|
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
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,545
Posts546,091
Members14,420
| |
Most Online1,344
Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 354 Likes: 34
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 354 Likes: 34 |
Many makers made occasional Best guns, a few makers made nothing but and a fair few never bothered, it just wasn't their market.
Most makers were capable if pushed.
The only sure way of telling a Best gun is to look at it through the eyes of someone who has minutely examined, externally and internally, a multitude of guns raging from the fabulous to the ghastly.
People are always tempted to offer particular points of style and design that make a gun Best or otherwise but there are always exceptions.
I have worked on guns that had interceptor sears, non through lumps and were stocked to the fences and they were without a shadow of doubt NOT a Best gun.
I have also worked on many guns that had no interceptor sears, through lumps and 'flat-back' actions that definitely were a Best gun.
I have seen guns by Boss and Purdey were the execution of the engraving was pretty appalling but internally they are every bit a Best gun.
I have seen border engraved H&H's that were finished to the full extent of a Best gun.
I have also see beautifully engraved guns, giving the impression of fabulous quality that were a mass of poorly fitted parts and filing marks inside.
Generally only experience will tell you the difference between a Best and second grade (or worse). A good post and I agree, given my own lack of experience I was hoping to get a working definition from those who DO have the experience.
I have become addicted to English hammered shotguns to the detriment of my wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,219 Likes: 121
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 3,219 Likes: 121 |
I think Toby has just about nailed it. He's a guy with a wealth of practical experience and knowledge with regards to the trade and the guns that came out of it. He's in the know and I would certainly pay close heed to what he says.
Thanks Toby for a great post!
Best,
Greg
Gregory J. Westberg
MSG, USA
Ret
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2002
Posts: 5,954 Likes: 12 |
I would say "Best" guns are considered to be London made guns.
Boss, Purdey, Woodward and Holland are considered all Best guns.
Occasional you will see some boxlocks described as Best quality and indeed they look fantastic. Purdey and Holland made lower quality grade guns as well but Boss and Woodward never did.
But it all comes back to the fantastic four I have mentioned.
One would say that it has to be stocked to the fences and without any barrel lumps protruding through the bottom of the receiver to qualify as Best.
But Boss made guns not stocked to the fences and they were considered a Best gun. PAL, was a time when I shared your statements above. I have found what I consider a better working definition. As some have stated above, "best" must be viewed from a time perspective. There was never a formal definition of "best," but master gunmakers and some of their clients knew who the most accomplished workers (both company in-workers and independent out-workers) were and what they could produce if paid appropriately. So, a candidate "best gun" must be filtered through what (designs, material, craftsmanship, fashion/vogue, etc.) was available when it was made. It should be noted that some of the usual definition applies to a style appropriately called the "London best gun." For example, Boss and Woodward continued to produce flatback SLE's long after "London best" called for STTF. Said guns are most certainly "best." The catch is that there were a lot of "sub-best" SLE's made on the flat-back frame. So, it becomes easy to label all flat-backs as not "best." As noted above, all masters could get out a "best" if offered a commission with the right price tag. Even if they had no capable in-workers, they would have known the correct out-workers to accomplish the task. Remember, "bests" were off-the-peg items. The trick was finding clients who could afford "best" money and shot in a social circle where "best" guns were OK. This said, you can't ID "bests" by brand. All brands, with the possible exception of Boss, vended "sub-best" guns as their clients demanded: child's, lady's, keepers, rough shooting, fowling, etc. I know Woodward did because I own three of 'em, BLE's. Also, 'ole JW vended a few A/B grade SLE's, too. DDA
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 969 Likes: 38 |
Two identical SXSs, visually indistinguishable from each other, incorporating all the stylistic features mentioned above re best guns, but,
one is made of traditional materials, ie case hardened mild steel receiver and Whitworth barrels, the other of certified vacuum melted nickel chrome steel, fully tested for internal faults, and Boehler Blitz barrels.
Which one is better?
With such clear differences can the maker's name have any mitigating effect on quality?
There are those that insist on a recognisable name being stamped before the item can be classified as best. Those that really know could not care less about the name, and that is the bind with this best business.
Last edited by Shotgunlover; 06/05/15 09:44 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86 |
I once owned a "best gun" by definition, since it was a Boss&Co. product:  Unfortunately it had a slight air conditioning problem:  A sage from Tennessee who frequents this site suggested I use it as a tomato stake. I followed good advice and did not spend any money restoring that one...Geo How's it hold up those mayters
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86 |
For someone who has no interest in English guns, you sure have an opinion on them.
Well, yes. Having seen the underside of the English shotgun trade I’m of the opinion they are a poor value in shotguns. Hence, I have no interest in English shotguns.
You seem to know all about the English gun trade …
All, no. Enough, yes. See above.
… and the making of a Best gun.
Whenever I see someone writing about “Best” guns (capital “B”, no less) I cannot help but wonder how many times he has bought an interest in the Brooklyn Bridge. Some people have no eye for class thus the Spanish gun arose...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,456 Likes: 86 |
This said, you can't ID "bests" by brand.
All gun makers weren't capable of making what's referred to as a "Best"....most could not even come close. I think this fallacy along with "judge the gun not the name" mentality leads people down a dark and costly path. Not everyone had the eye to make a Best quality gun...just like everyone doesn't have the eye to judge one...Plenty examples of the above on this site.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,862
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,862 |
Not everyone had the eye to make a Best quality gun...just like everyone doesn't have the eye to judge one...Plenty examples of the above on this site.
Not to mention on internet sites like Gunbroker. How many times have you seen English guns, especially mid-grade boxlocks, described as "Best" guns? http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.aspx?Item=486540876Regards Ken
Last edited by Ken61; 06/05/15 10:09 AM.
I prefer wood to plastic, leather to nylon, waxed cotton to Gore-Tex, and split bamboo to graphite.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 354 Likes: 34
Sidelock
|
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 354 Likes: 34 |
Two identical SXSs, visually indistinguishable from each other, incorporating all the stylistic features mentioned above re best guns, but,
one is made of traditional materials, ie case hardened mild steel receiver and Whitworth barrels, the other of certified vacuum melted nickel chrome steel, fully tested for internal faults, and Boehler Blitz barrels.
Which one is better?
With such clear differences can the maker's name have any mitigating effect on quality?
There are those that insist on a recognisable name being stamped before the item can be classified as best. Those that really know could not care less about the name, and that is the bind with this best business. Realistically a well made modern made gun, from a practical user's stand point, is certainly better then what came out of England in the late 1800's and early 1900's, just as a Glock is better then the revolvers and early semi-automatics of the same time period. At least for me and I suspect most of the people who follow this board, the problem is the new guns are just things, items that are easily replaceable, presuming you have the money and have no character or individuality to them. For me there is something about picking up a gun, made long before I was born and appreciating it's history and in the case of the English hammer guns I prefer, looking at the time and skill a handful of people took to make what is arguably a work of art.
I have become addicted to English hammered shotguns to the detriment of my wallet.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,832 Likes: 13
Sidelock
|
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 2,832 Likes: 13 |
If the term Best Gun is juts a pompous English term or a swindle, why did just about every maker everywhere build their best sidelock SxSs to London Best Gun standards?
The Spanish makers certainly did this.
Was it just fashion? Or were the London makers on to something (and the Spanish recognized it)?
BTW: Innovation wise, did any of the Spanish makers ever bring anything new to the table regarding the design of top-quality SxSs? Just wondering.
I know some Belgian, German/Prussian & Italian makers did. I don't know enough about Spanish guns to answer the question.
OWD
|
|
|
|
|
