doublegunshop.com - home
Posted By: forester English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/14/13 04:09 PM
I was reading Dig's book "British Boxlocks..." for the second time last night when I noted a statement I had not paid attention to the first time:

"...most capitalist of countries betrayed its faith in the free market when it introduce the McKinley tarrif of 1890. This imposed a charge of 35% plus $6 on every gun....allowing American makers like Parker, to succeed with what was an inferior produt." (p.122)

Can anyone provide some information on the relative prices for English and American shotguns in the 1890's? Did the tarrif have a big impact on the shotgun market?
Posted By: PeteM Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/14/13 04:41 PM
That is an amusing view point. By 1890 English gun production was on the skids. There were other motivations for the English proof house test of various barrel materials.... American gun makers understood their market and how to sell to it.

The tariff became a political point of contention between the parties for years. It was never "aimed" at firearms, but rather at wool and tin plates. The Belgians had no problems with the tariff. In fact it helped fuel their firearms, lace and glass industries. They read the law and proceeded to sell barrels and parts in addition to complete guns. They successfully lobbied congress in this regard.

There were regular hearings in Congress about the tariff. American gun makers routinely denounced it claiming the Belgians were using women and children in their factories all the while lying to congress about these exact same practices which they employed.

Eventually the Belgians reformed themselves regarding child labor. Well ahead of American efforts.

Protectionist laws effectually fail to protect.


Pete
Originally Posted By: forester
allowing American makers like Parker, to succeed with what was an inferior produt." (p.122)


Amusing, or not, hard to argue with this fact-I think Dig hit the nail right on the head. Zutz (and, others) warned us first, however.

Best,
Ted
Posted By: James M Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/14/13 05:33 PM
Let see here: I used to be an avid clock collector and an American clock maker names Chauncey Jerome sr. managed to flood the British market with a very inexpensive shelf clock called an OG due to the shape of its case. He put a declared value on a large shipment of $1.50 per clock. The was a brass movement weight driven clock with a veneered case. The Brits thought it impossible to make a clock that cheaply so exercising their tariff regulations seized the shipment for face value. The clockmaker gleefully turned around and sent another large shipment at the same price. After a few more shipments the Brits gave up.
I point this out to demonstrate that the United States wasn't the only Country with tariffs and their purpose was to protect domestic manufacturing. In the case of clocks it cartainly backfired on Great Britian.
Jim
As an aside: IMO there was one American double gun built during this period that was arguably superior to all the others and that's the Colt Model 1883. The simplicity of design and excellence of craftmanship is immediately apparent to anyone who has owned one of these.
Posted By: Joe Wood Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/14/13 06:10 PM
Originally Posted By: forester
"...most capitalist of countries betrayed its faith in the free market when it introduce the McKinley tarrif of 1890. This imposed a charge of 35% plus $6 on every gun....allowing American makers like Parker, to succeed with what was an inferior produt." (p.122)


I was incredulous when I read this in his book. Inferior to what? By what standard were they judged? American gunmakers made guns that would stand up to the requirements of American shooters of the period. And they did a darned good job. What British gun could have stood up to the decades of use and abuse our shooters subjected their arms to. In our vast country with supplies of ammunition limited guns were shot with whatever was available and this was generally with what the Brits would have called "magnum" loads (If they'd had that word then) and unsuitable for their fragile arms. British guns were designed to be returned to a gunsmith for frequent upkeep--American guns had to endure decades, even more than a century of use without anything more than an infrequent drop of oil. Inferior? Blasphemy! I would gladly put any Parker, Lefever, Smith, Fox, Baker, ithaca, and any other American gun up against their highly touted toys.
Originally Posted By: Joe Wood
Originally Posted By: forester
"...most capitalist of countries betrayed its faith in the free market when it introduce the McKinley tarrif of 1890. This imposed a charge of 35% plus $6 on every gun....allowing American makers like Parker, to succeed with what was an inferior produt." (p.122)


I was incredulous when I read this in his book. Inferior to what? By what standard were they judged? American gunmakers made guns that would stand up to the requirements of American shooters of the period. And they did a darned good job. What British gun could have stood up to the decades of use and abuse our shooters subjected their arms to. In our vast country with supplies of ammunition limited guns were shot with whatever was available and this was generally with what the Brits would have called "magnum" loads (If they'd had that word then) and unsuitable for their fragile arms. British guns were designed to be returned to a gunsmith for frequent upkeep--American guns had to endure decades, even more than a century of use without anything more than an infrequent drop of oil. Inferior? Blasphemy! I would gladly put any Parker, Lefever, Smith, Fox, Baker, ithaca, and any other American gun up against their highly touted toys.


Go back and read the date-1890. There was no Fox, if you said "Parker", it probably meant a lifter gun to most folks, as the hammerless had been on the scene very briefly, and some products produced by the others were pretty crude. More than one gunsmith reported Parkers with a bunch of soft parts in them, and Parker hammerless gun have a bunch of parts inside. Everything used black powder, and there were no magnums, as such. The typical US 12 gauge was built on a 10 gauge frame, and was a heavy gun with 30" barrels.

Hate to be the horsefly in the yogurt, but, there exist plenty of US built doubles that are sub-par. Especially lower grades.
That typically isn't the case with even low grade English guns of any time period.

Sorry.

Best,
Ted
Price comparisons (though mostly U.S. makers) here, and a bit about the 1890 tariff and subsequent Panic of 1893. The McKinley Tariff of 1890 set the average ad valorem tariff rate for imports into the United States at 48.4%. “Sporting, breech-loading double-barrel shotguns” had a 35% ad valorem PLUS an import duty of $1.50 if priced less than $6; $4 if $6-$12; and $6 if priced greater than $12. The tariff contributed to the “Panic of 1893” with 500 bank closures, the bankruptcy of over 15,000 businesses, and the failures of the Philadelphia and Reading, Northern Pacific, Union Pacific, and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railroads. An estimated 18% of the workforce was unemployed at the Panic's peak, especially in the west and in farm states as the price of wheat and cotton fell. A series of strikes followed in 1894, the worse being the Bituminous Coal Miners’ and Pullman strikes. The U.S. economy, and U.S. gunmakers, did not begin to recover until 1896.
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1OTND2bQH0vhlbCf7c2sN8H1vzmT7xagUSXhewGB03SE

In 1895 Will Park, Gun Editor for Sporting Life began publishing a series of editorials encouraging the purchase of American guns, shells, and powder.
See http://docs.google.com/View?id=dfg2hmx7_311kp75d7hd

http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1895/VOL_24_NO_21/SL2421013.pdf
Feb. 16, 1895 Sporting Life (Spelling is as written)
During the past three years on visits to such sporting clubs as Larchmont, Carteret, Tuxedo and Riverton, we have noted the peculiar fact that out of 20 or 30 guns on the grounds at one time there will possibly be one gun of American manufacture. All the others are "Crown Grade Grenier's," "Premier Quality Scott's," "Purdy's" and other foreign makes.
The remarkable state of affairs, which is not creditable to American manufacturers, would indicate that there is something lacking on their part. We know that men with "hobbies" are willing to spend much money to gratify their "hobby;" but we are not willing to concede, if only from a patriotic sense, that American manufacturers are unable to satisfy their countrymen's "hobby" in guns.

