It came today!

What did you think of this issue bbman?

Got mine Oct 3.

If it's as good as the last one, the Journal has turned a page. Better editing, better content, better writing.

No article by Ross, was that an article or an advertisement for Ballard arms? I did like the article on Herr und Frau Ern.....That is a beautiful break open single shot rifle they build, Truly best quality to my eye. Overall not a bad issue. A bit more on British rifles would always be welcome.
Steve

Timothy, it was so so to me!

Guess will have to stop at local Barnes & Noble to see what all this excitment is about. May take a peek at babe on the cover of Shooting Sportsman as well.

I haven't received mine yet and am not too anxious for it. While the photos are always great, they're all basically the same. And what can be said about the editorial content--good writing should have a beginning, middle, and end. There should be a point to the story. Usually the DGJ ignores the basics and prints the most useless, awkward stuff I've ever read. It doesn't even seem that the editor has read and corrected the submitted copy. Hate to be so hard on what many consider to be the finest publication in the field but it falls far short of what it could easily be. Having said all that (and relieved my frustration) I'll eagerly scan through it admiring the pretty pictures. No hate mail please, this is just my lone opinion.

Post deleted by obsessed-with-doubles

I own every copy and treasure some of the back issues! Bobby

Destry's stuff is the right stuff, plain as pudding as good writing should be.

IMHO-
I'm sure many of us have noticed some awkward or frivolous portions of some submitted articles…but I find that I enjoy the articles more when I read them as an enthusiast instead of an editor.- Doug

Kind of like "National Geographic". I do love it though.

Sorry.

Best,
John

In my experience, the few times they editted something I wrote they changed the meaning and introduced mistakes into the article. They terribly screwed up the information in the article on the BE-Grade Remington in the previous issue, and now I hear from Charles Semmer that they screwed up the correction in this issue!! Still, I think we have to give Dan some credit for giving us a magazine for our passions. I've dropped Upland Almanac, Sporting Classics, and Shooting Sportsman.

King,
Thanks for the kind words, I appreciate it.

DLH

Wow. Tough crowd!

PS DGJ didn't arrive yet.

Researcher, proper editing consists of submitting the revised material back to the writer for approval before printing. It's the give and take of the two that results in a quality product. I learned this long ago when I worked for a editor of the Farm Journal. I would write, he would correct and organize, then I would argue for original intent, etc. In the end we'd have a polished article. It took time but it was worth it.

It happens elsewhere as well.
I have had errors of spelling, fact etc, as well as awkward expression introduced into each of the manuscripts I've submitted to a local publication. Hunters and shooters in Aust generally bemoan the lack of consistent quality in the limited Australian hunting and shooting press. There's good stuff there, but a lot of dross.

I personally love DGJ, and it is miles ahead of anything we have in Aust.
RG

Sorry. I owe a number of you an apology. I forgot that many of the members here also write for the DGJ.

I did not mean to offend.

Again, I agree with Joe. A lot of the articles in the DGJ read like first drafts. It's the editor's job to work with the writer to create a piece that's ready for publication. Perhaps that is what is lacking?

OWD

Mine came today. My favorite all time article (next to any about Model 21s) is the one about the gentleman who found a gun case that originally contained a gun owned by Dennis Finch Hatton. Then several years after he bought the case, he found and bought the gun that belonged to the case. I believe it was in 14-2. Great story!!

I have found the DGJ to be a model publication in presenting "everymans" view of his favorite or near favorite subject. When I visit other countries and friends there who I am shooting with, and subsequently give them a copy of DGJ, they are overwhelmed.

Doublegun fans may not necessarily be educated as writers, but they know how to express what they feel and like. I enjoy reading what they have to say, notwithstanding that it could have been written differently.

In my case when I subitted an article (which was published) to DGJ, I re-wrote it at least 5 times before I was satisfied with how it read. and it was published as I wrote it and the photographs printed as I submitted them.

I can appreciate how difficult it must be for Mr & Mrs. Cote to put together a journal of the quality of DGJ four times a years. One thing for certain is that they cannot please all their readers all the time. Some of their Journals I find really "zero" in on what I want to read, other times they do not. Errors are sometimes made and I think that it is less than prudent to make negative comments about the DGJ in a public forum like this. In the interest of helping DGJ become even better, such comments are (in my opinion) better and more wisely made one-to-one with DGJ.

