doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com To SDH-MT.Britte Guns.Toledo Steel Works on bbls

Hi Steve
I read you post on a different thread about your Britte Barreled Actions.
I have a rather spiffy Belgian no namer Pigeon gun from around 1926
Lovely swirly root wood, Purdey 3rd,stocked to fences , bushed pins, hinged trigger...a lovely 7 1/2lb Clays Gun.
I had Abe Chaber inspect it before purchase, & after he gave thumbs up, he found the Britte Mark on the locks...
My bbls are marked "unc HY Andrew..Toledo Steel Works, Shefield England"
Ever hear of Mr Andrew or his Toledo Steel Works?
No one else has so far.
I'm a Brit, but some of those good Belgian Guns seem rather nice to me.
Cheers
Franc otte

Franc,

Andrew Jno. Hy. & Co. Ltd. Toledo steel works, Sheffield England.

They are listed under hammers in an 1895 source as an importer of goods into western Australia.

Pete

Company name was John H Andrews. (Hy = Henry??) Their records (1892-1926) are in the UK National Archives. See under J.H Andrews on link
http://www.a2a.org.uk/about/contributors/1448-list.asp.
I'm currently reading SDH's "Double Guns & Custom etc." - a great read!
Rs
K.

Jules Bury, L Christophe , etc are often marked with the H Y Andrew Toledo marks. These are very fine guns, so must have been a very good steel. Every once in a while, the British auctions have guns marked this way. I do think, but cannot remember specifics, that I have seen British guns at auction with this steel, too. The L Christophe gun I have , with these barrels, is from the 1950s. This does not mean the barrels were made in that vintage, though.

Franc,
Nope, never heard... and my brld actions are not marked Britte anywhere except recent importers marks. Some of the barrels were marked Seiman - Martin(sp?) with the proprietary brazing method, I don''t have herre adn the ones I do are marked with a tear drop, acier (I believe means steel), birds head symbol COMPRIME, cap, J.F.,and another teardrop. None of which I don't understand. Don't know of any English connnection with the Belgian metal, but I'm sure interested in any further understanding. The Britte metalwork is exceptional quality!

By golly Pete, you are a marvel of information!

Kerryman, Thanks for the addition, I'm glad you are enjoying the books!

Daryl, you squeezed in there when I was posting, Jules Bury is known to be one of the firms that bought metalwork from Britte, and Griffin & Howe is now marketing the same metalwork I have as finished guns under the Jules Bury name. Does your gunlock have the same pin placement as these? (Good to see you and Ann on Sunday! I wish I had shot your Dickson even if it was too long.)
Best,
Steve

Steven, here are a couple of photos of the Christophe. Lock pins [Holland?] are similar. The Christophe is stamped on the receiver with the Jules Bury mark [JB] and I have seen at least two other Christophe guns with the same stamp. This gun dates from the 1950s, and I think Britte was long gone by then.

Kerryman, I can't seem to get the National Archive link to come up . Can you give another address for J H Andrews ? Thanks

John Henry Andrew & Company, began circa 1860 and had all types of cutlery and apparently made tubes. JHA & Co. and "Safety Steel" along with an arm Dexter in Armour embowed holding a large knife were his logos. There was a thread I think about 1 year ago on the topic. Let me see if I can find my note on the topic.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Here's some info, http://books.google.com/books?id=0L4HAAA...1&ct=result , but not what I was looking for.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Daryl H,
Agreed, link does not work... the "troubleshooting" page on the A2A site says direct page links will not work.... On Google type Toledo steel works Sheffield and the link to A2A site (Kelham Island Indus. Museum) will be in the initial mentions.

Google Books site has an online book on "Sheffield Steel and America"

on page 109/110 of which it states "The 1920's witnessed the demise of the American tool steel trade of J.H. Andrew & Co. Ltd. Founded about 1870, the firm had built up an important US business before 1914, specialising in tool steel, steel wire rods and mining steel. It was said that most of the cables used in American suspension bridges were manufactured at Andrew's Toledo Works." ........
Their New York agent Charles Newman is quoted as saying that the War brought great changes, UK exporters were debarred from exporting and a great number of American firms grew to fill the void.
That link is http://books.google.ie/books?id=Nfk8AAAA...esult#PPA110,M1
The company closed in 1971 after several changes of ownership.
Rs
K.