April 6, 1895
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1895/VOL_25_NO_02/SL2502014.pdf
Some Facts About the Retail Gun Trade - The Mania For Foreign-Made Guns
Parker Bros., of Meridan, Conn., are producing a Special high grade pigeon gun which is certainly equal to an imported gun in every way, and best of all, the shooting quality is not lacking.
The Hunter Arms Co., of Fulton, N. Y., also make a special gun which is finely finished, perfectly balanced and contains the best workmanship.
The Lefever Arms Co., of Syracuse are also catering to this better class of trade, and have already filled many orders for guns costing $300 to $400 which were equal in material, finish design of engraving and general workmanship to any foreign gun costing much more money.

By the First DuPont Grand Smokeless Championship Handicap Live-bird Tournament October 1895 the most used gun was of U.S. make
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1895/VOL_26_NO_06/SL2606012.pdf
Fred Gilbert (L.C. Smith) and Charles “Hayward” Macalester (Purdey) tied at 25; Gilbert won the shoot-off 5/5 to 4/5. Charles Wagner (Parker), E.B. Coe (Smith), Capt. John L. Brewer (Greener), and A.H. King (Scott Monte Carlo) tied at 24; Wagner won the shoot-off taking 3rd place.
Guns: Smith – 13, Parker – 8, Greener – 11, Lefever – 6, Francotte – 4, Scott & Remington – 3 each, Francotte – 2, Colt, Grant, Boss & Purdey – 1 each

Any of the Syracuse L.C. Smiths from Quality 4 to Quality 7 were as good if not better than any English gun built.

And Ted you are wrong, these guns were built on 3 different frame weights. The medium weight 12 ga. could be made as low as 7 1/2 lbs with 30" barrels.
The Quality 7 was $450.00 in 1888.
H&D Folsom acquired Crescent Fire Arms in 1893, and the flood of U.S. made Trade Name guns soon followed
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1OxZo5Tkvx2G8eYf747QR9B5RJdN6Siu5JGIhfguSXXQ

Most of the low quality deceptively named imports were Belgian, which was part of the motivation for the 1890 tariff

“Synopsis of decisions of the Treasury Department and Board of U.S. General Appraisers on the construction of tariff, immigration, and other laws, for year ending 1891”
http://books.google.com/books?id=L_xDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA1207&dq
It has been the custom of manufacturers to stamp fictitious names of individuals and other trade words, such as "Richards," "Western," "U.S. Armes Co.," etc., upon the lock plates or on the ribs connecting double-barrel guns imported at your port from Belgium; that in a number of recent importations of guns from Belgium there is a conspicuous absence of any words to indicate the country of origin, but on the contrary words have been found which represent to consumers that the guns are either of English or American manufacture, thus nullifying the object and intent of section 6 above referred to, and under these circumstances you request further instructions from the Department as to the marking of guns imported not only by Boker & Co., but by all others, whether in store or en route.
As it appears that it is practicable to stamp the name of the country of origin on the guns, you are hereby authorized, under and in pursuance of Department's decision of March 18. 1891 (Synopsis 10832) to deliver the guns covered by this and subsequent importations only upon such stamping, the language of said decision being that "where articles of foreign manufacture required to be marked under the provisions above referred to were ordinarily stamped at the time of the passage of said act, the name of the country of origin should be stamped thereon.
Interesting timing. Sir Diggory previously expressed his disdain for the 'Farm Implement L.C. Smith'. A future DGJ will have a bit of a retort smile
Posted By: L. Brown Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/14/13 08:37 PM
The late Mr. McIntosh--who was, in general, a fan of classic American doubles--found a number of things to criticize about Elsies. See the chapter in his "Gun Review Book". Not much question that the Brits did sidelocks better. Imitation is proof of flattery, and the Spanish have chosen to imitate the British designs rather than the Elsie. Matter of fact, no one has chosen to imitate Elsie.
Posted By: trw999 Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/14/13 09:17 PM
Originally Posted By: PeteM
By 1890 English gun production was on the skids.
Pete


Could you kindly validate this statement please Pete?

Thanks

Tim
Diggory has a very dry sense of humor and is pulling yall's collective leg. He shoots a Model 21 in Africa and loves it. I have proof.
Posted By: PeteM Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/14/13 10:41 PM
Originally Posted By: trw999
Originally Posted By: PeteM
By 1890 English gun production was on the skids.

Could you kindly validate this statement please Pete?


The only thing better than a well stocked library is the ability to remember what you read:

RE: the British Arms industry
The Birmingham Gun Trade
by David Williams
published 2004
isbn 0-7524-3237-0
page 140

Gun exports to America
1882 $1,169,000
1890 $349,000
1905 $20,000

RE: Belgian reform of child labor
Pieter Daens (in Dutch)
by Louis Paul Boon
published 1974

Daens, a movie based on the book in French & Dutch 1992

RE: The McKinley Tariff
I have the Congressional record sitting here.

RE: Congressional hearing regarding the tariff Google

Pete
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/14/13 10:59 PM
You don't think that, maybe, the tariff of 1890 had something to do with those numbers? English gun production was on the skids in 1905 because America had imposed that protective tariff to allow for our own fledgling industry to survive. The domestic gunmaking industry was facing competition in one part of the market (the high-end) from highly-evolved English guns, and on the other end of the market (guess which one?) from Belgum. What we largely ended up with was an amalgam of English design (the A&D action had lost patent protection in 1894) and American production techniques.

Let's see now, we're comparing guns made in a long-established master/apprentice system to mass-produced guns(albeit, with some level of hand-work in the early years). American guns are hell-for-strong, because they had to be. Is that a measure of refinement?
Posted By: PeteM Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/14/13 11:13 PM
The McKinley Tariff became law on October 1, 1890. At that point the English trade had already declined by $820,000 since 1882.

Pete
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/14/13 11:24 PM
Affirmative action is obviously not a new idea.
Originally Posted By: JDW
Any of the Syracuse L.C. Smiths from Quality 4 to Quality 7 were as good if not better than any English gun built.

