doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion German & Austrian Sporting Guns @ doublegunshop.com Doublegunshop ledger of proof marks?

Through the years, I have been helped (read impressed) with the contributions of Raimey, Der Ami and others concerning the information derived from proof marks. Many a diagnosis of the origin of both the firearm AND mechanics involved in tube-knitting, etc. have been beyond the scope of any books I have. Is there a compilation of DG wisdom already available, and if not, could we get some of this down in writing or archive it for benefit of future inquiries? We're not getting any younger, and it would be a shame to lose the brain trust if any of our more knowledgeable members should pass... Of particular interest would be the proofs of the different mechanics--those are just not in the books. Steve

Steve,
Through the years, Gun Digest has run at least two series discussing proof laws in various countries, including the ones we are interested in. One of these series was in the 1950s and another was in the 1970s. You could refer to these for information( it should be noted that these are mostly the author's explanation of each nations laws, as stated in the laws, themselves.).At one time, I believe Dietrich Apel, founder of the German Gun Collectors Assn., was putting together a compilation of all these articles. This would require a considerable amount of research work to locate the authors and obtain their permission.
With regard to the different mechanics, their marks are not proof marks and were not lawfully required. Some of these marks are generally accepted marks that Id the barrel maker, or in some cases the maker of the gun that is not otherwise marked(ie so called guild guns).I think some of these can be found on Dietrich Apel's other website( not GGCA). Other marks, especially on German and Belgian guns are the personal marks, to Id work done by individual workmen, on a "piecework" basis, to both allow payment for the work, and set responsibility for it. I believe Raimey has authored or is authoring a/some publication(s), including many of these marks. He might be encouraged to chime in.
Mike

Yes, thank you, Mike--I think we would all like a compilation of the workmens' I.D. marks. It makes a difference to me, as the better workmen make for better regulation, precision, etc. I would for example, much rather have a gun put together by Kelber brothers or Schilling than an unknown quantity. Steve

Steve,
The trouble is, except for a few exceptions, individual workers marks cannot be positively identified. Some, like Schilling forge, are more "factory" logo and are therefore well known. On the other hand, if there is just an "s", you couldn't tell, for sure, if the workman was one of the many other Schillings or Schmidts, or one of their sons. In my opinion, the individual workmen's marks are not really important now. They were important, at the time, because someone at the factory inspected the work to insure the quality thereof, and pay the correct workman. It was the quality and consistency of the inspection that insured the overall quality of the gun. I think Raimey disagrees.
Mike

Mike,
I also disagree, if we had a ledger compiling the info that we do have you would be able to identify trends such as which Hofbuchsenmachers used which mechanics & this would Help establish patterns on materials & Quality. We have all become to accustom to saying "I Know Quality when I see it". With compiled info we would be able to establish 1st teir retailers & craftsmen for future buyers/collectors to be able to identify.

m-4

Indeed I do Ford. What we have a probability attached to a certain letter(s) or mark. A mechanic can only be active during a finite time span & typically has at most a couple of tasks. So the time, the task & the tier will ferret them out. As M-4 notes, thru superposition of effort by certain mechanics one can sum up the quality of an offering. All I need to see a ledger, set of invoices, etc. & pretty much all will be apparent. At the very least, we will be able to narrow the field to just a few mechanics for a certain mark & when we add sourcing along family lines, I believe we'll have her if she doesn't jump. But then we will truly know every gunmaking family in Suhl & Z-M.

Cheers,

Raimey
rse

When you use words like "trends", "patterns", "probability", "typically", "narrow the field to just a few mechanics", " I believe we will have her if she doesn't jump"; you are supporting my opinion. Also it is very hard to pick out whether a "Hofbuchsenmacher" bought a gun made "for the trade" with the workmen's marks already on it(or which factory); or whether he bought raw parts and built it himself, using a different set of workmen.
Mike

Hi Steve,

Great idea. I have done this for the Belgian makers; http://damascus-barrels.com/Belgian_Trade_Marks.html so let me share some insights.

You would not be taking on a small task. I have over 1,000 marks for Belgians published and several hundred more in my notes.

Belgium was an early adopter of being able to register intellectual property. Some of the marks get passed down to new owners or to family. Every time there is a "pass down" the quality changes or even the major product line. eg moving from shotguns to pistols. It was also possible for a house to go out of business and another house take to over the mark.

So registered trade marks are the easy part...

Then there are countless other marks seen on the guns. In many cases I can make a good case for those not being a maker. Rather they are exporters or importer marks. In some cases they are simply the marks of a jobber. It was the only way to assure "your barrels" were credited to your account.

Next is the problem of language usage. When is a form a rhombus and when is it a diamond? It does not sound like an issue until you suddenly have others "helping" fill the list. Then every shape gets debated ad nauseum.

Finally, you have to ask yourself what is acceptable proof? I have no desire to name every damascus pattern, but others disagree.

And so it goes.

It would be a good project for 1 person to tackle.

Pete