Finally received the photographs requested from the seller and they indicate what was earlier thought would be the case when eventually viewed, in that the standing breech of the E. C. Schmidt (serial no. 1424) 10-bore gun does not have the inverted
Anson & Deeley patent / use stamp, whether in French or English, which A & D original patent of 1875 expired worldwide in 1889, does not have a country of origin stamp, but has post-1891 German nitro-proof stamps. Although there is no serial number on the tail of the trigger-guard tang, the serial number "1424" is indeed present on the gun's water-table, barrel flats, etc. The surprise is the revealed Scott square crossbolt that came in to use in 1892. The twentieth century sideclips are indeed mechanical and not simply decorative. The unrefined appearance of this gun, however, leads me to believe that while it may have come from the Suhl area or somewhere else in Germany and looks in appearance to be the common article, it was not touched by Lindner or his select outworkers. Though it just may be my disappointment in the condition of this gun and its lack of finish or engraving that causes me to have this perspective.
The photograph below demonstrates the 10-bore's lack of a serial number on the tail of the trigger-guard tang, which too is as was suggested:
The next photograph is a view of the 10-bore
E. C. Schmidt gun's standing breech, in which you can also see the Scott square crossbolt in its recess. There is also what appears to be a single locking screw for the bolt in the upper right-side of the breech face. The fit of the pieces is well-done and expert. The action body, excepting the many detracting surface blemishes, seems well-made although not quite equal to the standards, even those for an exported semi-finished or finished in-the-white gun, of the Prussian-made or finished
Daly guns when encountered in their plainly finished models, or of a gun intended to be finished subsequently by its U.S. importer:
Below is another view that pictorially buttresses my above point:
The water-table marks are informative, not only for the fact that one sees the crown over "U"
untersuchung (and nearby associated eagle stamp) or view stamp, as well as the serial number "1424," but also because the initials "E.S." appear, which additionally inform the viewer that this gun was imported by E. (C.) Schmidt:
With the following photograph, the markings and stamps on the barrel flats and the undersides of the barrels help complete the story of this particular gun. Again, the serial number "1424" is shown, the post-1891 nitro-proofs are present, the bore is shown by "10" and "11/1," and the smooth bore proof is also shown (crown over "S"). The gun is marked as being proofed for a choked barrel (crown over "W"). Per the stamps appearing on the underside of the barrels, the barrel-maker is "R.S." and his proprietary maker number opposite is "1670." The stamped "D" on the barrel flat is curious:
To speculate, this gun seems to have been imported into the U.S. by Schmidt no earlier than 1892 (and likelier in or around 1893 when he started in business), after being nitro-proofed by the Germans prior to its export to the U.S. Perhaps it then remained in inventory until an order was placed with Schmidt for an out-of-fashion 10-bore gun built in the odd for the period configuration we see to-day, in approximately 1902-4. In completing the order, the action body was upgraded with period sideclips, etc.
All the foregoing make rough sense until you come to the anomaly. That anomaly is the lack of the country of origin stamp usually seen on the water table, underside of the barrels, underside of the forearm wood or metal, etc. on a gun otherwise marked / stamped in accordance with and that evinces mechanical aspects of a post-1891-2 manufactured gun. In comparison, I own another similarly disconcerting gun, built on an English
W & C Scott action body that, in addition to having no country of origin stamp anywhere (nor patent or use stamps), has only British black powder proofs and yet has the aforementioned sideclips too, as well as the Scott-patented crossbolt, which highly finished, privately labeled and U.S. imported gun, complete with black and white
Kilby-marked and numbered damascus barrels, was provably completed in Prussia by H. A. Lindner (although it does not bear the maker's trademark stamp).
The obvious question is "
Why not anywhere a country of origin stamp?" Were separately imported parts, as opposed to complete operative units, entering the U.S. for sometime post-1891 (and before
Schoverling, Daly & Gales were successfully sued for avoiding taxes / duties in this manner by the U.S. Treasury) somehow exempt from country of origination markings and / or import duties / taxation if lawfully defined at the time as unassembled parts? The answer(s) might help sort out some of the questions that have always surrounded these 'hybrid' European guns imported into the U.S. during the so-called Golden Age, with any number of them being owned by the correspondents here, which possess otherwise inexplicable out-of-time characteristics needing reasonable and historically based explication.
I have greatly enjoyed reading everyone's posts regarding the
E. C. Schmidt gun, and I have learned a great deal not previously known to me; always a very enjoyable and worthwhile experience. The photographs accompanying texts are great and the guns depicted enviable. I appreciate every response and am grateful for the interest shown. Thank you! With my
Best regards,
Edwardian