I think that Daniel and Joanna put out a wonderful product. It has a sweet down home feel to me. I like some issues better simply because I am more interested in the specific articles. I feel that their publication has done more for double collecting that any other periodical out there.

Tim

PS Love all the sexy gun porn also.

If I might - I'm a newby here and to DGJ, with limited hunting and shotgunning experience. Yes I appreciate that stunning photography. The very pictures lift me to daydream about what's pictured. By the way, I think buying extra copies and giving them as polished gifts is a wonderful thought.

While being aware of the criticism in the earlier post of the "errors in articles, ignores the basics and prints the most useless, awkward stuff I've ever read" I must exclaim rather that the DGJ is like sittin' down with everyone ! With learned and experienced enthusiasts, with family, with less learned uncles, or with a father, or friend, who though they might sometimes be longwinded and don't exactly get to the point the way in which an academic might, it's as REAL as it gets and I feel like I'm in a dusty yet proper club room (or a basement with a plywood liquor cabinet nearby) sampling what everyone has to say about what they enjoy. Who doesn't read any article within and not picture in your mind the fellow writing it?! Who doesn't actually relate in some small way at least to any writer therein? The magazine is a 'conversation' to me. Plus, that fellow's writing will be there in those beaut pages long after you and I are gone so two drinks to them!

The quote from Dicken's Oliver Twist of "There is a passion for Hunting something deeply implanted in the human heart" goes a long way in explaining that search of my interests. And besides, when i'm on the can and follow-up on articles to which I am less inclined I find after a reread there is much to like. And to close with Dicken's Pickwick Papers "She'll wish there was more, and that's the great art o' letter writin'" - DGJ is a classic, and in a great way, in having you wish the next issue comes quickly.

For whatever this may/may not add to the discussion as regards the quality of written articles within the DGJ, it seems there is a purpose to Mr. Cote's madness. It seems he has intentionally elected to feature the work of non-professional writers; and although his authors may not be the most skilled at penmanship, they are always passionate and typically know their specific subject matter better than almost anyone else in their chosen field of research. This is the reason why the DGJ has for years been one of the most valuable tools available to double gun collectors and enthusiasts. And wheather you or I agree with Mr. Cote's approach or not, that one decision is what has made his publication so unique in my opinion. If, on the other hand, one seeks the work of one of today's "named", and more accomplished gun writers there are ample opportunities avaiable thru other publications. Personally I believe I've checked everything avaiable as regards vintage shotgun/shooting publications (and even subscribe to a couple), but they always disappoint someone like me who is disireous of more than just the basic stuff I've read and re-read dozens and dozens of times over the years. So whevever I want indepth information on a vintage make double and no book is available, the DGJ is always my resource of choice.

I agree with the fans. Is it perfect all the time? No. Is there anything else to compare to it? No.

Sure, the American classic articles bore me to death, not my thing, but they make others happy. The articles on vintage British stuff, or quirkly Continental stuff, by Ross or Sherman, that makes me happy, probably bores the Parker and LC Smith boys. To each their own, and we make ALL make the magazine better.

I don't think the beefs are as much about content as editing. An editor's job is to make the writer look better. Professional writers produce lousy copy. I fail often with character and structure. Kids stop me sharply: What are you trying to say, Mr. Brown? Isn't that clunky? With very few exceptions, all manuscripts can be improved. DGJ is respectable but needs better editing to become remarkable.

I got a whole strapped bundle of DGJ's yesterday. There was mine on top along with about 5 or 6 others in the bundle, from all over east Texas (sorry I didn't take note of the names). I dropped them at the PO this morning for proper delivery. So if you live in east Texas and you haven't gotten your DGJ yet be patient, it may have been one of the bundle delivered to me.
Steve

I guess I've been published about as much in the DGJ as anyone ought to be. My first article in 1994--"Supply Side Economics"--led to a publishing contract with Safari Press in 1995, and 4 books since. The old saw about "Yesderdae I coundt eban spel auther an know I R won" is a perfect fit. And Dan C is responsible. However, the style sheet for the DGJ is quite different than, for example, Shooting Sportsman magazine, and a world apart from book publishers who pay rather than get paid.

