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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Forums10
Topics38,481
Posts545,237
Members14,410
|
Most Online1,335 Apr 27th, 2024
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,160 Likes: 319
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,160 Likes: 319 |
Raimey, I don't know. I've mentioned a couple of times a Monsieur Poirat. In Sep 1871 he offered to sell to the new French Republic, on behalf of Reilly, 6000 Chassepot rifles (then in Birmingham - I had the actual Birmingham reference on the existence of these rifles but have misplaced it). The French Parliament asked too many questions, dithered about the commission, and the sale fell through. Reilly had already been prosecuted in Fall 1870 for sending shells to his rue Scribe address, violating Brit neutrality - he was probably pulling a fast one but didn't want deep-diving questions. (See the below article) The next time I'm in Paris, I will try to track down tax records on the Reilly addresses and try to identify Poirat. The French graves registry is very complete - but using it is trying.
Last edited by Argo44; 09/11/20 10:15 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,785 Likes: 185
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 10,785 Likes: 185 |
Neat incomplete info. So, what client would purchase a Reilly @ a Paris outlet?
Cheers,
Raimey rse
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,160 Likes: 319
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,160 Likes: 319 |
Lots of Frenchmen - he was gun maker for Napoleon III:
Last edited by Argo44; 09/12/20 01:19 AM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,160 Likes: 319
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,160 Likes: 319 |
====================================================================================== 10128 - Reilly Lang/Lefaucheux forward under-lever pin fire - Dec 1856Mark Crudgington has sent info on another early Reilly pin-fire, SN 10124. This would date to December 1856 per the chart. Address not mentioned; Water table, barrel flats, proof marks not pictured unfortunately. This is now the second oldest Reilly center-break thus far found. (look at the lines of that gun - does that not look like a greyhound or something? What a beautiful gun). http://www.gavingardiner.com/BidCat...mp;category=&keyword=&offset=120Reilly A SCARCE 16-BORE PINFIRE HAMMER GUN, NO. 10128 30-inch damascus twist barrels with 2 1/2-inch chambers about cylinder borings, the rounded frame, back lock, hammers and forward pointing under lever with border and foliate scroll engraving and retaining traces of original hardening colour, the 14 1/2-inch figured stock with heel and toe plates, 6lb. 12oz., black powder proof, leather case with lift-out ammunition compartment. Sold for �500
Last edited by Argo44; 02/02/22 10:46 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 427 Likes: 76
Sidelock
|
Sidelock
Joined: Jul 2014
Posts: 427 Likes: 76 |
Very nice. And quite early for heel and toe plates, I think.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,160 Likes: 319
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,160 Likes: 319 |
======================================================================================================== 12543 - pin-fireMark Crudgington passed on this advertisement for a Reilly pin-fire from an 1979 Chrisie's catalog. It is a Lefaucheux-style, forward under-lever, and would date to 1861 per the chart. It has a vague Liège proof mark on the barrel. But the barrel is 28", not a usual Reilly barrel length. Whether the barrel was imported from Liège, whether it was a replacement, or whether the action came from Liège as well cannot be known. No photos. In 1861 there was another Reilly with odd proof marks, 10641 (nominally numbered in 1858 but surely post 1860) with Birmingham proofs and a Birmingham action maker's name. We've long speculated about Brit gun-makers use of Liège components in the 1850's. The UK use import mark could easily be ground off. But this is the only Reilly serial numbered gun found so far with a Liège mark anywhere on it. Note the "proof exemption 1860-65" mark...which should be something of a confirmation of the 1861 date on the chart.