And Ted you are wrong, these guns were built on 3 different frame weights. The medium weight 12 ga. could be made as low as 7 1/2 lbs with 30" barrels.
The Quality 7 was $450.00 in 1888.


Few 1890 vintage LC Smiths were built at 7 1/2 pounds-if you can, show me one. Bigger was better in that era, and the guns show it. While you are at it, find one of that vintage that isn't cracked behind the lockplates.

The only people I know who claim an LC Smith is as good or better than an English gun are those who are unfamiliar with a Lefever. I'd still take a typical English gamekeepers boxlock from the same period over either of those.

Best,
Ted
Re: Sir Dig's sense of humor; whilst recognizing the inherent challenge of appearing humble when addressing one’s Colonial inferiors, it might be prudent for an English iron monger to be slightly less condescending toward potential purchasers of his wares.


Good is as good does. Please review the outcome of the 1901 Anglo-American match
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=185YOyQl7GIB9OYLs9Hr3tnMLHqs4rjEdR4j_E9l4HLw

Marshall and Merrill gave up their Cashmores and choose Parkers, as did Le Roy and Heikes who used Remington doubles at the 1901 GAH at Live Birds as Remington professionals. Le Roy had been a Remington representative since 1897. Parmelee used a Parker at the 1900 GAH, but had previously also been a Remington professional.
Guns used: Capt. Thos. Marshall - Parker, R. O. Heikes - Parker, W.R. Crosby - Smith., C. W. Budd – Parker, J. S. Fanning - Smith, J.A.R. Elliott - Winchester Repeater, Fred. Gilbert – Parker, F. S. Parmelee - Parker, C. M. Powers - Parker, Edward Banks - Winchester Repeater, E.H. Tripp - Parker, Richard Merrill - Parker, and B. Le Roy - Parker.

After the team defeated the British best, W.R. Crosby (Smith) beat the Scottish champion shot, Faulds, at Glasgow, Scotland. Each shot at 100 clay pigeons from ground traps and 50 pigeons from tower traps. Crosby scored 139 to Faulds’ 134.


Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/14/13 11:53 PM
Dr. Drew: I'm a great fan of your work, but we're comparing competition guns (essentially, pigeon guns) to game guns here. Apples and oranges. There is a difference between a 6 1/2 pound gun and an 8-pound gun, and you darn-well know it.
Posted By: builder Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/14/13 11:54 PM
Ted,

I have an 1899 5E 12g. that originally weighed 7 lbs. 3 oz. and it still has no cracks behind the lockplates. I have several that have no cracks in lower grades but I certainly do not disagree that they are very prone to that problem and many other problems. Most are old and not very well taken care of as typical of the way Americans took care of their guns.
Posted By: builder Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/14/13 11:56 PM
Originally Posted By: Drew Hause
Re: Sir Dig's sense of humor; whilst recognizing the inherent challenge of appearing humble when addressing one’s Colonial inferiors, it might be prudent for an English iron monger to be slightly less condescending toward potential purchasers of his wares.





I wish I could have said it as well. Thank you.
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/15/13 12:05 AM
Something we're forgetting to look at here; what are the comparable values (in the current market) for those guns produced in the 1890s? Compare British and American "bests" and tell me why there is a difference?
Posted By: Joe Wood Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/15/13 12:24 AM
Originally Posted By: Lloyd3
Dr. Drew: I'm a great fan of your work, but we're comparing competition guns (essentially, pigeon guns) to game guns here. Apples and oranges. There is a difference between a 6 1/2 pound gun and an 8-pound gun, and you darn-well know it.


Lloyd, the "dictionary" you're using to judge the merits of each country's guns is from this century for applications today. Go back to that period and then compare products. The American market was primarily made up of shooters who could only afford one gun and it had to serve from the goose pits to grouse covers to prairie chickens to waylaying that old gobbler. Ninety-nine percent of the hunters here had no use whatsoever for the gun you're trying to compare it to. Your "idea gun" would not have made one season in this rough and tumble country. The other one percent? I own two DH Parker's from that era with 28" tubes coming in at 6 lbs 8 oz and are balanced as well if not better than almost all English guns.

And Lloyd, a "best gun" in America at that time was one that could stay in one piece after all the hammering it endured (remember the dictionary).

"We're comparing competition guns (essentially, pigeon guns) to game guns here."
Here, as in the 1901 match, or as in the superiority of British guns?

The English team knew the rules of the competition, and were allowed TWO 1 1/8 oz. shots to the American team's ONE shot of 1 1/4 oz. Could they possibly have chosen to be under/outgunned????

I always enjoy this Baker Gunner cover, and only wish I had a full size image smile

Posted By: Joe Wood Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/15/13 01:00 AM
Hey this is fun! I love arguing about stuff that only blondes and brunettes would understand.

For the edification of our poor brethren across the raging Atlantic (y'all like to say pond, don't you.....it sounds so much more sophisticated) and for those on this side who would like to go back, I present a glimpse of 99% of the American market of 1895:

Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/15/13 01:15 AM
Mr. Wood: You make my point for me. This thread started out with someone taking umbrage at Mr. Hadoke's assessment of the quality of American guns at the turn of the last Century. For all of the various reasons you state above, the need and use for a shotgun was different here than in England. In many ways, that situation hasn't really changed much. The vast majority of guns sold here today are to sportsmen that can really only afford one good gun. That is where many of us start our shooting careers. I am a huge fan of our early double guns and their history. They were both affordable and enduring. I grew up in an LC Smith household and think of them fondly still. But.....when I'm going to be walking all day in pursuit of game, my nostalgia doesn't overwhelm my need for a lighter & better balanced gun. We all like what we like for our own reasons. With that said however, English game guns were, indeed, more highly evolved in the 1890s than our own domestically produced products. Ignoring that reality because we so blindly love our own historic products simply isn't rational. The reason that your DH Parkers are so enjoyable is that they are fairly close copies of basic English game gun designs.
Originally Posted By: Ted Schefelbein
The only people I know who claim an LC Smith is as good or better than an English gun are those who are unfamiliar with a Lefever.

Best,
Ted


Ted, you probably don't know Nick Makinson then, tho' you may well have heard of him. Ontario based now, he apprenticed in the English gun trade with B. Wild & Sons, I believe. For years, later, his company supplied barrels, actions and other parts to the trade, including Churchill and Atkin, Grant & Lang.