Dan's DGJ emphasis is on what he calls "eye candy." Every publisher has a readership-demographic template (style sheet). And while the readership of SSM and DGJ has some cross-overs, the articles I write for the SSM must be more generalized and with wider appeal than those for the DGJ, which can be more technical (but less Parker-centric than what I write for Parker Pages). An exception was my DGJ article, "Why Parker?", which was a "fetcher" (a pure play on controversy), the idea being to rile up the LCS-Ithaca-Lefever-Fox-Baker and other gun-specific true believers to get them to write something about their favoriate fowling pieces. It worked! Dan had a flood of retalitory articles about other guns and even published a "poison pen" rebuttal from one who otherwise would not have seen his name in print.

The trick to being published in the DGJ is to have good pictures. The trick to not looking silly to those who actually read the accompaning article is to do your own editing (use Spel-Check, know a complete sentence when you see it, have a peer reviewer). And don't go off half-cocked--there's nothing timely about old doubles; set the article aside for some time before you final edit, to see if it still strikes a responsive chord some time after the "heat of the moment." Destry's Golden Plover article was two or three years, and twenty or more re-writes from pulling the trigger in Scotland, to the photo shoot on my farm in Illinois, to submission and final publication.

From a dollar-denominated standpoint, writing for magazines sucks; there's more money in standing behind the counter at McDonalds, and you get free French fries. Yet there is great satisfaction in having a story bottled up in one's mind that finally sees the light of day in print, even if it's just on a forum like this. My latest book, Parker Guns: Shooting Flying took a lifetime of research, four years to write and photograph, and a year of composition and production at my publisher (and no free French fries).

In summary, small circulation magazines that publish articles about narrowly defined subjects of little or no interest to a broad spectrum of readers cannot command the writer-originated content or technical or editorial help of, say, Sports Afield or the New Yorker. The miracle is that we gun writers get published at all. John Houchins told me at Vegas in 2007 that he fronted $171,500 of his own money to see his book to fruition. The Parker Story co-authors dug deep into their own pockets to produce their tome. On a best case scenario this writing gig is a break even proposition. So don't be too critical of the written words which appear in magazines of narrow interest (like the DGJ).

To put this in prespective, I just cut a check for $38.75 to re-up another year's 4-issue subscription to the DGJ( SSM is under $30 for 6 issues); meanwhile, to get 4 issues of Parker Pages costs $40, and the LCS newsletter is $25. Let us not bite the hand that feeds us the double-gun eye candy and associated reading material that we crave. However, if I were to wish one thing different, I would like to see less of the "same-old same-old"; IMHO there's too much in the DGJ about British gun auctions in the UK; and in SSM, much too much about Americans posing as European nobles and British Lords-of-the-Manor, plus there's an excess of Argentinean dead birds for my taste. But "different strokes..."

This Forum has some talent and knowledge as yet untapped by the magazines of our genre. Have at it guys. Anyone can post on the Internet; try your hand at the real thing. EDM

Somewhat damped down in this discussion but flaring prominently in a previous go round is the admonition that DGJ welcomes submissions from non-professional writers. Aside from content dear to the heart and content not so dear, I spot an article every few issues which is devoid of much other than bragging rights on a singular (in the author's opinion) collector "find". Also, devotion to pompous and awkward sentence construction makes my teeth grate together. It's imperative that I ask myself if I could do better? Probably not. Easier to spectate than to put it on the line. I really enjoyed Mr Archer's SAC series.

jack

Ed, you have made some very good suggestions for self editing. I too believe setting a work aside for a period of time is a great step. When reread it's amazing how many changes one can make to the copy. Another trick for self editing that works great is to read the copy outloud to yourself, or preferably to another person. If in ordinary speaking it is awkward then it will read that way and needs refining.

Though I have been somewhat critical of the editorial content of the DGJ, my hopes have been to improve what is already a great publication.

There is no such thing as a magazine that has something for everyone no matter how finely drawn the purpose of the magazine is. That said ,it is the exception,not the rule,for the DGJ not to have on or more article of interest for me. This last issue(Vol 19.#3) has an excellant article by Sherman Bell,another regarding the Baker SBT and the article by Nick Hahn on the Citori.For me,that come comes to $3.23 each. Where could I find such another? Or as a friend said about Canadian Club "How can they make anything so good and sell it so cheap?"

Joe,

Of the magazines I've written for, only the Canadian Journal Arms Collecting, sent back my article in layout and asked for my comments. For everything I've sent to The Double Gun Journal, the first thing I receive about it being published is an author's hot copy of the magazine!

At my work, everything written went through from two to four layers of edit and feedback, very different from DGJ.