Kerryman:

That post jogs my memory and maybe it was the Brooklyn bridge or some other which he supplied the steel for.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

That is one fine bridge with a great trove of stories. Used to look at it every day from my old office on Maiden Lane - forgotten much of the Roebling history, but remember that his wife/widow finished it and there was a problem firstly with nitrogen narcosis (bends) then with caissons/foundations and later with the cabling. I'm glad the barrels on the gun under investigation are from 1920 and not the late 1800's!!
Rs
K.

Either he must have began in the 1850s or attended a later Paris Exhibit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposition_Universelle_(1855)

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Daryl,
Take a look at the action bolster under the fences and tell me this isn't the same as your Christophe? This bolster was removed on the custom gun in my book but I'd venture your gun has the same action & locks as mine (some bad dents on this action from transit). While Britte was long gone by the 1950's, the metalwork wasn't, which is why I have 1930's vintage brld actions from Britte from the basement of the factory purchased in 1990. The forends are different, note the ejector pivot showing on mine and not yours.
Also, the brl photo of yours looks like the tubes were brazed together like these Belgian bls? Is there yellow solder at your rib to brl junction?



Franc, are your brls brazed together?
Are other Toledo Steel barrels brazed?

Steven, I think you are right. Maybe tomorrow I will have another gun to show you that will add to the intrigue. So, how many of the "Britte" actions and barrels do you have ? They are wonderful Holland type actions and if anyone wants a truely bespoke gun, these are a great choice.

Steve,

The barrels have the mark of Jean Falla
http://www.littlegun.be/arme%20belge/artisans%20identifies%20e%20f/a%20falla%20gb.htm

Also the eagle is that usually found on Francotte guns.

Pete

Hello all, hope you don't mind me butting in!......here is one more to add to the mix, I haven't been able to get any info on this one but it seems with this post I might be getting closer!
It's a 20 bore made around 1927 and has the same bbl marking as Daryl's gun
No safety or safety sears(pigeon gun?)and no maker's stamp or ser# on frame or bbls but has the letters NL in a circle stamped on the inside of the triger guard
Bbls are hard soldered as well

CJ

Steven, I don't know about brazing as I don't have the gun here right now. Yes, I see what you mean about the ejector difference. Both Southgate types , on your Britte and my Christophe, but the ejector hammer pivot pin is hidden on mine. You know, we learn much more about each gun when they are viewed together. I did not know you removed the bolster on your custom Britte, but do think the interior lock engraving and finish is just the best.

Here is the Christophe ejector, sans springs. Maybe Pete or Raimey will know what the stamping is on it.

Daryl,

Not sure on this one.

Pete

CJ, I am "guessing" that the NL in a circle could be Nicolas Lajot. I see one source says NL in an "oval" is from N. Lasot and Co. I sort of wondered if "Lasot" was a misprint of "Lajot".

Thanks all...interesting
Steve my Gun has those exact same Bolsters ,engraved virtually just like Daryl's..
Daryl, your gun looks awesome man!
Mine is pretty much covered in engraving,the bouquets look very similar to CJOs gun
I believe my bbls might be brazed, as I can see a slight hint of Brassy colour along the joint..I've had a few Francottes in the past & I'm sure I saw yellow on those too
Cheers lads
Franc

Daryl,

Correct on both counts. I did make that typo. The info I have is that Lajot was known for ejector pigeon guns. In business from 1904 to 1925. At that time, I think it became Lajot & Co.
http://www.littlegun.be/arme%20belge/artisans%20identifies%20l/a%20lajot%20gb.htm



Check page 426 of Vol III in the catalog books you just got. Lajot is there. They show about 13 models.

Pete

Pete, ok. I had forgotten that the fine list I was refering to, was from your work. It looked so professional, but I should have guessed. Somehow my computer filing system is not very good with labels, etc.. I should have given your list "credit" but plead ignorance.

Now the Lajot pigeon gun specialty is interesting. It goes a ways in explaining CJ's 20 bore.

