I pick #1
And I'd have sold it by now for a handsome profit.
Yes, if you bought one new, today you'd make some resale profit for sure. Here's what Phil Bourjaily wrote in a 2005 review. He bought one, and several years later wrote that it was his "plains and pheasant gun."
“Patterned after the round-action guns of John Dickson, the Gold Label is wonderfully slim and light; at 6 1 /2 pounds with 28-inch barrels, this 12 gauge is lighter and trimmer than many 20 gauges .... The Gold Label handles like a British best but sells for a price many ordinary uplanders can afford. Although the Gold Label was announced in 2002, production problems kept it from dealer’s shelves until this year. It’s here now, and upland hunters can rejoice. $2000.”
The comparison with weight of some 20 ga. doubles applies here in spades. A "for sale" listing for a 20 ga. Classic Doubles 201 with good details in the description lists weight as 7 lbs. 3 oz.
Jay
I think what's "good handling" to one shooter does not appeal to another. I ended up buying the GL Ruger sent me for field test. Can't say it was a mistake, in the sense that I didn't lose any money. But it was a mistake as far as a gun I wanted to keep. At that time, I had a pair of Army & Navy 12 bore boxlocks, made by Webley & Scott. Weight was several ounces less than the GL. They were a far cry from a British best, but to me, they handled much better than the GL.
And of course they did not remain $2,000 guns for very long. One reason Ruger dropped them was they claimed they were losing money on the guns--which is a pretty good reason to stop making them, if you can't sell them for more. The main reason they sell for more now is that a relatively small number were produced. And I'm not sure how close the actual selling prices are to the asking prices, which sometimes approach $4K.
Wonder if Don Amos ever spun a GL on his MOI machine? Would be interesting to know just how closely the gun's handling characteristics approached that of a real British best.
