|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,469
Posts545,143
Members14,409
| |
Most Online1,319
Apr 27th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 742
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 742 |
No, I mean the little Prussian soldier with a hat like Napoleon's army, and a rifle across his chest...I have seen them, and my nephew's gun has them.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 667
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 667 |
I received and email from J.Cates who said it is a model 40 built about 1911 -1912. I guess I should buy his book!
Craig
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,307
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,307 |
It always puzzles me why Mr. Cate's dating very often differs from the list published in DGJ by Jeff Stephens. I have seen nothing published by Mr. Cates indicating he has superior information and that his list is correct. I would like to see his "corrected" date list in total and the reasons for the differing dates. It certainly would be of major benefit to Sauer collectors. I do not have his book, is it published there? If so, I also should buy his book.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 667
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 667 |
I am starting to wonder,Lefever would go back and pull a gun to be upgraded or used as a "special", I wonder if Daly-Sauer did the same and if there is any special marking? The ser# series says 1903-4 how do you get to 1911-12. Just wondering!
Craig
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 927 Likes: 3
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 927 Likes: 3 |
I'll have to take a second look at the 1912 SD&G catalog. While SD&G was a big seller of Sauer-made (and marked) guns, the Daly models offered in the catalog do not look like this gun. This is clearly a Sauer made gun badged with the Daly name; I just haven't seen this Daly model ever advertised. When I get back to the house, I'd like to see how closely the Sauer model 40 pictured in the 1912 catalog matches this gun.
Ken
- I also based my serial number data on Jeff's article (DGJ volume 15, issue 2.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,784 Likes: 185
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,784 Likes: 185 |
Chief(LK), your post seems a bit terse or brusque. As I see it, there are 2 columns for Mr. Cate's response. One being completely wrong and the other that he holds a page from the coveted Sauer ledger with Sauer 106xxx on it, or something equivalent. If he doesn't hold the page, probability is not in favor of a 1910/1911 serialization as the peripheral or bounds data does not support it in the least. If one holds with sequential serialization, it being a form of a lump of steel or whatever was issued a serial number with the rest of the block in 1903/1904. It is possible that the subject Charles Daly - Sauer was completed in 1910/1911 but as Ken notes it doesn't seem to fit a specific modell and the thought process would be that it was in the initial shipment of upper/lower scear boxlocks. On page 95 Mr. Cate notes an Edward K. Tryon, Jr. & Company Sauer boxlock(same basic setup but not a scalloped frame and a house/inspection number of 260) with serial number 103221 and and also a 1910/1911 date but in his serial number list on page 284 he gives Nr. 103,221, Modell 11, as being made in 1903, which is closer to the truth since Edward K. Tryon, Jr. expired in 1904, if I have my history correct. Jeff Stephen's list and Mr. Cate's serial number list in rear of the book support one another in most cases and I think the difference to be between a serial number issued date & a completed date much like a patent that has a submission date and issued date.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,307
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 2,307 |
Raimey, I intended nothing terse or brusque, simply noted the differences in the two datings by Mr. Stephens and Mr. Cates and wondered about the differences. Mr. Cates seemed to be "correcting" Mr. Stephens in his email to the original poster. If Mr. Stephens is indeed incorrect, I would like to alter my copy of his listings to read correctly, if possible. I have spoken with each of them in the past, as I have mentioned to you in our conversations. It would be a good thing for the collecting "group" as a whole if Mr. Cates has correcting information he has obtained from his visit to the Sauer building that could be made public. It is not a good and proper thing to have two conflicting date lists circulating, IMO. If they can be reconciled, it would benefit all. That's my only point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,784 Likes: 185
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,784 Likes: 185 |
Chief, thanks for the clarification. And I agree 100% that any differences need to be brought front and center so that the end product is greatly enhanced. I have read in a cross-examination from the mid 1930s that the records of Schoverling, Daly & Gales did exist and a fella admitted to having them but I can't recall the fellas name for now but I will search for it. So I would suppose that their records are out there somewhere.
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,784 Likes: 185
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,784 Likes: 185 |
One question, what is the tube length?
Kind Regards,
Raimey
rse
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 667
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 667 |
Only had a tape measure, but a hair over 28 inches about 28 1/8.
Craig
|
|
|
|
|
