jOe, In the last few minutes I've looked at several W & C Scott guns on the internet, and they all do appear to be higher quality than my gun. It's hard to say from only looking at pictures, and I have none of your obvious experience and expertise. Though, there are similarities, and lagopus says Scott also made made guns "for the trade". Your price was from $500 or less to $1000 which I thought was an estimate, and appreciated the effort, but that could mean anything form a penny to $1000. I suppose with such a broad range, one could consider it firm. Of course it doesn't matter, and it's not mine to sell even if I wanted to. I'm only curious about this old gun. My questions aren't meant to disparage anyone's judgment. I'm just trying to learn what I can. No offence intended.
So, if it's too early to be a Midland, and too crummy to be a Scott, even a "for the trade" Scott, what is it? If it's Belgian, why the Birmingham proof marks? Are there Belgian guns out there more similar to mine than the Midlands and Scotts I've seen?