The Fres is an abbreviation for Freres (brothers)and possibly Bt for Britte? (I speak French but know little about guns!)
Rs
K.
K.

Kerryman, I think you are on to something . Your Britte thought is in line with what Steven Hughes said about Britte making guns, partial at least, for others. Along those same lines, I have found in Lupi's book, Grandi Fucili Da Caccia Europei, on page 234, information about an ejector system on a J. Nowotny sidelock from Cecoslovacchia [sic] . Note that the forend iron and mechanism is a duplicate of my Christophe and that the possible Britte numbers stamped on the ejector mechanism are very close. If one looks closely at the Lupi pictures one can also see the Bt mark on the bottom photo just to the right of the serial no. It is the same mark as on the Christophe. If all this is correct, and I think it is, Britte was making guns for Belgian companies to finish up, but also making guns for other makers in other parts of Europe. Interesting . Here's the Lupi page. I cannot read the Italian, but maybe someone can translate.

I also see in French text of Who is Who in the gunmakers of Liege, by Gadisseur and Druart, that Britte may have operated until 1950 or so.

Daryl,
I have some basic Italian but none for gunsmithing terminology... from hat I understand of itthe Lupi page gives a step-by-step technical description and sequence of what happens during the working of the Nowotny ejector system, at times describing it as “automatic extractors.” There is no mention of the source of the parts.
Rs
K.

Daryl,

I agree with Kerryman's translation. It is mostly gunsmith Italian about springs and compression.

Pete

"acier comprime" is fluid compressed steel. I have a Bury gun that may fit into this mix somewhere. As I recall, Bury bought Britte and focused them on parts. Like the Brit trade relationship to Birmingham, Liege part can easily show up anywhere in Europe. Gunmkers bought in parts when it was quicker and/or cheaper. And, it was their business to know who made parts and what the various grades of quality cost; part of the education of a master.

Rocketman, I didn't quite understand this from your post.

[Bury bought Britte and focused them on parts.]

Of course I understood the Birmingham stuff in Britain and I guess the U.S. , but never gave it a thought as to how Birmingham and Liege may have spread over Europe. Now, that I am paying more attention and listening to all of the info from this board, it is becoming more clear.

Somehow Ii thought all of you were aware of this post on Double Gun FAQ.
Luc Vanderborght is teh fellow i bought my Britte metal from.

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6342&page=1#Post6342

This should clarify things a bit,
Steve

Somehow I thought all of you were aware of this post on Double Gun FAQ.
Luc Vanderborght is the fellow in Belgium I bought my Britte metal from. I met him at the SCI show in Reno many years ago.

http://www.doublegunshop.com/forums/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=6342&page=1#Post6342

This should clarify things a bit,
Steve

Steven, thanks. It sure does help. I was not aware of this posting.

So Daryl,.. I'm I to assume that Lajot and Lasot were one and the same?
and my 20 is built on a britte action?

Thanks,

CJ

CJ, I think it is Lajot for your gun. I don't see anything we have uncovered to say it is a Britte action gun. I would think your gun was made in the 1920s. Is there any stamping on the ejectors ? I am thinking that you did post pictures of a Lajot 20 ga. some time ago. That gun was marked N.Lajot Liege on the receiver flats. Are you sure this one is not marked that way ?

Daryl,...it's the same gun but Geno had told me it was N. Lasot! most of the stamps are on the bbl flats that's how I know it was made in 1927,..doesn't even have a ser#
I have taken the whole thing apart and the only reference to a maker is under the trigger guard

CJ

CJ, you are right that I was remembering incorrectly. I was thinking of my gun purchased at a British auction , but I have yet to see it. It may be in town soon, though. Those auctions demand patience. It would be fun to know why your gun was made that way.