Nick did a video many years ago, in VHS format, on the L.C. Smith gun, giving it extremely high praise while disassembling one and showing the proper cleaning and maintenance techniques. I called him to talk after buying and watching it. During our conversation I asked him why Smiths were more prone to cracking behind the lockplates than other sidelocks. He replied, rather pointedly, that they are not. He said that any sidelock that the owner allows the pins (screws) to become slack on is just as prone to cracking as the Smith, implying that maybe, just maybe, that problem arose from the lack of maintenance attention given American field guns as compared to the average British sidelock gun.(?)

Do you suppose that Nick, with his vast knowledge of the British gun, is somehow able to rise above the condescending attitude of many Britishers (and Americans obsessed with anything Brit) toward American built guns? Or, is it simply that he spent all that time in the British gun trade and just doesn't know anything about a Lefever?

Hmmmm?

SRH
I think if I had a buck for every 'Smith I've ever seen that was cracked, I could fund a pretty nice English boxlock purchase.

I also think if the screws came loose on THAT MANY guns of the same design, you have a bigger problem than lack of maintenance. How many cracked English boxlocks have graced the pages of TDJ?

There have been PLENTY of cracked "Smiths in there for all the world to see.

An LC Smith is to gunmaking what Grandma Moses is to art.

Primitive.

Best,
Ted
Originally Posted By: Ted Schefelbein
There have been PLENTY of cracked "Smiths in there for all the world to see.
Best,
Ted


I've seen quite a few myself, Ted. And, according to Nick, he has seen quite a few English sidelocks crack for the same reason. Don't let that interfere with your personal assessment, though. It's just an English gunmaker's opinion, not mine.

SRH
Posted By: LeFusil Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/15/13 02:27 AM
Originally Posted By: Stan
Originally Posted By: Ted Schefelbein
There have been PLENTY of cracked "Smiths in there for all the world to see.
Best,
Ted


I've seen quite a few myself, Ted. And, according to Nick, he has seen quite a few English sidelocks crack for the same reason. Don't let that interfere with your personal assessment, though. It's just an English gunmaker's opinion, not mine.

SRH


I know a few English trained gunmakers and some American gunsmiths who won't allow an Elsie in their shop. Their opinion, their shop...not mine.
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/15/13 02:36 AM
Dr. Drew: In reference to your earlier posting of the 1901 competition, your citation identified the English guns as being Cashmores? Not casting aspersions here, but Cashmores were hardly English "best" guns. They were likely to be good, serviceable, but lower-tier boxlocks with 1 1/8-ounce proofs. A better comparison to the American arms at that time would have been Hussey or Greener Pigeon guns, or, comparing the absolute top-tier makers, Holland or even Purdey.

And, when you really think about it, what your citation is so inelegantly inferring is that it was the guns and not the shooters that really mattered. The arrow matters, and not the Indian. Has that been your personal experience?
Posted By: Rookhawk Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/15/13 02:48 AM
Actually,

Cashmore was a pre imminent pigeon gunmaker with first prizes and excellent showings in USA, Australia, and India. Their reputation was always good.

I'd take a Cashmore over a Parker (American contemporary hammergun) any day. Higher quality, exqusite regulation, proven for 2.75" and 3.00" shells in the 1890s.
Hon. Tom Marshall won the 1897 and 1899 Grand American Handicap at Live Birds using a Cashmore. The English team members are listed here, but the guns they used are not recorded
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1901/VOL_37_NO_15/SL3715020.pdf

My 'inelegant' citation simply states the fact that the best American shooters, who were very likely induced to use Parkers (with the exceptions noted including TWO repeating shotguns - oh the shame!) quite handily defeated the best shooters of England and Scotland who one would assume used the most effective English gun available for that shooting discipline. After the competition was prematurely terminated, J.A.R. Elliott and his Winchester went on to the Continent and made a bit of money in the pigeon rings.

The document on DamascusKnowledge and links to the original reports are interesting reading, especially the responses (excuses) by the English sporting press.
Here is the doc again
http://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=185YOyQl7GIB9OYLs9Hr3tnMLHqs4rjEdR4j_E9l4HLw
Posted By: Buzz Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/15/13 04:19 AM
Funny, only one Englishman has made comment in this whole thread and he didn't have much to say, in fact he only asked for proof to a statement which was made. The other funny thing is that gun values, which was the topic of the thread has barely been touched. Rather, it's all been about the superiority of American guns as compared to English, which IMHO is the biggest joke of all and I'm an American. I'm guessing a lot of untreated hypertension is manifesting itself as people try to defend the greatness of the American clunker side by side shotgun (just teasing you guys:-)
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/15/13 04:36 AM
Dr. Drew: I have no arguement with the results of those competitions. The American team were better shots, hoo-ray! What I would disagree with is the implication that the guns being used made all of the difference. I'm not trying to call anybody's baby "ugly", I'm just agreeing with Mr. Hadoke's assessment of the state of the gun world in the 1890s, which was the original subject of this thread.
Interesting, I´d like set up a poll but don´t know how, given the choice of a mint 1910 ish Purdey or H&H Royal, either in virtually unused state (highly unlikely I admit), or any US double in same condition (not including guns owned by famous people e.g Hemingway etc or Roosevelt) what would you choose ? I am assuming the gun is for oneself and to use (otherwise some of you will start coming up with ideas like a Parker bonkers grade just so you could resell it, best, Mike
Posted By: trw999 Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/15/13 07:56 AM
Originally Posted By: PeteM
Originally Posted By: trw999
Originally Posted By: PeteM
By 1890 English gun production was on the skids.

Could you kindly validate this statement please Pete?


The only thing better than a well stocked library is the ability to remember what you read:

RE: the British Arms industry
The Birmingham Gun Trade
by David Williams
published 2004
isbn 0-7524-3237-0
page 140

Gun exports to America
1882 $1,169,000
1890 $349,000
1905 $20,000

Pete


Thank you Pete.

I gather what you intended to say was that the import of British guns into America was on the skids by 1890. English gun production was increasing at that time. And I do have the Williams book!

As the lone Englishman referred to here (Edit: Oh good, Mike is here too!), I do not intend to wade in and defend the British shotgun in what would then turn into a rather futile and potentially nationalistic argument about our own ideas of which company makes the best gun.

When it comes down to it, it is the person firing the gun and their own skill that determines how good a shot they are. Although a well fitted and regulated gun helps a good deal, an ace shot, whether game or clay, will more often than not bring more birds down with whatever gun they may be shooting with.

