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
Topics38,496
Posts545,395
Members14,412
|
Most Online1,344 Apr 29th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 585 Likes: 9
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 585 Likes: 9 |
In a current thread discussing PhotoBucket, a request was made to re-post pictures of this E. M. Rielly Side by Side Percussion Shotgun that was originally on this thread: http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=186566, but because of PB's policy, the pictures were not visible. Here is the basics of that thread with pictures of the EM Rielly: A good friend just acquired an E. M. Reilly side by side percussion shotgun. In its original oak case and label with a few accessories. It is in really nice condition. Added some pictures below. Thanks for any info. Jolly
Last edited by Jolly Bill; 05/24/18 12:07 AM.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,161 Likes: 319
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,161 Likes: 319 |
.JB. Very nice. 12 bore? hammer gun muzzle loader. I assume the serial number is 12920, should be 1863. The engraving is unusual in that Reilly rarely engraved animals or fowl on his guns.
I am curious about the case label. The label is scolloped and looks original. An 1863 label should be a variant of the generic post 1859 trade label (see the post on labels in the Reilly line). The label is difficult to make out but It looks like it might have the 502 Oxford Street building on it which would be pre 1859. I'm wondering if the serial number of the ramrod is the same as the gun? If the gun matches the trade label on the case and the label has that building and is original, its SN should be 11100 or less. Do you have a picture of the label and of the SN on the gun? (Of course there's always the possibility that the gun has been mated with a different case or the label has been replaced).
Last edited by Argo44; 05/31/18 02:15 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 585 Likes: 9
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 585 Likes: 9 |
.JB. Very nice. 12 bore hammer gun muzzle loader. I assume the serial number is 12920, should be 1863. The engraving is unusual in that Reilly rarely engraved animals or fowl on his guns . . .
. . . . I'm wondering if the serial number of the ramrod is the same as the gun? If the gun matches the trade label on the case and the label has that building and is original, its SN should be 11100 or less. Do you have a picture of the label and of the SN on the gun? (Of course there's always the possibility that the gun has been mated with a different case or the label has been replaced). Argo, I forgot to post a picture of the underside of the barrels so I've copied it below. It looks like "12920" is marked on both barrels. Those pictures were sent to me by the guy that owned the gun, and which I originally posted several years ago, so I don't have a better picture of the label. I will send him a note to see if he still has the gun and if so, I will see if I can't get a better picture of the label. Yep, pretty cool gun. Jolly
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,161 Likes: 319
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,161 Likes: 319 |
JB, I took a closer look at that label and am pretty sure (through the haze and patina and oblique angle) it is pre-1859...it seems to have the 502 Oxford Street building meaning it will have "Reilly" vice E.M Reilly. (jpgbox.com is on the blink so for the moment the label analysis can't be accessed). I can't tell if it has the medals (which would make it post 1855). The label looks original but of course the question arises, did the label belong to that case? and/or did the gun belong to the case? I did not have this gun in the Reilly master list; it's been added...thanks. Reilly label 1848-55 1855-58 1859-68 (with variants - sometimes not listing he branch establishment)
Last edited by Argo44; 05/27/18 11:01 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 585 Likes: 9
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 585 Likes: 9 |
Argo and others, The owner, who still has the gun by the way, sent me a few more pictures including the label as you can see below. And the serial number of the gun is 12920. The label is tough to make out but that's what it is. Jolly
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 753
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Apr 2012
Posts: 753 |
bring it along sometime Bill i have 14 bore wads and cards and oh yeah - wow nice piece of history
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 12,743 |
Anyone have any idea as to why the 14 is stamped twice on each barrel & why the decimal mark in front of the one nearest the breech. My I Hollis caplock is a 12 but it only has the one 12 mark on each barrel. Also a couple of pre 1887 breech loaders only have the one gauge mark.
This Reilly is a very nice looking gun incidentally, a higher grade gun than my Hollis.
Miller/TN I Didn't Say Everything I Said, Yogi Berra
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,161 Likes: 319
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,161 Likes: 319 |
My $.02: As mentioned above, 12920 likely was numbered in 1863. The label is definitely 1856-59. The building on the label is 502 Oxford street. This label was adopted in 1848 after the Reillys' move to Oxford Street.
The label has two medals, the 1851 London Crystal Palace exposition and the 1855 Paris Universelle exposition. These labels appeared shortly after the end of the Paris exposition, late 1855 or early 1856 and lasted until the firm's name change from Reilly to EM Reilly in very late 1858 or early 1859.
In addition this label normally should have "Fusils a Bascule" on the top ("center-break long guns" in French - inherited from Lafaucheaux's guns at the 1851 exposition) and "Improved Breech Loaders" indicating Reilly sold new breech loading guns such as Prince 1855 patent guns. The label, though, does not have "fusils a bascule" and thus might be a very early version of the 1856 label. Haven't seen this before and I have save about 8 examples.
The label is not a reproduction; it could have been salvaged and put on the case at some point when/if the case was re-lined - the case does look to be in remarkable shape - or the case is not original with the gun. Whatever, it's a great case, great label and great gun.
Last edited by Argo44; 05/31/18 03:32 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 264 Likes: 23
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 264 Likes: 23 |
Just a couple of comments. 1. Beautiful Gun!!! 2. .14 then 14, Suspect .14 was gauge at Provisional proof,Second mark of 14 was bore at final proof. 3. Label discrepancies. Many gun makers were too frugal to throwaway out of date labels. I've seen over printed with newer address and on a 1920 is Lancaster 16b the list of royal appointments included " H.I.H Kaiser Wilhelm II " Neatly lined out with three Ink lines. It seems makers were not particular about the label accurately reflecting address etc.
Last edited by Hugh Lomas; 05/31/18 12:37 PM.
Hugh Lomas, H.G.Lomas Gunmakers Inc. 920 876 3745
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,161 Likes: 319
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,161 Likes: 319 |
Hugh, I've collected pics of about 90 original Reilly labels and have dated them based on the SN of the guns in the cases, the models of the guns, the medals on the labels. Etc. Actually, I've only found one label with a strike-through, a 1898-03 label with an address change. So I think the Reilly's were pretty fastidious about their labels. Here are examples: 1848-1855 labels with 502 Oxford St., likely the site of their finishing facilities: 1855/6-1959 with the Crystal Palace and Paris medals. Here are the medals: Left is 1851 Crystal Palace; Right is 1855 Paris Here is thn only strike-through I've found - the address 277 changed to 295 made shortly after 1903 during the rapid decline of Reilly as a company:
Last edited by Argo44; 05/31/18 03:45 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
|