Dave

Joe: You know of what you speak, no pun intended. I always read aloud. If a writer can't vocalize his own stuff without stuttering or getting fumble mouthed, he'd better start over. But it drives my wife nuts. First I dictate into the hand-held; then she types the stuff by transcribing my tapes; and finally she has to listen me drone on...and on...and on, while going through the usual ten to twenty re-writes as I refine and dictate over not quite satisfactory text. Reading aloud works wonders. But it's a strain on domestic tranquility. EDM

Hello
I think I got to this a little late. I didnt see what was deleated, but I feel the same way about the DGJ as I do voting. Dont complain if you dont vote. Just remember if everyone stopped writing for it becouse they were not good writers, your DGJ would get pretty thin.
Im not a writer and I know it, thats why I paid someone else to put into works. Just remember you dont get rich writing for DGJ, as its done out of love for the guns not the money, believe me.
Get out your pens and help out. A good friend of mine Allen Avanger even did an article. He dosent even own a type writer let alone a computer. He just put it on paper and sent it along with pictures in.

Look, you're getting very good deal from this publication. I mean, if this outfit went under the cost of antidepressants for some folks out there would be prohibitive.

The worst articles are by Headrick - practically undecipherable. But his photos are great - in fact guns usually look better in the photos than in real life.

The writing is not great, but that bothers me less than it used to given that I have over time begun to understand more about writers and therefore have less respect for them as a group. It seems the better you are at authoring, the worse you are at most everything else.

As for the Ballard article, it as very timely for me as I am considering ordering one and I finally was able to see a decent photo of one.

Keep in mind that Headrick was an art teacher, not an English major. When I was a start-up operation back in 1995, Bill helped me decide on a camera (Ziess-Contax), and he assured me that 35mm slides were a valid, sufficiently-large format for magazine work. The cover of my new book is a "blead," meaning the image goes to the edges of the 12 3/8 x 9 3/8 boards. The image is taken from a 35mm slide; good advice from America's numero uno gun photographer! Yet I often find his images too technically correct. Dan Cote once told me that they were "as if taken from a deep freeze," which is good for still life work, but not to the taste of those who appreciate the impressionists. As for Bill's appendant commentary...well, I really like his photography. Terry Allen's too.

In the final analysis, producing killer photos is almost as easy as the simple capture of light on an appropriate medium by using expensive equipment to establish proper high-resolution focus, plus you'll need cost-effective access to interesting guns and associated background memoribilia, coupled an artistic sense of layout and proportion, refraction, shadows, nuances of texture, highlighting...so, not surprising, DGJ pictures run the gamut of amateur-hour to top-of-the-trade, and perusing each issue of the DGJ will show glaring examples of both extrenes. Not everyone has the talent and resources of Headrick and Allen.

So whenever you see a bad picture consider it an opportunity to do better in the next issue. Pictures sell articles; really good pictures can often be a "photo-article" without associated text (except for cryptic captions). The Fall 2008 issue shows a lack of well-photographed submissions; hark back to the Spring 2004 issue for some of Terry Allen's best work, and compare to Headrick's "out of the freezer" photos; different but Great! Charlie Semner has mastered technical photography against a blue background (never use red!). Notice the images on p.53 and 65, 71 and 77 of the Spring 2004 issue; these are what I mean by "impressionist." Notice the technical prefection of Headricks work at pp. 89-90-91-93, and compare the image at p.94 to Semner's at pp. 80-81. Good stuff, but different.

Now check out the David McKay Brown ad on p.8, which really sucks. Who in their right mind would deliberately photograph an $80,000 product image out of focus and pay top $$$ for a full page ad in an "eye candy" magazine. What a turn off! And parting shot:

I don't write for Hunting & Fishing Colectibles anymore. I wrote good case-on-point stuff and submitted good slides of worthy guns and shooting memoribilia. But the editor balked. Slides cost $$$ to read into the electronic medium, thus making my high-resolution images "less valuable" than those submitted from digital cameras on disc. But some of the digital-decoys pictured in the magazine looked like they were wearing fur coats; fuzzy home vidios trumped professional work. So we went our seperate ways. Be thankful that Dan at the DGJ favors high quality when available, and hope that more will be in the offing in the future as the next generation of author/photographers work to improve their words and images. EDM

Thanks for that first-hand stuff, Ed. It's valuable for those with a hankering for publication. There's a lesson in Destry's Golden Plover gestation. The time taken shows.