To get back to the original question from Forester, I can only give you some idea of English game gun prices around 1890, taken from a London makers catalogue of the time. Incidentally, I would say that we should attempt to compare like with like in terms of quality. So the cheapest gun 'suitable for use at sea or rough work' is £5/0/0 ($24.3); a good hammer with rebounding locks and Damascus barrels is £10/0/0 ($48.6); a top lever, bar action hammer with rebounding locks and Damascus barrels at £15/0/0 ($72.9); a plain, sound hammerless A&D at £13/10/0 ($65.6); the same but with hard English Damascus barrels and better quality and finish at £22/10/0 ($109.3); fitted with ejectors for £5 ($24.3) extra; very best quality built to order sidelock at £50/0/0 ($243)and extra for fitted case. (Exchange rate in 1890 of £1=$4.86)

I hope those descriptions and figures give you something to go on when some kind soul digs out comparative American gun prices.

Tim
Posted By: L. Brown Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/15/13 12:33 PM
One reason British exports to this country might have declined during the 1880's-90's could be the growth of the American gun industry. Prior to 1880, Parker and Lefever combined hadn't produced much more than 20,000 guns. 80's and 90's, along came Ithaca and Smith. And of course the tariff, when it came in, gave all the American companies a significant edge. (Sort of like why we don't buy ethanol from Brazil today.) In spite of the bad economy, the 90's were very good years for the American shotgun industry, which was in much more of a "fledgling" state in 1880 than was the British industry. And the Brits had a pretty good export market for their guns even as sales declined here in the States: the Empire. Military officers, colonial officials, colonists etc. Meanwhile, the higher end of the British gun market got a significant boost because the most important man in the UK--the future King Edward--spent a considerable amount of time shooting driven birds (when he wasn't chasing women) during his long wait to take the throne. That gave shooting and the "best gun" trade a huge shot in the arm, for which there was really no equivalent in this country.

As for the guns used by the best competitive shooters, they had their guns furnished by the companies that sponsored them. Eventually, many of those pros switched to pumps to win big shoots. Likely had to do with American gun companies making a lot of pumps and trying to sell them to American shooters because so and so won the Grand (or whatever) shooting one.
Posted By: Rookhawk Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/15/13 01:36 PM
Well, lets lay it to rest with some data.

My 1891 W.C. Scott Premier Ejector was retailed by Read and Son of Boston for $275 in 1890, probably around $400 in 1891 post Mckinley tariff act. It is best quality in every regard. Weight and balance are flawless.

Could anyone provide a equivalent game gun made for the American market that approaches this quality and price?

At that time, America was making dime store guns and some pimped out competition guns for live bird shoots. Nothing near that price range or labor level.

As a non-sequitur, I find all these claims that Americans were the best shots to be bizarre. Annie Oakley laments in her letters that she was an abysmal shot with her LC and other guns when she arrived in England and attempted Brit pigeon shoots. It was only after Charles Lancaster (Thorne) built her a fine pair of guns and mentored her for months that she could do what hundreds of Brit competitors could. She was awestruck by the difficulty of British shoots compared to the American ones she was most familiar.

Hence, these points don't really support the ongoing narrative of this thread very well.
1906 William Read & Sons Catalogue

"Highest Quality" Wesley Richards with single trigger - $595
W.W. Greener "Imperial" - $500
W&C Scott "Premier" - $375
W&C Scott "Imperial Premier" - price on application
Purdey - 89 pounds 5 shillings sterling
"Highest Quality" sidelock ejector Joseph Lang & Son - 65 guineas
Parker Bros. AAHE - net price of $318.75
Lefever Optimus - $280
Remington Special - $750

Not listed but in 1908 the maker's suggested retail price
Parker A1 Special $525
Smith A3 $740
Smith A2 $400

These guns stand TOGETHER at the pinnacle of gunmaker's artistry, engineering, and function. Arguing superiority of one over another is entirely subjective, entertaining, occasionally nationalistically unpleasant AND SILLY.

Our current row started (again) because an occasional correspondent to this forum, who peddles English guns to Americans, thought it clever to issue a global put down of one American gunmaker.

Dr Jim and I have prepared an article which will appear in DGJ, the 'Farm Implement Grade Smiths', the gist of which is that no, an 00 Smith is no Purdey, had/has a stock design flaw, but did it's job on a farm in Neb. at the turn of the century, and can still be used and enjoyed long after the other farm implements have either worn out or been replaced by better tools.

No one made more effective tools for breaking clay targets at the traps than American makers 1895-1915. Times changed and as Larry said, many of the top guns went to Single Barrel Traps. And no one is in the GAH shoot off today using a Knick.

The most effective tool for harvesting waterfowl is probably an A5 or M11 with an extended magazine. That does not make it a best gun. Nor is a punt gun.

The most effective tool for rough shooting may be a British game gun.

The most effective tool at the pigeon ring today is likely an Italian OU.

Everyone has an opinion...which is just that...and should be supported by facts. But arrogance is hard to take.

Posted By: James M Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/15/13 02:30 PM
Drew:
Would you please double check the Smith prices posted above. They seem on the high side to me.
Jim
Those are the maker's SRP Jim.

Found the 1895 list prices
Parker Bros. AAHE “Pigeon Model” $400
Smith A2 $365
A3 $740

BTW: the Remington pump is the best gun of all time because the American team used it to take the Gold at the 1912 Olympics smile

Quote:
Annie Oakley laments in her letters that she was an abysmal shot with her LC and other guns when she arrived in England and attempted Brit pigeon shoots. It was only after Charles Lancaster (Thorne) built her a fine pair of guns and mentored her for months that she could do what hundreds of Brit competitors could. She was awestruck by the difficulty of British shoots compared to the American ones she was most familiar.


Brit shoots were different from what she was used to. New, expensive, custom, purpose-built guns, a qualified mentor, and lots of practice improved her performance. Shocking! I sometimes hunt with guys who regularly run 100 straight at skeet, but who can't match me in the dove fields. I don't shoot much skeet and they don't hunt very often. It's all about what you are used to and what you practice.
Quote:
the Remington pump is the best gun of all time


If you were referring to the 870, I'd have to agree with you.
Posted By: James M Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/15/13 04:37 PM
I was confusing Grades 1,2,3 etc with the A grades.
Jim
As Brother Drew had posted about the high grade L.C. Smiths, in 1895 when the A3 came out it was the most expensive gun made anywhere, including any English gun.
Posted By: L. Brown Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/15/13 09:19 PM
Yes indeed, American makers did make their versions of "best" guns. But not very many, and not very many of those were used like "tools". Going by the Blue Book: Smith, 17 A-3's, 210 A-2's, 152 Monograms. Parker: 80 A-1 Special, 240 AAH, 300 AH.

