patent, Westley Richards was in a quiet comfortable position.

Thanks again!

Regards

Martin

Daryl,

As you know, I have been searching / asking for years about those "Use Numbers". Well this explains everything. If I understand correctly, each gun got it's own number. Making it impossible to track them back to the patent being used if it is not also marked on the gun. Fascinating system. The patent holder must have kept a master list that referenced each Use Number to a specific gun. A total lack of trust that was apparently common across the industry. If this was true in Britain, it may also have been true else. I wonder if this tells us something about all those Krupp barrels?

I am very glad you acquired those documents. A real learning experience.

Pete

I wouldn't doubt for a second that Krupp used the same, or a similar method along with many others. If so, it would seem to validate what we've been inferring about the Krupp steel tubes for a time.

I wonder if there was a satellite "Use Number" stamping sight for A&D in the Suhl area or were all shipped to Auguste Francotte, or some other agent, in Belgium?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Pete and Raimey, I have wondered about the possibility of a satellite Use Number Station, too. I guess Germany and Belgium were not too far for a Westley Richards rep. to travel, or for that matter, with the relatively good transportation networks back then, maybe guns shipped by rail and boat were easy to get to W R from the continent. We can read about John Dickson guns being regularly shipped to the Sumner engravers for engraving. Sometimes turn around , was less than a week. That was a round trip from Edinburg to London. Of course most proofing required shipping of guns to the two proofhouses in England from all parts of the island [s]. I sometimes forget the relative small size of the Continent and Britain, having lived in Alaska and Montana.

Another thought on the Patent Use Numbers is the marking we see on Dickson triggerplate guns. Always a patent use number. I cannot remember which patent it refers to or who may have owned the patent. Almost seems odd that Dickson would go to the trouble if they actually owned the patent.

Mr. Hallquist:
I think August Francotte, with his relations to Britian, was the Westley Richard's Belgian rep. I do not think for a moment that the sporting arms were shipped to Britian. Then there are the A&D agents/relationships with Charles Daly of Schovering, Daly & Gales. I think all adds to the overall puzzle.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Daryl,

Not sure if I have the right end of the stick here, but 'marking' i.e. stamping patent numbers on patented goods, is a requirement under many patent laws.

Nigel.

Nigel, you may be correct. I am just not up on that, but I think stamping the USE NUMBER would not be a requirement by law. So then, what was Dickson doing with it's patent use number ? I sometimes think the Patent Number and date stamps made some attraction to the potential buyer, too, but am not sure about the legal requirement to do so.

Daryl,

as far as Germany is concerned: currently, I found no evidence about existence of a German patent for WR (A&D, respectively). If this should be confirmed (takes some days until I will have the time to make a �dusty paper� search in a library): no patent � no license needed, no license agreement. But let�s see.




Nigel,

sorry, but under most Patent Laws there�s no requirement for using patent numbers, indications like �Patented�, �patent pending� or the like. As mentioned earlier in connection with British Patent Act of 1883:

"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".

This is true for most Patent Laws. The US provisions regarding usage of patent numbers or other appropriate indications to inform competitors about the existence of a patent are an exemption, but not the rule.

Regards

Martin

Martin, I wonder how close we can come to understanding the German/A and D relationship. Something that has always been a question in my mind is the wide use of the Greener safety and crossbolt on German guns. Some would say the practice was an avoidance of the A and D license cost. As we remember , Greener was sued by Deeley [WR] and the eventual outcome, after years, was that Greener was not guilty of patent infringement on the A and D 1875 [and later] patent. Does this relate in any way to the common use of the Greener crossbolt and safety in German guns ?

I have a blank stare for the moment, but are there any Lindner Daly, or Auguste Francotte sourced, with only the lower scears with the permission use number/Action Patent Use Number on the standing breech? Don't know where we are without a thorough re-read but it appears that the A&D Brevet/Patent permission use numbers/Action Patent Use Number are for the combo of the overhanging scear with the lower intercepting. Anyone know the upper and lower scear A&D patent right off-hand?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