Destry has a way with words, but like many of us he has too many to start. Thus he is a "taker-away" rather than a "putter-inner." The plover article started in a "I did this and that" diary format, which he reduced and reshuffled into a focused article about a most unusual hunt. And the refining of the story didn't cost any of the interesting good 'ol boy jargon and spin. Who else do you know who characterizes the total absence of light and color as: "black as a man's hat."

Destry does strange things and thus writes of the unusal, like his first article for Parker Pages about shooting doves by my daughter's swimming pool in VA, using the picnic-table awning for a blind, and ParkerDog retreiving the soggy, chlorinated birds. His article about wildfowl shooting next to a Detroit area corrogated-iron seawall while making a boat-blind out of, you guessed it--corrogated iron, is an example of good writing, which is to say "different than the usual me and joe...etc., ad naueasum."

One of these days he's going to finish his "Goose Wringing at McDonalds" story that he told one evening in my living room while we were consuming adult beverages and puffin' on pipes. Destry didn't know at the time that I clicked on my recorder; Nancy typed up his rambling ruminations and I sent him a hard copy for revision and editing two years ago. It's a hoot, but these things take time. I saw the scene of the crime this Labor Day. Someday when Destry is famous and probably deceased, the Southern Illinois Sportsmen will probably place a bronze marker to memorialize the transaction. Sort of like my old acquaintance Carol Doda (from my Navy days ca.1963-64) has in front of the infamous Condor Club on North Beach SF CA, although she was big in a different way. EDM

I find all this feedback interesting. It serves as a reminder to all contributors that there is a critical and attentive readership out there and we need to be on our game each and every issue.

Writers are human and some stuff comes out beter than other stuff, also different things excite different readers.

I'm off to proof read my next contribution to make sure it passes muster. Thanks for the wake up call boys! whatever the shortcomings of the DGJ may be, I'm glad it exists and I think it provides an outlet for people to explore and expound guns and ideas and research that would struggle to find equal space in any other publication.

As my old Purdey finisher repeatedly reminds me when we are looking at guns and others' work on them that may not be up to his standards... "any fool can criticise". So I try to find teh good in each article and see what I can learn from it rather than looking for the imperfect focus on a shot or the odd typo.

Wow Ed, talk about memories and times gone by, "Sort of like my old acquaintance Carol Doda (from my Navy days ca.1963-64) has in front of the infamous Condor Club on North Beach SF CA, although she was big in a different way." She would have looked good in bibs.

I also agree that the DGJ has great photos and there are some authors that I look forward to readng their articles. A few of them Tom Archer, EDM, and sometimes Sherman Bell have articles that when you start to read you can't put down, and then it comes to an end and you have to wait for the next issue.
As for the editing, no ones perfect and in my opinion I don't care, too many others things to read and look at and not worry about that.
It's a shame it is only 4 times a year and I think it is one of the nicest magazine out there. Since I am only interested in juxtaaposed shotguns, I can live with seeing some rifles now and then.
Also as Ed had said about the SSM, I don't care for the piles of doves shot, to me that is just greed. I can't believe all those doves are disposed of properly. There was once millions of Passenger Pigeons here, and greed wiped them out.
The other articles and some about dogs make it my second choice.

My copy arrived yesterday. You can "tune me out" of society for the next week while I devour every single word and savour the delicious photos. For me, EVERY issue is a long-anticipated smorgasbord!

To those who criticize this sensory feast I say, "If not this, then WHAT?"

It ain't perfect but it's what we've got and I enjoy it immensely, thanks to all who take the time to write and photograph the articles.

My one complaint, and I find it happens frequently, though less than in the past, is that it isn't always clear what captions belong to what photos and some photos have no captions. No a good thing from a technical perspective, it makes information gathering harder.

I look forward eagerly to each issue and am constantly amazed that there are enough people/topics/articles to fill the magazine each quarter. Let's face it, double guns, even with the addition of single shots, are a finite subject. Kudos to those writers who strive to submit fresh, relevent material and perspectives for our enjoyment.

Phil

My DGJ arrives almost a season late due to the vagaries of the mail. I read it to be educated on guns, not for its literary style and admit that a badly written or photographed piece detracts from the merit of any article. As for proof-reading and spell-checking, here is an Ode I once saved……..
K


OWED TO THE SPELL CHECKER

I have a spelling chequer -
It came with my PC
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can knot sea

Eye ran this poem threw it,
Your sure reel glad two no.
Its vary polished in it's weigh -
My checker tolled me sew.

