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
|
|
|
3 members (SXS 40, Jtplumb, 1 invisible),
854
guests, and
3
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,527
Posts545,850
Members14,420
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 532 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 532 Likes: 1 |
Canvasback notes that the barrels were "Nitro proofed from between 1905 and 1910 from my preliminary investigation." But what is the date the gun was originally made per the Boss records? The Damascus pattern is Turkish or so-called English Best. I am very familiar with a Boss side-snap made in 1886 that has the same Damascus pattern. The barrels on the Boss I am referring to were stamped 'CL', indicating that barrel work was done by Lancaster. That does not necessarily mean that the Damascus tubes were manufactured by Lancaster. Based on sources Doc Drew has provided, the tubes themselves could be Belgian. Here are his wonderful quotes:
Thomas Webley c. 1879, in John Henry Walsh's "The Shotgun" said "Quite three-fourths of the tubes used in Birmingham are Belgian make, and nearly all the London trade use them."
And James Purdey II admitted as much c. 1890 when he wrote that he preferred Damascus to steel barrels, but acknowledged that "...weight for weight steel is stronger than iron and shoots harder, though not of so handsome an appearance as damascus barrels." He favored Belgian damascus because "...not that when thorough sound English damascus can be obtained they are not superior, but because Belgian workmen are more careful than English, and there is thus less risk of slag and rubbish getting into the welds." I don't think there is a visible trace of "slag or rubbish" in the barrels shown in Canvasback's pictures.
Very difficult, if not impossible, to know for sure, but tubes made by a London maker, at least from the time of the Webley quote (1879) forward, could have been Belgian tubes finished and fitted by the English trade in London or Birmingham, since no less than James Purdey II favored Belgian Damascus over English because "Belgian workmen are more careful than English."
Rich
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,494 Likes: 396
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,494 Likes: 396 |
I'm basing the age on the serial number guide in Nigel Brown's British Gunmakers. He lists serial # range from 4700 to 6000 as dating between 1900 and 1910. These numbers are 5819 & 5820.
Brown also notes Boss had a habit of assigning serial numbers from when the "barrels are first lumped up together". I'm not sure how that tidbit would affect the dating of the barrels. However the gun could have been made years later if that's true.
The seller and I can't agree on a price so I most definitely will not be getting the Boss records.
Thanks all for your input.
Last edited by canvasback; 04/15/18 10:03 AM.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,274 Likes: 527
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,274 Likes: 527 |
Canvasback notes that the barrels were "Nitro proofed from between 1905 and 1910 from my preliminary investigation." But what is the date the gun was originally made per the Boss records? The Damascus pattern is Turkish or so-called English Best. I am very familiar with a Boss side-snap made in 1886 that has the same Damascus pattern. The barrels on the Boss I am referring to were stamped 'CL', indicating that barrel work was done by Lancaster. That does not necessarily mean that the Damascus tubes were manufactured by Lancaster. Based on sources Doc Drew has provided, the tubes themselves could be Belgian. Here are his wonderful quotes:
Thomas Webley c. 1879, in John Henry Walsh's "The Shotgun" said "Quite three-fourths of the tubes used in Birmingham are Belgian make, and nearly all the London trade use them."
And James Purdey II admitted as much c. 1890 when he wrote that he preferred Damascus to steel barrels, but acknowledged that "...weight for weight steel is stronger than iron and shoots harder, though not of so handsome an appearance as damascus barrels." He favored Belgian damascus because "...not that when thorough sound English damascus can be obtained they are not superior, but because Belgian workmen are more careful than English, and there is thus less risk of slag and rubbish getting into the welds." I don't think there is a visible trace of "slag or rubbish" in the barrels shown in Canvasback's pictures.
Very difficult, if not impossible, to know for sure, but tubes made by a London maker, at least from the time of the Webley quote (1879) forward, could have been Belgian tubes finished and fitted by the English trade in London or Birmingham, since no less than James Purdey II favored Belgian Damascus over English because "Belgian workmen are more careful than English." Was the Boss you mentioned rebarreled by Lancaster? I find it odd that a gun made during that time would have CL barrels. There were after all, competitors. CL marked barrels on other guns would usually be older hammer guns, muzzle loaders, etc. Like I mentioned earlier.....Ive found during research I’ve conducted on CL (my favorite maker) by the time the 1880’s rolled around, CL was out of the barrel making business and making actual guns and competing with other top London makers.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,430 Likes: 315
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 9,430 Likes: 315 |
c. 1824 Purdey 20g percussion fowler with Charles Lancaster Stub Twist barrels The barrels are indeed 4 Iron (Turkish) British Best; 3 full scrolls between two 1/2 scrolls. IMHO they were Belgian sourced. BTW Bro. Culver would see 3 'zipper' welds between each straight ribband edge weld I wonder if the barrels were originally 'black & white' and intended for the North American market
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,494 Likes: 396
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,494 Likes: 396 |
LeFusil, it has been speculated here that the barrels may have been by CL. Zero markings to that effect. The ONLY markings on the barrels, other than what can be seen on the flats in my photos, are the serial numbers and the name "BOSS".
There is no CL anywhere.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,274 Likes: 527
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,274 Likes: 527 |
LeFusil, it has been speculated here that the barrels may have been by CL. Zero markings to that effect. The ONLY markings on the barrels, other than what can be seen on the flats in my photos, are the serial numbers and the name "BOSS".
There is no CL anywhere. CB, I was referring to the 1886 Boss that Mr Brewster was talking about...not “your” gun. Sorry for the confusion. Yes, in 1824.....CL was arguably the best barrel maker in England. Lots of panache attached to the CL barrel brand.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 532 Likes: 1
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 532 Likes: 1 |
LeFusil, The Boss I mentioned has serial number 3857, which appears on the barrels, forend iron and the receiver. On the underside of the barrels on both tubes "CL" appears in front of the serial number. The top rib is marked "Boss & Co. 73 St. James's Street London". The Boss has a Perkes side snap action. Nothing to indicate it was ever rebarreled. According to Boss's records, the gun was one of a pair sold in 1886 to J.C. Ingram of Hyde Park, London.
Rich
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,494 Likes: 396
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,494 Likes: 396 |
LOL, So it's me who can't read. Sorry about that.
The world cries out for such: he is needed & needed badly- the man who can carry a message to Garcia
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,274 Likes: 527
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,274 Likes: 527 |
LeFusil, The Boss I mentioned has serial number 3857, which appears on the barrels, forend iron and the receiver. On the underside of the barrels on both tubes "CL" appears in front of the serial number. The top rib is marked "Boss & Co. 73 St. James's Street London". The Boss has a Perkes side snap action. Nothing to indicate it was ever rebarreled. According to Boss's records, the gun was one of a pair sold in 1886 to J.C. Ingram of Hyde Park, London. Pretty cool. This Boss is definitely the latest gun I’ve ever heard of bearing the CL mark on the barrels that was not an actual C. Lancaster made gun. I’m speculating that the tubes might have been “old stock” that sat around for years until they were made into a useable barrel set. Totally possible. Wasn’t too long ago G. Greener, Tandy, Dryhurst found a good number of “new” Damascus barrels that were stored in barrels, perfectly preserved.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,997 Likes: 402
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 6,997 Likes: 402 |
Johnson's just posted a photo this morning on Facebook of some just finished Greener 8 bore barrels. I'm sure from the find you referred to. Pretty sure Peter Higgins was the barrel man. What a beauty.
|
|
|
|
|