doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com How to find the number one of a pair H&H Royal?

Today I took pictures of a Holland & Holland Royal 12 gauge from 1906 of a friend. It's the number 2 of a pair with original gun case, very nice. How can he find the number one? I mean to remember a possibility once read, but don't know any more where.... Any suggestions?

Thanks, Gunwolf

How it looks like:

Try: www.matchedpairs.com

You might find it here. What serial number are you looking for ?

Thanks!!

He owns the number 17336

Gunwolf

Are you sure of the 1906 date. If it hasn't been done, Hollands will issue a letter on the gun and it's mate. The serial no. seems to be for a gun earlier than 1906.

My goodness, that's beautiful engraving! And the gun appears to be in very high condition.

Hmmhmm, well, this is the label of the gun case:



and this is on the gun:







Maybe I have confused something...

The gun case label is for a different gun than your sample. The gun case was for a hammerless No. 2 or No. 3 and would be close to 1906. Serial numbers 17,255-18,000 were for Guns and Rifles 1894-1905. Holland serial numbers can be confusing as blocks of numbers were allotted to various gun and rifle styles. Your gun appears to be from the later 1890s when , in my opinion, as Joe says their engraving was very very good.

And the barrels are dovetailed replacements.

dovetailed for sure. Replaced or just re-proofed? I think proofed at 2&3/4" at a later date, but I may be wrong.

Joe Wood, it IS in very high condition...!

Darryl, thanks, I will ask him about. He owns this wonderful gun and besides a wonderful Royale double rifle as well, see here:





But they are not in use any more... :-((

Buzz, would those barrels be after 1954 ?

Daryl: Appears that way to me, but I'm no expert. If it is indeed the original set like SKB thinks, then where are the original proof marks??? What's your opinion?

you can see where the original marks were for the most part removed but a shadow remains under the right barrel. I'm sure it has been re-proofed at one point, I'm unsure as to whether or not those are original barrels.

SKB, it appears the serial numbers on the receiver and barrels were struck with different dies. Note the 1s and 3s for example. I wonder when making the gun if the same dies were used on both barrels and receiver. From what I "think" I see, it looks like the gun was rebarreled and then reproofed at a later date.

Looks re-barrelled to me and original proofs for the new barrel.

Your friend should follow Daryls advice and contact Hollands first to establish the history and mate(s) of the gun. This narrows the search down first and lets you know what gun number(s) you are actually looking for.

Matchedpairs.com had been the main source for reuniting pairs in the past, but I believe the advances of archive auction house listing on the net and constructive google searches have made the service that Joe offers almost redundant.

I have had some success in reuniting a few Dickson guns this way (all big auction houses have an archive online) and one site that is really good for trawling the archives is artfact.com where you can even specify a serial number.

You must contact Holland and Holland to determine the serial number of the other gun. Not all pairs are consecutive serial numbers.

Good advice to contact H & H.

I have used Joe Hall/Matched Pairs in the past and Joe is a good guy.

Almost certainly re-barreled , No sign of earlier proof marks . I would have expected to see some sign of the old provisional mark at the back of the flats as these were stamped fairly deep , the marks showing are post 1954.

Both the Birmingham and London proof houses stamp an "R"stamp at the forward(muzzle end) end of the barrels flats when a gun has been re-proven. The photograph of the flats of the Birmingham made replacement barrel for the subject Holland Royal does not have the "R" stamp. (Or at least it was made by a Birmingham trade trained barrel maker) Whilst I suppose that a gun could be re-proven and not stamped (in error), I have not encountered such a mistake. They do make mistakes and I have encountered a gun re-proven that had the barrel bore stamps reversed from right to left. One is in my shop, just now.

Bv

Agreed with the re-barrel, post 1954.
You can see that the SN stamps don't match the font of the SN on the action. Also note the not so great stamping job...
The question is whodunnit?
H&H will know if they have done it.
If not, the value will drop some.
However, I'd much rather have a re-barrel by the maker than a thin walled, rivelled and pitted gun...
Best regards,
WC-

B V
How can you tell it was made by a Birmingham trained barrel maker?
I'm like Wild Cattle I'll take fresh barrels over thin walls.

Jeweler;

The barrels are dovetailed lump, which is the Birmingham method of barrel construction, while chopper lump is London standard. Both methods are good methods. The chopper lump is more expensive.