Daryl, one theory I heard was that it could have been made as a "Meisters" gun that some apprentice made to get his Master gunmaker's papers,...that would explain the near perfect fit and finish for an unknown gun

Here is a picture of the flats and action

CJ

I could easily be mistaken, but I don't subscribe to the school of thought of there being apprentice or school project guns. Some mastercraftsman made the piece for the market. The following may be a rehash of SDH's post, but here is some G&H info: http://www.[censored].com/Art-of-the-Gun/the-fine-firearms-find-of-the-century.html (apparently Dave has a censor function and in this case "censored" = "shot gun life" without the spaces). Any thoughts on the Nowtony-Britte connection?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Post deleted by revdocdrew

Personally, I don't like any conjecture or inferences from incomplete factual data when it comes to gun research. Unfortunately, even Burrard has way too much of this sort of misinformation.

"They probably did this because I think that is the way they should have done it."

Most gunmaking decisions were made for very simple reasons like: It was the most efficient way to do it, the method fit the tools at hand, or we call it that because that is what it looks like. Because so few of us have any clue what was efficient, what the real tools were, or where the names originated means we should be all the more wary of misrepresentation, or attaching our own notions or emotions to historic artifacts.
When it comes to so called journeyman/apprentice guns, I don't have a clue where or when this notion surfaced, but until I see some definitive evidence (and there is some from the current practices of the Liege gunsmithing school) the jury is still out.
The fact that companies like Britte, Sauer - and becoming more evident - Lindner made metalwork, or assembled guns for the trade is only the beginning of the story, not the end.
PeteM's note of the "falla" is a good example of factual info followed by a cited reference. The statement that Bury bought Britte is obviously erroneous as per info already posted on this site.
The point is, we need to be very careful to truly advance factual info, and not create more "gun lore". With that, I'd invite anyone to point out my misrepresentations.

Steven,...please see the article by Roger Sanger & Steve Helsley
"Gold For a No-Name Gun"....page 144 Nov/Dec 2007 edition of Shooting Sporstman

That's where I read about the " Meister Gun" theory

CJ

Comments by dt/cc to follow

My Photo of the Two Guns that Rev d Drew has posted to this Very Interesting Thread for me, is of a "Masquellier 12b O/U, Ejector, Double Trigger, Auto Safety, 70mm Chambers,Shortarse Barrels.Weight 6.1/2.Lbs. I dont remember the Engravers name that was cut into the trigger-plate alongside the trigger blade slots.But it also said "Built for King Leopold of Belgium". The gun came into my W/Shop back in'Aprox 1971'I was told it was purchased from the Sale of the 'Tons of Loot' that was sold in March of 1953 at the Sale of King Farouks Stuff'. The Gent who brought it, shot Pigeons in Monte Carlo, Madrid,Louisiana,then at his 'Local Ring' in Indianapolis Ind.(Thats his Purdey 12b Pigeon Gun in the Photo also. If I'm not mistaken it was the first JP&S Ken Hunt Engraved with something other than 'English Scroll")Note the Pachmayer Pigeon Recoil Pad on the Butt-End of the "O/U"..I had to cut 3/4" off the stock and fit a pad as the "Then Owner" who had purchased the gun from Mr "Pigeon Shooter"(Started Trap & Field Mag in Indi-Town)Who had had More than enough" Kropp'Kicked outta him by this Mean-Kickin S.O.B..I owned the gun and attempted to kill "Box-Birds" in the Ring,Doves in the Cattle feeder,Squirrels sitting on limbs of trees.....It was the most uncomfortable Assemblage of Steel & French Walnut that I, and the previous 2 owners had ever shot 2.3/4",1.1/4oz Pigeon Loads out of....Beautiful to look at, Sensuous to put your face onto, Exciting to touch with the "Tip of your Finger"...But a "[censored]".....Always wondered why the "King" Dumped "Her"..Last I heard, "She" was in New Mexico. When I Pulled' the Masquellier down in the Workshop, It was built and Finished just as well as the Best London Guns & Rifles that I had had the pleasure of working with(And Making}..But why it delivered so much Punishment to the Shoulder???Maybe it just did'nt like Englishmen????..CC/dt

Here's another Belgian SLE. Apparently made in 1924. What can we say about the gun's source and who made the action, barrels, etc. ? It is marked F. Thirifays in gold and a duplicate to the guns in an internet article about the Thirifays guns used by the Italian Olympic Team in the 1924 Olympics.

Here, from http://lucianomastrascusa.wordpress.com/bang/ which DGM found and listed in another post.




