doublegunshop.com - home

This thread gets more fun by the minute.

Reminds me of why I stick to shooters, with an emphasis on French and German craftsmen. At least with H A Lindner there is relative agreement. We know very little for sure. Bwahahaha !

You can't be serious, can you?

But after reading your other posts I guess you probably are....

The content of a research letter, whether provided by the Cody Museum or the LCSCA, or any other organization that is in possession of factory records (whether original or duplicates) who, by the way, seems to me to have a responsibility to include all factual information in their possession that a paying customer is charged for, should include ALL known information. The Cody Museum knows what is expected for the price paid yet refuses to divulge pertinent data in their letters. This practice is completely unprofessional... and yet, you stand behind them. Incredible.

DAM16SXS,

On the basis of only one experience (some might argue it isn't representative), I have to agree with you. The Cody letter I received for an LC Smith Ordnance gun I owned was pretty sparse compared to what Jim Stubbendieck sent me.

Cody made no mention of production numbers or rarity of features, which from a factual standpoint wouldn't have made a difference to me because I knew the gun. I really just wanted corroborating paper to prove it's provenance so I could get more money in selling it.

But if you weren't really a collector, knew nothing, and just wanted to get an education about "Grandpa's gun," the Cody letter would have left you wanting.

- Nudge

On a LC 20ga 5E I used to own the Cody letter had almost nothing.

Cody gives the bare minimum of data from their records. LCSCA goes farther, which is nice, but in no way can Cody really claim superiority of data as they are looking at the same record.

Arguing one as �official� versus the other is of little value.

Records on many of our guns are scant. Some gunmaker ledgers have very little data beyond serial numbers, dates, and original buyer, like the record on my Alex Martins. Others like Purdey have much more, to an email, they sent me a scan of the original Ledger entry, interpreted the script, and answered follow up questions. The details Purdey recorded was awesome for determining original features; All for no fee. Pity LC recorded so little.

RGD
I recognize and acknowledge your friendship and affection for Brother Walt, and surely you understand I made no comments disparaging your relationship; my comments related only to my personal experiences with Walt, some of which were far from positive. The LCSCA is not a "club" it is instead an organization of shooters and collectors who appreciate and enjoy shooting an L.C. Smith gun; yet, and unlike some, openly and willingly acknowledge its shortcoming and realize Smith guns fall far from perfection. As to attacks, I haven't attacked you; and as to those to whom you feel have attached you, how can you make a blanket claim that anyone who criticizes you here is a member of the LCSCA? Bottom line is that you can't because you don't know anymore about their affiliations than do I. If you want to know what the LCSCA is and who the people in the organization are, then come to one of the events we host; there's certainly a fair number in the Northeast near where you live. I can assure you there's no finer group of people than the men and women in the LCSCA; but you can continue to be as stubborn as Walt if you choose and simply you'll never know for yourself.

As to your comment "Sorry your club is not the historical record keeper for L.C. Smith/Hunter Arms no matter how much you would like it to be. Bill Brophy made that decision long ago". The LCSCA isn't a museum (is one of our goals however) so the only alternative Brophy had at the time was Cody; and although the LCSCA is not the keeper of the original ledgers, we have an authorized copy of those records that is identical to the copy used by the clerks at Cody in checking serial numbers. You have no knowledge as to how the LCSCA obtained a copy of those records, nor how they've been utilized since; but allow me to share this bit of information "for the record". The majority of the records research performed by Cody revolves around the Winchester firearms records they hold; and because that is a true fact, these Winchester records generate a significant amount of revenue. In contrast, revenues generated by the old Hunter Arms records is miniscule; so obviously the result is that Cody's primary focus is other than LC Smith. Remington Arms, because they purchased the Marlin Firearms Company, is the current owner of the old Smith ledgers (not Cody); and it was the folks at Remington who made those records available to the LCSCA because they understood we'd actually do something with that information. As a result we now have more information, and more accurate information about LC Smith guns production today than ever before thanks to the dedicated, and tireless efforts of Jim Stubbendieck. If anyone is truly deserving of the moniker the "LC Smith Man", then that individual has to be Jim.
Sadly, you've too often demonstrated on this forum that you're not willing to accept the truth even when presented in a manner that is irrefutable. Your lack of an open mind is most unfortunate because you are so enthusiastic about the Smith gun otherwise; but the fact that you're so unwilling to acknowledge some of the most basic truths about Smith guns also means that you'll refuse to ever accept the fact the LC Smith Collectors Association has indeed become "the historical records keeper for L.C. Smith/Hunter Arms". I can assure you that all serious and knowledgeable Smith gun collectors now go first to the LCSCA and Jim Stubbendieck for letters of authentication. Anyone going to Cody first is either misinformed; or like you, stubborn as a mule.

Nudge
For the record, I recognized immediately who NDG was and recalled many of the old "Beans" posts and controversies. As everyone is entitled to their personal opinion, rightly or wrongly; it's OK with me if an individual chooses to ignore the truth, and I'm certainly not attempting an on-line debate with NDG. The majority of my comments were solely intended to either correct the record, or share information with other readers. Tom

yawn...

Time to add �anything LC Smith related� to the list of subjects that bring the wackos to the party.

Tom,

You'll never get a debate from me. I think anyone who's ever sought info on SAC know that almost everything on the internet is a cut & paste variation of information either YOU or David Noreen once wrote.

It's a pity you won't be paid for it.

- NDG

BTW, I guess I feel compelled to say this given the often caustic nature some of these threads sometimes devolve into.

I NEVER engage in that stuff. Over the last week or so the back and forth with "Dave B" evolved about the same way it did when he joined the old Lefever forum. We began by trying to explain, which then lead to trying to calm him and appeal to the reason offered by multiple people...and lastly I just gave up.

So when he began again here I at first attempted to reason with him, but he's so quick to lunacy that that cause was quickly lost.

Why does it matter? I guess it matters to me MORE than the usual political infighting (which used to be wisely moved to "Misfires") because it sews the seeds of mal-education.

The internet has devolved into being as much MIS-informative as it is informative. This greats on me terribly. But while the political stuff on here is mostly a distraction, because nobody comes to the Doublegun BBS for 'informed politics,' they do and SHOULD come here for double gun information.

I lurked for years before I ever had a word to say...largely because I hadn't learned enough to contribute anything!

I should probably fade back out to "view only" on here. I'm generally a pleasant, reserved person. But I lose my temper in the face of willful ignorance. It is a genuine human sickness to be that way.

- NDG

While we are at it and going back to the first post showing a link to the said gun, the for-end wood and checkering is wrong, that has been replaced also. Of the many No. 3's that I have seen and own, they all have nice wood and finer checkering than shown on that for-end. The wood on this gun looks to be American walnut and everything in all the early Hunter Arms catalogs list
a No. 3 as having fine imported English Walnut.

Nudge, do not be a lurker as it does nothing to improve this or any site. Are you going to the Hunter Homecoming later this month? If so I will be there, Good Lord willing.