Meanwhile, back in Old Blightly . . . the Brits were turning out far more "bests" (Boss, Purdey, Woodward, H&H, Churchill, Scott, etc). Boss ("makers of Best Guns only"), in contrast to the above numbers, turned out almost 5,000 guns between 1900-1970. And His Lordship and his loader(s) were regularly putting them through their paces on driven shoots. Not a lot of rough usage in terms of banging those guns around (although doubtful if the American owners of the above-named high $ guns banged them around much either), but maybe more shooting in one long weekend than the Yanks over the Pond would see in an entire season of hunting waterfowl and upland birds. None of those high $ guns from either place, I'd submit, were meant to be used like a farm tool. But in the UK, they were much more likely to be shot a whole bunch. And there are, relatively speaking, still a lot of them around, some of them still being shot a lot at driven birds. Likely being shot a good bit more than their rare (and collectible because they're rare) American cousins.

And on the other end of the price spectrum, your basic Brummie boxlock could stand up to a fair amount of use as well. And many of them are still being shot. In both cases--American and British--those that aren't being shot any more likely died more as a result of out and out abuse rather than overuse.
Larry it is true that his Lordship/s did shoot thousands of birds, but not the ordinary people/peasants did. We did not have this here, what we did have is Trap and pigeon shooters who shot thousands and thousands of rounds through these American guns, and some of them are still around also.
The difference is, most of the English had the good sense at the end of the season to have the gun looked at by the maker, where as we just kept on shooting them.

I also don't believe that the shooting in England in the 1890's was for everyone, only the very wealthy could afford to shoot unless you were a guest. I believe most of the shotguns made were shipped elsewhere in Europe for other dignitaries.
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/16/13 03:55 AM
To Mr. Brown's point about how English guns are actually used, from what I have both read and heard (first-hand), better English guns are generally well cared for between the seasons, but....they can get used very hard when pulled from their cases on and after "The Glorious 12th". Literally hundreds of rounds per season, perhaps thousands, in all kinds of weather that generally involves lots of moisture. The very engineering of these guns, and their metal and wood finishes, evolved specifically because of, and for, this type of use. Because of the initial quality of the manufacturing processes used to create them, and then the fastidious care they generally receive at the seasons end, they can last almost indefinitely. The point here is this: doubleguns can and do get used very hard on both sides of "the pond". If it's truly commendable that a gun of "agricultural simplicity" can be wrought that is both affordable and long-serving, then what is it when a gun that is highly-evolved and artfully crafted is doing the same thing? If, after a hundred years of service (or more?), and both types of weapons are still doing the jobs they were built to do, what is the difference between them? Which one has the greater claim to make?
Posted By: James M Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/16/13 04:15 AM
I have owned and shot several trap and skeet guns that would make the life of an English double seem easy by comparison. I used to put thousands of rounds thru an Ithaca SKB skeet gun year after year when I was shooting regularly and the only maintenence it received were regular cleanings. Ditto for a Browning O/U. Weather? How about below zero in the Winter to the 90s and humid in the Summer months. Rained on snowned on you name it.
So someone please tell me how these survived year after year without being returned to the manufacturer for service?
Jim
Originally Posted By: JDW


I also don't believe that the shooting in England in the 1890's was for everyone, only the very wealthy could afford to shoot unless you were a guest. I believe most of the shotguns made were shipped elsewhere in Europe for other dignitaries.


Not wrong there JDW, I think it was King George V who wouldn´t pay Boss prices ! He said, I quote from memory, "Boss, bloody good guns but too bloody expensive" !!
Posted By: trw999 Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/16/13 08:17 AM
May I please disabuse my good friendly Americans of the fact that any Victorian Englishman who shot was a titled heir to a fortune. Of course the newspapers, magazines and books of the period tended to concentrate on the glamorous end of the social spectrum. But that does not mean that plenty of ordinary folk didn't shoot; they did.

Then, as now, there were plenty of farmers shoots, rough shoots, wildfowling and one man with his gun and dog walking the hedgerows. These attracted not only those with money - the newly wealthy, professionals and so on, but also clerks, warehousemen and the like. Not un-naturally their guns tended to reflect their means. One only has to look at the gun catalogues of the time to see that gunsmiths offered weapons for all types of shooting and all pockets.

Furthermore it strikes me that, since the engineering tolerances used in the manufacture of guns have to be very fine, any sporting gun that is well cared for (regardless of whether it is given a regular service or not), should last several generations.

Tim
Posted By: L. Brown Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/16/13 11:42 AM
Well, someone was buying a lot of Boss, Purdey, Woodward etc "bests". Not sure how many of them were going elsewhere in Europe for the nobility and other rich shooters. But in the 1890's, there wasn't the amount of driven shooting going on anywhere else as there was in the UK. And the other European gunmaking nations were also producing very fine doubles of their own.

Comparing purpose-built target guns (which the British also made) to the "game guns" used for driven shooting doesn't work. Your average British 12 bore game gun was lighter than virtually all American 12's. Typical weight would have been around 6 1/2#. The only British pair I've ever owned weighed 6 1/4 with 28" barrels. My current Lancaster SLE, also 28", hits that same weight. So it's not quite like putting thousands of rounds through your typical trap or skeet gun, which will usually weigh at least 1 1/2# more. In terms of shells fired, I've gone through close to a flat of shells for 3 days of driven shooting in Scotland. And back in "the day", the big shoots featured more birds than you'll typically see on your average commercial shoot today.

Also worth pointing out that not all the guns used for driven were bests, nor were all the shooters the super rich. My British pair were Army & Navy boxlocks made by Scott, ordered by a retired British brigadier (brigadier general). Nice guns, but they would not even have qualified as boxlock bests.
Posted By: Buzz Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/16/13 12:09 PM
I don't think much can compare to a British 'best' in terms of side by side shotguns. They are works of art and just ooze quality. Some Italian guns and other country's gun can compare in this day and age, but it really boils down to the fact that they are merely copies of what the English produced in the first place, at the turn of the century, which is the focus point of this thread. Just my humble opinion, though. So, maybe Diggory was correct in his assessment, but possibly he should have sugar coated it a bit for those of us Americans who are fond of our American guns and their heritage.
So how well do the American built doubles sale in the international gun auctions? I mean other than Americans buying them who else buys them at the prices the English doubles command? That may determine who built the better double and I think it may be the English.
Posted By: Joe Wood Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/16/13 01:37 PM
Seems to me we're still talking about two different guns. The subject has moved over to discussing what is commonly referred to as a "best" gun, a title tradition has bestowed, rightly or wrongly, to a few London shops. In this category you'll hear little objection from me. However, in the context of a "best" gun for most American shooters around 1900, give or take a few years, the American guns stood the test of having to be all things to all masters quite well, better than almost all of the overseas competition. As I mentioned in an earlier post, this gun often had to get up way before dawn and work in the duck marshes then after a late breakfast be ready for a day's work in the grouse and woodcock covers. Or, if the dinner menu included rabbit then off to the farmyard. Come afternoon it might be laying across the lap of a hopeful hunter skillfully clucking to that gobbler coming through the timber. This is the gun we began talking about and the American makers responded, turning out hundreds of thousands that answered the call exceedingly well. The gun typically would sport thirty inch barrels, weigh somewhere around 7 to 7 3/4 lbs and have a stock selected for strength rather than glamour. And, lacking inherited wealth, the gun had to be affordable by the working man.