This was partly Italian and French, so I may have gotten confused along the way...


Daryl,

Your gun also has Falla barrels.

Pete

SDH....I believe Abe Chaber found the "Britte" mark..not sure what it is exactly ..when he took the locks off ..and found it under the mainspring , after taking it out to polish/clean up a small bit of rust.
What was the Britte stamp/mark?
cheers lads
Franc

SDH....I believe Abe Chaber found the "Britte" mark..not sure what it is exactly ..when he took the locks off ..and found it under the mainspring , after taking it out to polish/clean up a small bit of rust.
What was the Britte stamp/mark?
cheers lads
Franc

Britte registered an E (small) coupled with a large "B". Though I have never seen an example.

Pete

Would you say (EB) was for Etablissments Britte? I'd like to see an image also. Theophile & Lambert, maybe with a brother-in-law, had to have a gunshop prior to 1896, when some sources including the Britte Company give as the beginning: http://www.britte.be/UK/presentation_historique.asp . Other info suggests that the engineering firm began in 1897. Maybe there were 2 entities? But at any rate the state of Belgium at the Great Depression made them decide to concentrate their efforts toward engineering and look where they are today.


Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

I don't recall seeing any such mark, and I was intimately familiar, hand polishing most surfaces to 600.
thanks,
Steve

Thanks Pete...you seem to be THE MAN with a very wide radar, on any thing European , ..Like "Researcher" is with the American Guns...my Donegal Tweed cap is off to you both , & the others great Q answrers like 2Piper ,Raimy (Kind Regards :),& the many others who are just too numerous to mention, no never mind about remembering them all right now.
Soo helpful,on such an eclectic array of them.
TGIF & I got off work early & am feeling happy, have a nice Weekend lads!!!!!
So Pete...Britte stamp is roughly eB????
Perhaps it's on LittleGun
I didn't think to look
Cheers
Franc Otte

A little tid-bit of info on John Henry Andrews -
http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/wiki/Jno._Hy._Andrew_and_Co .

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

I'm curious how the "JF" lands up on the steel type stamp found on many Belgian tubes:


John Henry Andrew must have acquired a steel works, or opened one, in or around Liege as it would go against simple economics to have sourced tubes from Sheffield.



V. Halska & Company from Littlegun's site.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Kerryman,
Bte (is this it ?) is usually an abbreviation for Brevete, i.e patented.
The marking before FRES (Freres=brothers) is the real name, unfortunately hidden in the picture.
Best regards,
WC

Establishment Britte,EB, supplied actions to the trade in the same widespread manner that Weblet Scott supplied to the British trade. Purdey wanted to sell a boxlock, they bought the action from Webley Scott. A Belgian maker wanted to make a gun, he bought the action from Britte.

The article in Shooting Sportsman November/ December 2009 contains erroneous information. Specifically P. 59 lower left, 4th line from the bottom: "There also were 17 finished Holland & Holland-style sidelock ejector side-by-sides ...", and the top right columns: "All of the finished guns...were 12 bore".

Also the Luc Vanderbordt offering contains the following erroneous information:
"To make a long story short, Britte Corp was managed since 1946 by Mr Louis Dessart (Theophile Britte Grand Son) in 1997 he sold his Corp to Vincent Pissart his son in law and sold to GRIFFIN & HOWE, the family collection of SIDELOCK and SUPERBRITTE shotguns adn also all the inventory of parts remaining in the basement since 1936.
Specifically, " Sold to Griffin & Howe, the family collection of SIDELOCK ".

In fact, there were not 17, but 20 finished Holland & Holland-style finished sidelocks.
Also, they were not all 12 bore.
At least three of these were and are 16 gauge!
The 17 finished 12 gauge Sidelocks from the Britte/Dessart/ Pissart collection are the 17 which were left of the 20 finished Sidelocks, after the three 16 gauge were purchased through Luc Vanderbordt by private parties.