You can see the two brazing lines (one on each side of the lumps) in the photo, which demonstrates that the barrels were made with a dovetailed machined into a piece of steel and that piece of steel inserted into a similar dovetailed "valley" between the two barrels, and then brazed into that valley. Afterward the piece of steel was finished machined as the lump. The lump then was finally finished by file by the gunmaker.

Bv

I see what you are saying. Neat info.So when you need to get the barrels back on face one way is to loosen the screw or unsolder and move the lump? or something like that.

Seems to me dove tail would be easier and faster to make. Tell me if I am wrong a lot easier to re build.

The bbl style is not conclusive proof.

H&H did used dovetail bbls on some of their Royals.

Boss used them on some of their guns.

Hussey used them on their Imperials.

Other London makers used them on their best-quality guns, too.


OWD

No.

Quote=jeweler:] Seems to me dove tail would be easier and faster to make. Tell me if I am wrong a lot easier to re build.

No, the dovetail method is not easier to build, but is cheaper than the chopper lump method. Chopper lump tubes require forging techniques that are not required for the simple long round dovetail lump tubes. There is much skill required to machine and fit the dovetail lump, just as there is much skill required to machine and fit the chopper section of the chopper lump barrels. For instance the choppers have to be machined at the angle required for convergence of the shot paths.

In my opinion and I believe the opinion of Purdey, Holland's, Boss and other British best quality gunmakers, a gun with dovetailed barrels is not a best quality gun, unless it has damascus barrels.

Bv

So why did H&H and Boss & Co supply dovetailed bbls on their best-quality guns?

That's not an opinion, either. That's a fact.

Many other top British gunmakers did it, too. I already pointed out H.J. Hussey.

Are you saying his Imperial Ejectors are not "best quality"? He sure thought they were.

OWD

Agreed with OWD on this. Many H&H and Boss (and others) have dovetailed lumps, especially post WWII or pre 1900.
The (only) way to know who made the barrels is to ask H&H.
Dovetailed lumps are by no mean a Brummy thing, no more than chopper lumps are a London one.
The most expensive guns usually had chopper lumps, but that's era dependent as stated above.
Best regards,
WC-

Agree with Wild Cattle and Obsessed. My observation was that pre 1900 Holland Royals used a special lump . I think this subject has been discussed before with pics. My Royal was made with two sets of barrels in 1897. Each set is original and uses the Holland lump, not chopper lump.

I think it would not be unlikely that the Royal in question in this thread was originally made with the Holland lump, ca. late 1890s.

Daryl, Would you mind explaining what a 'Holland Lump' just exactly is and how it differs from the typical 'dovetailed lump'? I, for one am claiming ignorance and would like to know the difference for future reference. I've also heard the term 'shoe lump' and I don't know what that is either. Anyone know what a shoe lump is? Thx for your opinion.

I've never heard of a Holland Lump.

Most of the Shoe Lumps I've seen were used to convert percussion guns to centerfires.

I think the platform lump shown here is pretty much the same thing:

http://hallowellco.com/lumps.htm

Boss & H&H also used dovetails in their best periods. I have no idea why, but they did it.

OWD

Shoe (platform) lumps are quite common on the 1900 era double rifles.
Westley Richards and Webley (i.e Evans, Army Navy, and many other retailers) have used them extensively.
They usually switched to Chopper lumps post 1900 or so.
Shoe lumps are rarely used on shotguns due to the tubes size making the shoe very thin.
The Shoe lump or dovetail lump make it easier to procure and machine raw barrel forgings. Otherwise, you need a left and a right forging.
Best regards,
WC-

I have also owned a pair of Grant SLEs ca 1895, that had an integral lump (IIRC), meaning that the top rib was part of the dovetailed lump, the lump extending between the barrels all the way up.
WC-

buzz, the lumps on my Holland are as WildCattle describes on his 1895 Grant. Like a dovetail, but also going upward between the barrels and including the top rib. I'd take a photo , but camera is packed away as we are leaving for our pheasant opener.

Thanks Daryl. I can envision in my mind what the Holland lump looks like, but a photo to see sometime would be great. I hope you and your hunting buddies have a great pheasant hunt!

OK, gentlemen,

the gun was made in 1898, pair with ��..35

Restocked Nov. 1924 at Hollands
Weight 6,10

Choke

L= mod
R= Cyl.

Maybe the number 1 owner is interested to get the number 2�!?

Kind Regards,
Gunwolf

Good discussion in this thread...perhaps one of the best since the days of Russ, Oscar, and Bill Wise, God bless'em. Mutual respect and sharing of collective wisdom. Thank you guys. mike