The American shotgun does not need to offer any apologies to anyone. For its time and purpose no gun ever built on this earth has ever done so well for so many.
"The American shotgun does not need to offer any apologies to anyone."

I most would have to agree with that.
Maybe a few apologies wink

If only they could talk.
Posted By: Doverham Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/16/13 03:40 PM
As noted, the Brits made guns that can be compared directly to US guns in terms of intended function - wildfowlers and gamekeeper guns being the most obvious examples. I would be interested to hear a gunsmith compare the form, fit and functionality of a provincially made, A&D boxlock or a Bland wildfowl gun against a contemporaneous Parker PH or VH.

Might make for an interesting DGJ article?

A quick review of GI shows high-end Parkers with selling prices ($30-50k) comparable to what a vintage Purdey or H&H might get. There may be some vintage American collector-gun premium skewing that a bit, but it suggests the perceived quality (at least from a collector perspective) between the best Parkers and a Brit "best" is not hugely different.
Posted By: Rookhawk Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/16/13 03:47 PM
American guns aren't valued like Brit guns so all numbers are skewed.

American guns have value because of originality and rarity. Brit guns have value because of current replacement cost and restored condition. (A general oversimplification)

A fully restored to as-new westley Richards boxlock may fetch $6000-$7000. A fully restored Parker VH may fetch $1700. I know, I've had and sold both. Both are of the same level of engraving and overall quality. (I much prefer the westley)

It all goes back to the differences in how American guns are valued.
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/16/13 04:41 PM
Even though we think very highly of them here, American shotguns don't do that well in the international market. There is no real market for them outside of our borders. Our rifles and handguns are a different matter.
That’s what I thought concerning the international market. But that is all that matters, who wants to buy it and at what price. In a strictly American auction the Parker will command a high price but if you take that same gun to an international auction at what price would it sell for? Probably a fraction at what it sells for over here if it does sell.
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/16/13 06:27 PM
Well, FWIW, the American market is the biggest firearm market in the world, simply because we can still freely own and use these devices. Most countries severely limit that option, and accordingly, their markets are comparatively small. If the American gun-owning public still thinks that a highly-adorned and (more importantly) "factory-original", American-made, English boxlock-clone is the do-all, end-all, then it is. At least for a little while longer.
I agree. With an estimated 300 million guns the American market probably dwarfs all others combined. And with that size of market what else matters.

Posted By: Joe Wood Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/16/13 06:53 PM
Originally Posted By: Lloyd3
If the American gun-owning public still thinks that a highly-adorned and (more importantly) "factory-original", American-made, English boxlock-clone is the do-all, end-all, then it is. At least for a little while longer.


Lloyd, fact is the A&D action so highly touted in England was quickly rejected by American makers who opted for a stronger gun. Among other points, the hinge pin was moved forward to give much better leverage and lowered the angle of stress on the action. And then to further strengthen the gun most American designs placed the locking bolt as far away from the hinge pin as possible. Both were major improvements on the original. (I know, the A&D action was protected by patent for quite a while but that just led to worthy innovations which has always been the hallmark of our citizens).

For what it's worth, about half my stable is American, mostly Parkers and Lefevers and the other half is English or Scottish. I do like them all and I've had decades to compare them side by side. Frankly, I don't think it's possible to compare the two country's products without the distortion of bias (mine included) but I do take umbrage with someone who flatly labels our American production "inferior". That was the height of audacity.
Posted By: Doverham Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/16/13 07:45 PM
Quote:
With an estimated 300 million guns the American market probably dwarfs all others combined.


The more interesting and relevant question is how many more vintage doublegun trade in the US each year compared to the UK? Not an easy statistic to track I would guess.
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/16/13 08:13 PM
Mr. Wood: We love what we love for our own reasons. I can find something to like in just about any decently executed version of a sporting firearm that I can lay my hands on. And, I think you're absolutely right about bias, there is no escaping it. Your stable sounds lovely and you obviously use and enjoy them. Mr. Hadoke has his bias too, and you have every right to take umbrage at it. I grew up with the American stuff and love it still, almost all of it. But, if I had to pick a favorite, I would have to say that it was a C Grade Lefever 16 (with B grade engraving) that I got to handle a few years ago.
Posted By: Buzz Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/16/13 09:02 PM
So Joe, Parkers and Lefevers. What, no Browning Superposed? Browning Supers, although made in Belgium were clearly invented by an American mind and are high on the totem pole for me. My favorite hunting gun is a Browning 20 gauge. I just love that gun. I'm pretty fond of Model 21's too......seems like people either love them or hate them. I'm one of those who is a fan. Some day I want to try out a Fox 16 or 20. Take care, and don't let yourself get too heated over this stuff. England and the U.S. both produced some pretty darn nice guns in my opinion.
Posted By: Joe Wood Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/16/13 09:17 PM
Actually, Buzz, I'm having a heck of a lot of fun with this nonsensical topic and a whole lot of what I've written is very much tongue in cheek. I do chuckle whenever I think of a properly dressed English gentleman with his neatly pressed breeks, tie and oiled coat participating in one of our Texas quail hunts--sun blazing down with a thirty mile an hour wind, sweat pouring down his face, and struggling through a thorn covered ten acre plum thicket looking for a dog locked on point and hoping not to step on a six foot rattler. smile smile. What a picture that would be! Or stratling a barbed wire fence just as the top wire let loose.....oh, what a hoot!

And Buzz, if The Lord had'a intended us to shoot O/U guns he'd ah oriented our eyes in the same manner.......
Posted By: Buzz Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/16/13 09:27 PM
I hear ya Joe. Not so convinced re the O/U thing though. Let's just hope we have some quail to hunt next year!! We need rain BAD!! Amarillo Mike and I were talking about doing a Commanche rain dance sometime soon. Want to join us? Any help would be appreciated. ;-)
Posted By: Lloyd3 Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/16/13 11:03 PM
Mr. Wood's got the right idea here. Much ado about nothing.