Last edited by Argo44; 09/20/20 08:55 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,160 Likes: 319
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,160 Likes: 319 |
============================================================================================ Veni, Vidi, Vici.Diggory just published the Reilly dating chart - It is not as up to date as the one on p.48, and has no colors which help differentiate it, and didn't have enough room for all the footnotes. Nevertheless, it should be a help to the vintage gun community. https://www.vintageguns.co.uk/magazine/dating-your-reilly-gun-or-rifle
Last edited by Argo44; 09/21/20 07:23 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,160 Likes: 319
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,160 Likes: 319 |
============================================================================================== 315 (277) Oxford Street - a multitude of Oxford Street buildings carrying that numberA gentleman in UK, a very prominent member of the gun fraternity, has questioned whether Reilly, indeed occupied all of 315 Oxford Street (re-numbered 277 after Nov 1881) or just a portion of it, pointing to postal addresses associated with the number "315" with seemed to indicate additional tenets there. To ward off additional questioning on this matter, here is the reply (covered above but repeated here): The renumbering of Oxford Street occurred in early November 1881, not 1882. There are before and after advertisements for Reilly's at the time: In addition, and probably why the renumbering took place, there are at least 3 "315, Oxford Street" address in existence at that time: 1) Reilly at 315, Oxford Street - And he held that building in freehold until 1903. I know this because of a famous court case regarding access to the Salvation Army Hall behind his building - he sued the Salvation Army to limit their access through the tunnel under his property. Reilly controlled the substantial part of that building and somehow had a 50 yard shooting range there, advertised from the beginning in August 1858. 07 Aug 1858 "The Field". . . . .-- Here is reference to the above court case involving Reilly's free-hold on the building which proves conclusively that Reilly controlled that building (The entire court case, which continues to be cited to this day, can be posted): 17 July 1889, "Morning Post"2) Purdey at 314, 315 Oxford Street (up to 1882), which they called "314 1/2" as a compromise. 3) 314, 315 Oxford Street, Hanover square: And a boarding house, possibly called "Hanover Residence," run by "Mr. Ash" associated with billiard players, actresses, fly-by-night businessmen, etc. which apparently had shops for selling tickets for voyages, a linen seller, etc. 16 Jan 1881 Bell's Life - the Billiard Shark20 Aug 1881 "The Era" - the fading burlesque actress1881 "Bell's Life" - the employment agency05 July 1880 - the Trunk patent con-man - at "Mr. Ash's"05 Aug 1880 "The Sportsman" - If you'll invest 150 pounds, We'll hire you for 80 pounds a yearAsh ran several businesses, including this one - a tea set maker at 314, 315 Oxford advertising "Ash's." 11 Dec 1880, "Sporting and Dramatic News"Note: Research shows this is Mr. Henry Clarke Ash, 314 and 315c Oxford Street,. He was a businessman and lodging house keeper per voting records and postal directory pre-1881 at 314, 315 Oxford Street and post 1881 renumbered 301, 303 Oxford street. Here is a modern display of the proximity of the three "pre 1881" "315 Oxford Street" addresses: 1885 view: This is redundant at this point, but the challenges to the research on this line continue. They are of course welcome. Sanity Checks are always needed. (And by the way, "Hanover Residence" run by Mr. Ash in 1880 sounds like a very interesting place to be at the time!! - billiard sharks, fading actresses, con-men, capitalists on the make...)
Last edited by Argo44; 02/02/22 10:50 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,160 Likes: 319
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,160 Likes: 319 |
======================================================================================================= Matched pair 16 bores 27853, 27854.Per a couple of previous lines, I bought a 16 bore Reilly SN 27853 in December 2018 from Gavin, built on a Scott Climax action, number one of a pair. I had in my database one of Terry Buffum's guns 27854, a 12 bore with identical specs, sold 2016 at Amoskeag. Top 27853; Bottom 27854 (from the auction house photo) We discussed on this thread whether this might be a husband/wife "pair" - David Trevallion confirmed he'd seen Purdey #1 and #2 guns but 12 bore and 16 bore: https://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=557354&page=1I despaired of Amoskeag helping track down the buyer of 27854. I finally sent Amoskeag a letter, with a stamped envelope inside containing a letter to "whom it may concern" re 27854. I asked Amoskeag to address it and forward it to the buyer (they were protecting privacy). The letter was ultimately retuned to me with a name and a Massachusetts address and "undeliverable." Internet research turned up possible matches to the name. I forwarded a second letter to one of them. After three weeks a reply!! Our two guns, 27853 and 27854 are indeed a matched pair. His is a 16 bore, not a 12 bore. His has the identical escutcheon plate, showing the arms of Clan Urquhart from the Loc Loman area. 27583 left, 27854 right And the Number #2 on his gun left - #1 on mine! Small victories...but satisfying!! And by the way, on my gun the SN on the Action Flats/water table the SN is 27553; But on the barrels, forearm, and tang behind the trigger guard 27853. Almost everyone maintains that SN stamps on the water table/action flats take precedence. In this instance, it's clearly not the case - majority wins and is supported by photographic evidence,.
Last edited by Argo44; 09/27/20 09:39 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,160 Likes: 319
Sidelock
|
OP
Sidelock
Joined: Feb 2016
Posts: 3,160 Likes: 319 |
==================================================================================== Reilly letter to "The Field" on the state of Center-Break guns in UK in December 1857A gentleman in UK, who is extremely well known in the gun makers' community, forwarded this note to me. I have just been shown a copy of the " Field " from Dec 26th 1857 which has a long letter from E M Reilly of New Oxford St in the letters page . It is all about breech loaders and why he is in favour of them . He displays obvious knowlege of shooting such guns and of how the " few London makers " have modified an idea of French origin ,of which English gentlemen have been aware for this past " 15 or 20 years " He also mentions the poor shooting guns of French and Belgian make much in use which have given the breech loader an inferior reputation.Unfortunately the UK newspaper archive I use is missing "The Field" issues from late 1856 to about January 1858. Library of Congress will have it; but am not sure it's open. If anyone has that issue, is it possible to have the article scanned or perhaps photographed by cell phone and sent to me. Many thanks. It's am important issue. This post from 02 Jan 1858 "The Field" seems to refer to the above letter from E.M Reilly:
Last edited by Argo44; 10/01/20 07:56 PM.
Baluch are not Brahui, Brahui are Baluch
|
|
|
|
|