A checker is a bless sing.
It freeze yew lodes of thyme.
It helps me awl stiles two reed,
And aides me when aye rime.

To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should be proud.
And wee mussed dew the best wee can,
Sew flaws are knot aloud.

And now bee cause my spelling
Is checked with such grate flare,
Their are know faults with in my cite;
Of non eye am a wear.

Each frays come posed up on my screen
Eye trussed to be a joule.
The checker poured o'er every word
To cheque sum spelling rule.

That's why aye brake in two averse
By righting wants too pleas.
Sow now ewe sea why aye dew prays
Such soft wear for pea seas!

Author Unknown

Kerryman, your "OWED TO THE SPELL CHECKER" is a hoot! It clearly points out one of the main problems with writing in this era: we no longer know how to spell! Guess I'm very old fashioned but I keep my archaic paper copy of Webster's Dictionary right beside my "pee seas". Sort of like a nice pre-war sidelock....some things just can't be improved on.

How-not "how man" sounds like Gene Hill to moi!! RWTF

Back on the actual topic, my issue was finally at the Post Office today. There must be some demand for it that Dan keeps printing it, but I'm getting pretty sick of 18 pages in every issue being devoted to British gun auctions. It would be very hard for me to care less about them.

Researcher, I don't mind it. Where else are you going to see all of those guns and find out where the hammer dropped? Is it you just don't like British guns or the idea that the format is the same issue after issue that bothers you?

The information on auction sales is usually on line a few days after the auctions, and those guns could easily have changed hands a few times by the time a quarterly magazine rolls around. What is the point? I certainly don't dislike British guns, there is just a lot of other things I'd like to see on those pages.

I agree the Brit gun auction coverage is kinda repetitive.

All magazines are kinda like politicians -they sound good at first but when you are around them long enough you start to realize they are not operating at face value.

A while back I read an article in one of my car mags that had several factual errors - though they made the featured car sound 'sexy' they were simply incorrect to the extreme. I made a polite, factual post on the mag's website forum, expecting some sort of "sorry, we were wrong" reply and what did they do? They deleted my post! I thought at first it was a mistake so I re-posted it and they deleted it again. Astounding lack of integrity on their part.

Buy a full page ad in any magazine and they'll print just about whatever story you like.

O.K., I think a great number of us basically agree that a lot of the editorial content of the DGJ is of fairly low quality. I suspect it's because of the dearth of quality material being submitted and they're forced to use filler for the print between the photos. I also strongly suspect there's a lot of us out here who have a good, informative story in their heads or unique knowledge that ought to be put down on paper and offered as an alternative to the frequent drivel. Some on this board are already doing it and my hats off to them. But they can only write so much. It's time we join in, putting aside our laziness or trepidation and offer the DGJ similar quality essays. I'll bet it would be welcomed.

The problem is that lots of work + little or no pay = very, very few submissions.

If the folks at the DGJ want better writing, they should pay for it.

But if the owners of the DGJ can't increase the mag's circulation by improving its editorial quality, why would they do it?

OWD

I disagree and think that written content if interesting is quite good, but then again english is my third language. I bought first copy ca. 1990? and still remember that article about ole' Canadian hunter and his Greener 'Empire Grade' 12ga shotgun. Still remember I bought it at Barnes & Noble on Wolf Road in Albany NY. That's is where ole' Herman's Sporting Goods store used to be. I shot BSS at that time.
That night I thought that magazine was the best thing since sliced bread. I still think so.

OWD: you've hit on the problem that has basically destroyed quality in the Australian firearms press: enforced amateurism. The glory of seeing one's name in print does not pay the bills (or buy more guns...)
Joe Wood: quite right - there are some great stories and guns here. I basically got my start in gun writing because I thought I could do just as good - if not better - and could write more interesting material than endless groundhog day hunts with remchesterbys, so I did...
RG

Researcher will be pleased to hear that the British Gun Auction series will be going to a bi-annual format instead of a quarterly one.

The idea is that the London auctions shine a light on some interesting guns that are often inaccessible to many readers and they open a window on what things are selling, who is there and what they are doing.

Maybe the format has run its course. The next one is due in spring 2009 so those bored with it will have something else to read in the winter issue.

I fully agree with the former and disagree with the latter. I will not trawl through lists of lot numbers and prices just to check what a couple of guns sold for. There is a bit of history attached to special guns and it is nice to see that also. Bi-annual is OK for me.
K.