I've glance back thru the thread and some other info and it sure looks like the sporting weapons that wear the A&D Brevet/Patent permission use/Action Patent Use Number stamp have ties to either Charles Daly or Auguste Francotte and have upper & lower pins/screws. I was looking for some info on Jan Novotny(1839-1893), who Dr. Vladimir Dolinck gives as the nephew of Mathias Novotny, and found 3 DR examples supplied to King William III and the details can be found in DGJ Winter 2006 at page 47 and DGJ Spring 2007 at page 55. Serial numbers are 6437, 6457 & 6495 and I assume to be that of Novotny's. They all are very similar with carbon copies for safety slides and Westley Richards leverwork or broad toplevers that interfaces with the doll's head; pretty much clones at a glance. Novotny #6457 has some Belgian proofs as well as Auguste Francotte's stamp on each flat. The other 2 have stamps similar to the early Ferlach stamps prior to the Austro-Hungarian proof rules. But Novotny #6457 has upper & lower pins and has the inverted Anson & Deeley Patent stamp with permission use #1002 while neither of the other very similar DRs has an upper screw or the Action Patent Use Number. I'm fairly confident that the mechanics at Ferlach sourced the Belgians for tubes or the tubeset and then J. Novotny acquired them in the white state at the very least. Here we have 3 Novotny DR examples supplied to the same client with the only difference is the version with the upper pin which in turn has the Anson & Deeley Patent(not Brevete) permission use number. So the question in my mind is why wouldn't the combo on the upper & lower scears not pair with the A&D permission use number and Auguste Francotte having a satellite permission use stamping station.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Charles Daly #7 has the A&D Brevete/permission use stamp #59(?? 50 something) with 1019 on the underside of the tubes as per GGCA #31 at page 20.

Mr. Hallquist, do you have any insight on the track of the first say 100 Action Patent Use Numbers?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Raimey, I am not sure of your question. I did have a two didgit Daly boxlock with the Deeley mark, but it is long gone, and at that time I was not recording such information. I do recall the profile of the gun was like the advertisements of the early 1880s. Sort of a humpback in my recollection.

Well let me rephrase then. For argument's sake, let's say Charles Daly #7 did have permission use #59. Is there any way to tell how & where the 1st 50 issues were dispersed and moreover if each satellite stamping station had or had not the same sequence as WR or A&D? I'm curious if there were multiple A&D Brevete/Patent sequences or a single? Last, any idea what the lowest permission use number in the Charles Daly offerings?


Joseph Jakob DR with permission use number 1152. Interesting on OWD's thread that a fella who indicates he is a descendant of Joseph Jakob noting Jakob was born in Bohemia in 1834 and that one of Jakob's daughter-in-laws was shot in the arm in the immaculately clean shop. Assuming it took him till age 24 to attain his master's brief pairs well with the 1859 date that some references give as the year he hung out his shingle.


Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Here's the William Anson overhanging scear patent 1st issued in Britian in 1882 under number 4089(Anson & Deeley's Safety Bolt):

http://www.google.com/patents?id=58lCAAA...882&f=false

I wonder if this patent also has a lone permission use number sequence?

So if the dual screws/pins/scears are based on the William Anson 1882 patent, would that also give us a baseline date for the peddled boxlocks with both?


So maybe WR acquired the rights on the advancement also?
Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Raimey, now I think I understand. I am not sure if the Use Numbers for the A and D patents had any relationships between different makers who contracted to use the various A and D patents. Did they all [each] start at number one or another number ? I'll look at some of the contracts in more detail with that in mind.

Thanks for the effort. Assuming that Daly #7 which say has APUN #59 and is based on A&D patent of 1875. Jumping forward to A&D #1152 on William Anson on the 1882 design and for argument's sake let's say it too was issued to Charles Daly, etal. so is it in the same sequence even under Charles Daly or will we see a Daly #7 with #59 on 1875 design and a Daly #??? with #59 also, on the 1882 design, i.e. are all A&D APUNs under the same sequence for Charles Daly?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

I forgot to ask another possibly rhetorical question in that what if Auguste Francotte & Charles Daly were under the same APUN umbrella? So, any A. Francotte owners have an A&D APUN or permission use number in the 1000 - 4000 range? I just wanted to see if any of the Daly or Francotte offerings have the same APUN?

Well from a few posts back we have APUN #1002 for Francotte on J. Novotny #3457. Any Lindner Daly owner have the same number on the standing breech?

Or an A. Francotte with APUN #1152 to pair with Joseph Jakob 2962 has H.A. Lindner stamps A&D Brevete #1152 from
http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbt...true#Post236425 .

Also I'm searching for other offerings by American firearms merchants with the A&D APUN.



Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Some thoughts -

1. Of the several dozen APUN in the Daly database, I have not (yet) seen an overlap - i.e., two guns with the same APUN.

2. There is not a direct correspondence between APUNs and serial numbers - i.e., if two Dalys have serial numbers 10 numbers apart, the APUN has not been 10 numbers apart. Often it is close, but not one-for-one. In general though the APUNs and Daly serial numbers track, in the sense that the earlier Daly guns have lower APUNs and the older Dalys have higher APUNs.

3. The serial number/APUN correlation is complicated by the fact that in several instances a Daly with a lower serial number has a higher APUN as compared to another Daly with a slightly higher serial number. The number differences are not large, but they are there. This is likely explained by the varying build times of the individual guns, but does complicate things. I can provide examples if you'd like.

4. I have recorded APUNs on William Schaefer & Son boxlocks in addition to the makes you have listed.

5. I own Charles Daly serial number 7 ("lucky number seven"), a boxlock, and can verify the APUN later today. It is in the 50s and the lowest I have yet recorded.

Best regards,
Ken

Mr. Hallquist:
It would seem that Westley Richards had acquired full rights by the time they selected Harrington & Richardson to be the sole manufacture in the U.S. of A. in 1880 and continued for about 5 years. So for arguments sake I'd say 1879/1880 time period. J. Palmer O'Neil & Company advertises as the sole Westley Richards U.S. of A. agent and by Spring 1883 Schoverling, Daly & Gales advertise as wholesale agents of the Harrington & Richardson hammerless Breech loading sporting weapon. Charles Daly seems to be sandbagging and buying time at this juncture and I would say takes feedback from his customers who purchase the H&R A&D hammerless breech loading sporting weapon. From this, someone decides to extent the frame of the Charles Daly hammerless breech loading sporting weapon. Meanwhile, William Anson has developed the Anson & Deeley Safety Bolt of 1882, late 1884 in the U.S. of A., and Charles Daly takes note of it. Charles Daly probably takes a Harrington & Richardson A&D boxlock to Suhl and the mechanics closely inspect every component. All of this is wadded up into a composite design and the result is an 1884 Charles Daly hammerless breech loading sporting weapon. No one really seems to acknowledge the Anson & Deeley Safety Bolt of 1882 as a separate system, and Dig notes it as just belts and braces, so the A&D(1875) permission use numbers must have continued unabated and Charles Daly had a few C. Daly on the A&D 1875 patent but most were on the Anson & Deeley Safety Bolt of 1882/1884. I wonder what the difference would have been for manufacture in the U.S. of A. vs. H&R and being the big fish in the pool in Suhl?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Raimey, Mr. R E Couchman seems to represent Anson and Deeley, and later in 1877, Anson only, when contracting the use of the various Anson or Anson and Deeley patents in contracts with Westley Richards in June of 1876, and Dec. of 1877. Couchman also represents the Patentees in a Nov. 1879 patent use agreement with Charles Osborn. Finally for Couchman, I see him signing for the Patentees with the exclusive U.S. manufacturing rights with Harrington and Richardson in Feb. 20, 1880. Late in the 1880s, I see the licensing agreements for the Anson and Deeley patents to Scott, Bentley and Playfair, and several others all signed by Westley Richards. I cannot pinpoint when Westley Richards took over the licensing of the Patents in their own name.

Each gun made with the patents by Westley Richards and also Harrington Richardson was to be marked with an A and D number starting with No. 1. Others were marked with an unspecified numbering system. It seems , in the case of Harrington and Richardson, the use number was also the serial number.

Looking for something else & stumbled on this info about the family of Josef Jakob:

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/51928523/joseph-jakob

"79y 6m 6d
Son of Andreas and Magdalena Darfler Jakob
Gun maker
3222 Monument Avenue, 32nd Ward
Mrs Clara Kusel gave the information for the death certificate.
Was a gunmaker with a shop at 1157 Passyunk Avenue, Philadelphia. Birthplace listed as "Bohemia" and later Austria.
1913-08-11; Paper: Philadelphia Inquirer
"JAKOB - 8th inst., JOSEPH JAKOB, husband of the late Anna Jakob (nee Wittenwiler), aged 79. Relatives and friends, also Harmonie and Liederkranz Singing Societies, and all other societies of which he was a member, invited to services, Mon., 2 P. M., residence, 3222 Monument ave. (32d and Berks sts.). Interment private, Mt. Vernon."

Born in "Bohemia". Spoke German."

Cheers,

Raimey
rse