One of those 16 gauge guns, arguably the nicest of them all, is signed by the engraver in not one, not two, but three places! How many other guns can boast of that?
Shooting Sportsman acknowledged the author got the fodder for their article from Guy @ Griffin & Howe.
But, the article is erroneous. There are three lovely 16 gauge Holland & Holland-style finished sidelocks out there as testimony. Two were purchased through Luc Vanderbordt by an upstate NY gentleman at a Vintage Cup event, one had later been for sale on consignment with Niles of Safari Outfitters, another one of the 16's was purchased used by a Texas Lawyer and gentleman, from Charles at British Sporting Arms, and the other, the game scene and scroll, signed in three places by the engraver, pick of them all, was purchased through Luc Vanderbordt and imported by Jack Dudley/ LaBecasse.

Shooting Sportsman magazine has been made aware of this. They remain staunch in their position that their readership is not interested enough in the full story, or "Rest of the Story" as Paul Harvey used to say, to themselves publish any follow-up or clarification for purpose of reporting the full factual information to its readership, nor to give validity to the other three finished Holland & Holland-style finished sidelocks from the Britte, Dessart, Pissart collection of 20 which was kept in the family posession since approximately 1936, then Offered for Sale by Luc Vanderbordt at The Vintage Cup where he initiated sale of three of the collection of 20, the three all three being in the revered 16 gauge, to private parties.
They did however offer to make an attempt to get the information in the letters column if submitted.

So let's see a pic!

Steven, You write for Shooting Sportsman, yes? Having subscribed since the beginning, I have read many of your articles.

It would seem to me that a Magazine which prides itself in servicing a very elite group of readers has a responsibility to put forth honest, factual information, when at all possible, which I believe Shooting Sportsman Magazine does, but, just as important is a responsibility to their subscribers, without whom they might not survive and their other loyal readers, to make any and all effort to make right any incorrect or less than factual information presented, perhaps unknowingly.
The recent article touted the "Jules Bury Collection" which Griffin & Howe acquired through Luc Vander Borght. It included a number of finished Holland & Holland-style sidelocks. The article erroneously establishes that there were "17" finished Holland & Holland-style sidelocks, and further establishes erroneously that they are all 12-bores.
Further the article reports that "thanks to Griffin & Howe, the entire find has been made available to the public." This is also erroneous.

Griffin & Howe may have acquired through Luc Vander Borght the "remaining" 17 finished Holland & Holland-style finished sidelocks, all of which are 12-bore,
but only after three beautiful others, which are all in the much revered 16 gauge, one of which is signed in not one, not two, but in three places by it's Master Belgian engraver, were acquired from Dessart/Pissart collection of not "17" but 20, through Luc Vander Borght who offered them for sale at a Vintage Cup event.

Does not a Magazine have a responsibility to its readership, to the makers and to the guns themselves to give validity to their existence and place in history and in our sport?
That is my question to you.

My answer to you Bob Rowley, and to Mr. Bumbellybeak, is that the editor decides what what is published in the magazine. It fact, he decides if my column is going to be published. I have no voice in those decisions. You might ask your question on the Shooting Sportsman web site or direct a Letter to the Editor.

I am a freelance writer. It never fail to amaze me when someone imagines that I am resposible for anything published in the magazine besides what my by-line is directly attached to??!!??

The story did not make mention of the Britte metalwork I bought directly from Luc Vander Borght and I didn't imagine it would? That metalwork is the subject of this thread and it's origin is the reason for this thread.

As for any 16 ga. guns, I'd still like to see a pic! And who was that fellow who, "signed in not one, not two, but in three places by it's Master Belgian engraver"?
Best,
Steve

What a fantastic thread! Thanks to all for the schooling. Rowely?

Steven,
You read me wrong. I did not imagine you responsible for anything the Magazine publishes. I don't imagine or think you would have any voice in decisions on what does or does not get published.
My question to you was posed to you because you put forth, and later put forth again that you would like to see a picture.

My point exactly; that Shooting Sportsman magazine has a multi-level responsibility to publish the whole truth, including pictures, not just what best serves Griffin & Howe.

Is it Dave's responsibility to provide the bandwidth in order to post pictures of those lovely 16's the Magazine, for whatever reasons, left out?
Have you told your publisher/editor you'd like to see pictures, Steven?