BTW, If you folks do that dance and it works, send some of that rain our way. It looked like the Sudan on Colorado's eastern plains last Fall. Darn few birds and the antelope could be seen for miles just from the dust cloud.
Everyone has said their piece, or at least calmed down, so it might be a good time to post this one. The more things change, the more they stay the same smile

Jan. 2 1897
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1897/VOL_28_NO_15/SL2815017.pdf
Charles Grimm defeats Doc Carver in Chicago for the “Cast Iron Metal”
Grimm used a 12-bore L. C. Smith gun, 7 3/4 pounds, 3 3/4 drams Schultze, 1 1/4 ounce No. 7 shot, in U. M. C. Trap shell.
Carver used a 12-bore Cashmore gun, 8 pounds weight, 4 drams of Carver powder, 1 1/4 No. 7 shot, in U. M. C. Trap shells.
(These were some boomers!)

In response to a letter from Carver re: J. “147” L. Winston, “The Wizard of the West”, St. Louis representing Austin Powder Co. Jan. 30 1897
http://www.la84foundation.org/SportsLibrary/SportingLife/1897/VOL_28_NO_19/SL2819018.pdf
Dr. W. F. Carver wrote a funny letter in a Chicago journal last week, in which he states that Winston could not kill good birds because he had a cheap American machine made gun, and if "147" had used the same kind of imported gun that he did the matches would have been closer. Will Dr. W. F. Carver kindly explain why Charles Grimm, using the same kind of machine made gun as Winston did, managed to kill 98 out of 100 live birds and take the "Cast Iron Medal" away from him?
In this match Grimm used the American machine made L. C. Smith gun, while Carver used an imported gun that he advertises free when he gets a chance. Now if Carver’s gun is so much better than Grimm’s why did he not kill more birds? or was it because the Cashless (Carver used a Cashmore) gun was only good on hard, fast zig-zig screamers, and not adapted for soft easy duffer birds? The “Evil Spirit” had better think again.
I seem to have provided a topic for discussion! Very entertaining (smirked the condescending Brit from behind his Daily Telegraph, before putting on his bowler hat to take the tube to the City).

See you all at the Southern where I expect to receive the spanking I deserve smile


On a serious note - I will never say things I do not believe true (or not say things) in order to sell a gun to anyone. I don't think it would be appreciated if I did. Agreeing with my observations or liking a gun I have and deciding to buy it should not be related. If they are, I'll take the hit.

BTW 'Inferior' does not mean you are not allowed to like it. I do most of my shooting with a gun which is objectively inferior to the majority that I have in the gun room. Because I like it. I still recognise that it is not as sophisticated or of the equivalent quality of a typical Purdey or Grant.
That was a nice Grant sidelever they sold at Holts last sale Dig. I put in my max bid but it went for quite a lot more frown best, Mike
Posted By: L. Brown Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/17/13 01:49 PM
Originally Posted By: Rookhawk


American guns have value because of originality and rarity. Brit guns have value because of current replacement cost and restored condition. (A general oversimplification)



I'd add that American guns, just like Brit (or European) guns also have value because of name and condition. Example: Yesterday I looked at Mark Beasland's inventory. Mark had a Parker Trojan 20ga, decent original condition. Probably the best part about it was that it had dimensions many would find quite shootable. Not a whole ton of drop. For essentially the same price, he had a Joseph Defourney 20ga BLE, much better condition, scalloped back, 100% engraving, about as nice as I've seen on a boxlock. Sideclips, Greener crossbolt. It went home with me. The price on the Trojan was reasonable given the market, but 20ga Trojans aren't rare. Wouldn't have been worth nearly that much if it hadn't said Parker. Absolutely no question it's a much cruder gun than the Defourney--which, if it had had a decent English name, probably would have been worth about twice as much.

As for the chaps from across the pond in their breeks compared to TX quail hunters . . . I've done both. Last two Decembers in Scotland, we had one day standing there in our nice breeks, rain and sleet coming at us horizontally. Birds pouring over our heads, made more challenging by the wind, the fact it was hard to see, and fingers were cold enough to have trouble working safeties. Those TX boys would likely wish they were back home.
Interesting statement by Thomas Hunter here; scroll down to p. 885. Discussing efforts to export guns to S. American, England and Belgium

"We never have been able to ship them to England or Scotland or Belgium."

Report on Duties on Metals and Manufactures of Metals
By United States Congress. Senate. Committee on Finance, 1912
Testimony regarding the Payne-Aldrich and Dingley Tariff Bills
http://books.google.com/books?id=QDkvAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA879&dq
STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS HUNTER, OF FULTON, N. Y., REPRESENTING THE HUNTER ARMS CO. AND OTHERS
The Chairman: Will you state the companies you represent, Mr. Hunter?
Mr. Hunter. The Hunter Arms Co., the Baker Gun & Forging Co., Parker Bros. Gun Co., Hopkins & Allen Arms Co., A. H. Fox Gun Co., Lefever Arms Co., H. & D. Folsom Arms Co., Ithaca Gun Co., N. R. Davis & Sons, and Harrington & Richardson Arms Co.

Did the British retaliate with a tariff, or was it a lack of interest in "inferior" U.S. products?
Posted By: Joe Wood Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/17/13 03:09 PM
Ah, Larry, we Texas boys would'a been perfectly at home. Only the Brits and their lookalikes would have stood out there like that. My goodness, even my coon hound gets under the house when it's cold 'n wet. Standard time honored hunters position in weather like that is sitting in our pickup trucks with the gun sticking out of the open window and the engine running. If it wuz good nuff fer Davy Crockett it's shore good nuff fer us. (And I've heard from a good source he had half the Mexican army in the back of his truck!)
Posted By: L. Brown Re: English vs American gun values in 1890 - 04/17/13 07:17 PM
The difference, Joe, is that if you're going to shoot driven birds in the UK, you're going to encounter that kind of weather. Just a bit damper than chasing quail in TX. One reason they wear those funny clothes is that they offer pretty good protection from the wet.
Apparently no response from the British, except outrage

"Protection, Federation, and Union: The Global Impact of the McKinley Tariff upon the British Empire, 1890-1894"
http://www.academia.edu/292177/Protectio...mpire_1890-1894

In Shefield, even as the McKinley Tariff Act was pending, various manufacturers and workers met to demand retaliation, with their mayor sending a letter to every other mayor in the United Kingdom calling for action. A few months after the McKinley Act’s new rates were implemented, Shefield firms had been forced to reduce wages, and the Act "sent thousands of workers into the streets at a blow...England is suffering frightfully...from her inability to offer the slightest resistance to hostile tariffs, even to one so unjust and so injurious as the M’Kinley Tariff."


© The DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com