As for the engraver who signed his work on one of these finished 16 gauge Holland & Holland-style sidelocks, I have had the privilege of corresponding with this man via email with the help of not one, but two translators, one of which met with this engraver. He has communicated his recollections of these fine arms, has sent a copy of his Master Engraver Certificate issued my Belgium, a photo of the finished gun on his workbench, and much more interesting information as well.

I'd think the readership of Shooting Sportsman would want to know the whole truth, or as Paul Harvey would have said, The Rest of the Story, but the Editor does not, which is not good in my book.

Bob, it is probably pretty certain the 16s and the engraving you talk about will not be in Shooting Sportsman any time soon. I really like Belgian guns and would enjoy seeing yours and knowing the engraver a bit. Some time ago, I posted a lovely Britte started 12 bore SLE , finished by Christophe and engraved by Schoffeniels [sp?] There are great guns out there from Belgium and too few are seen.

Bob, No offence intended but your information is too vague, without credible documentation and your cohort is named bumbellybeak(?!?!). The internet has way to much bad info for me too take this very seriously... Why not post the pictures here?
If you want to see the stuff in Shooting Sportsman, you would have to ask the editor.

Appearently there is a major disconnect betwen our thought processes because I have no idea why you would be asking me.

If you think it worthy of a Fine Gunmakng column I would have to have a lot more verifed information and this would not be the way to ask about that.

It seems like you are fishing for something??!! Can anyone else explain?
From personal interest I'd still like to see a pic, but I guess that's not forthcoming.
Best,
Steve

I repeat, but understand, there were 20, not 17 Britte/Desart/Pissart sidelocks. This is not confutable.

They are not all 12 bore.
Only the 17 which remained after the first choices were purchased by private parties were 12 bore, reportedly acquired by Griffin & Howe.

Three 16 gauge Holland & Holland-style finished sidelocks, were part of the 20, originally removed from the Britte factory at or about the time the Britte family became more and more conscious of other nearby manufacturing facilities being taken over by the Nazis for wartime production purposes.

Two were purchased by a private party whose name is known, in New York, offered by and purchased through Luc Vander Borght at a Vintage Cup event; later offered for sale on consignment by Niles of Safari Outfitters.

One of those was later purchased used from British Sporting Arms by a Gentleman lawyer in Texas, whose name is also known. Those two were initially offered new by, and purchased through Luc Vander Borght at a Vintage Cup event.

The third 16 was also offered by and purchased through Luc Vander Borght. It is signed in not one, not two, but in three places my one of Belgium's Master Engravers. How many guns can boast that, eh? It remains new and unfired.

My information is not vague at all. Mine is factual and can be supported with thorough documentation, my friend.

The information in Shooting Sportsman Magazine is erroneous.

The reason I asked you is because you asked for a picture. You asked me to post a picture here? Me?
Clearly, unequivocally it is the responsibility of Shooting Sportsman to publish the truth, the entire complete valid truth; it is what is expected of a Magazine thought to be of high ethics and a valid source of factual information. It's readership should expect that as basic to their reason for reading the magazine.

Anyone who would disagree with that reads the magazine, why; to look at the pictures? To say they subscribe to this highly regarded publication? Why, if not to be able to rely on it?

No need to talk vagueness or suggest lack of credible documentation on my part, and no need to diminish the importance of this information because I offer it here on the internet. This is a venue we choose and use to communicate about out sport and its Sporting traditions.

How many pins or screws does a 1917 Boss sidelock have?
This is where we come to ask and to learn and to share information. What do we do if someone says 10, but it really has 11? We share that here.

But this is bigger.

So big, the article's sub headline is "Griffin & Howe's fine-firearm find of the century.
A find like this is a big-deal to the Sporting community; Shooting Sportsman thought so- they published an article about it.
It's just that they got it wrong.
It's not Griffin & Howe's find of the century, it is all of our's find. It's history. There are not 17, there are 20.
Is it their responsibility to put forth articles which it's readership presumably takes as factual, but which promotes one of their advertisers of considerable import yet refuse to put forth the whole story, the Rest of the story? Is that what we expect from them?
Are we not fed up with just that sort of thing from some of our leaders in Washington?
It is their responsibility to each and every single reader, to the maker's of these fine guns and to the guns themselves to make it right.

I don't believe I am fishing for anything. I don't know why you would ask others to explain what I mean.

Do I want people to know the whole story? Yes, of course. In fact, I think the readership of Shooting SPortsman should expect and demand no less.

Here is not the place. Shooting Sportsman is the place. It is not my responsibility to provide to you, here; it is theirs to provide.
They know where all the documentation is.

And Steven, not ever having met you personally, I am well sure I have never insulted you or come close, but you my friend have come close enough to insulting me.

If the readers of Shooting Sportsman don't care if the material put forth is credible, is supported by full documentation, and is a source of valid information; if I am alone on this, so be it. But I've shared too many wee tots with too many members of the Sporting Community to believe I am.

Daryl, you may be right. They, and the information about these fine sidelocks, their documentation, photos, communications with their engraver, his personal recollections of the times, the family, the highly sought after barrel makers and gunmakers, and more, may never be seen in Shooting Sportsman.
That would be too bad.

I have only met Guy Bignell on two occasions and only for a short time. If I am any judge of character though, I think he would agree; things need to be made right by the Magazine which got it wrong. It's not like they can not.
Perhaps if he would ask them they will change their mind?
Let me say, I doubt sincerely that he or the author or the magazine intentionally mislead the readership.

Daryl, Steven, I would be pleased to show you in person all that I can; further I would ask the other gentlemen if they would do the same.

Does one man arguing in the woods make a sound?

[quote=SDH-MT]Does one man arguing in the woods make a sound? [/quotte]

Steven, he has pretty well called you out as the author of an article that he says fails to tell the whole storey. In this case, I would say that one man arguing in the woods does indeed make a sound.

Maybe his argument would be better made in an article of his own submitted to SS. Or, maybe he has done just that and been refused publication...Geo

Whoa, Geo.
Steven did not write the article in the November/ December 2009 issue of Shooting Sportsman! It was written by Douglass Tate.

Steven, your post, if to or about me, falls short as I argue not. I have simply presented unpublished factual information, whether you like it or not.

Great Magazine. Great find. Great that the information in the article is erroneous? . Noop. That is beneath what is expected of them They ought to make it right.

If anything, that is the sound I make.

Luc Vander Borght offered 20, not 17 finished Holland & Holland-style finished sidelock guns from the Britte/Dessart/Pissart collection for sale at a Vintage Cup event.

There are not all 12 bore as stated in the magazine.
Three are 16 gauge.
Three were purchased by private parties through Luc Vander Borght from the family.
Two were purchased by a New York gentleman. One of those was later offered for sale on consignment by Niles of Safari Outfitters. It was engraved by "Smeets".

Another was later offered for sale by BSA; a Texas gentleman lawyer, and yes, he is, purchased it and currently owns it.
The third 16 is the one signed in three places by the engraver; it remains new/ unfired. It was purchased through Luc Vander Borght from the Britte/Dessart/Pissart collection of 20, not 17.

Those remaining 17, all of which are 12 gauge were purchased by G&H.

Quit arguing, man. Fact is fact. Right is right. Wrong is when a highly regarded magazine gets it wrong, likely due to erroneous information, and does not make it right.
Wrong is when three works of art resulting from hours and hours of love toil are omitted. Wrong is when they themselves, the barrel makers, lock makers, stock makers, on and on, are simply disregarded.
The Magazine does not think their readership would be interested enough for them to correct their wrong.
What makes them think their readership is interested enough in the 17, 12 gauge finished H&H-style sidelocks, but not in the three 16 gauge?
Why are you attempting to belittle me? I have done nothing wrong or off color to you.
I am only presenting the facts. Those, yes, unpublished facts. That what I say is not published does not make me not credible.
To the contrary, until such time as they make it right, it is the magazine which is.

Wups!...Pay no attention to my mindless posts. Thta's what I get for forgetting what the thread was about. Sorry, Bob and Steven...Geo

To Bob's point, many of us hold SSM to a higher standard than most other printed media. We know they need advertising dollars, but if they only print articles or shade them to the benefit of those companies that advertise, they lose credability. Yes they can print what they choose, based on their judgement of the readers interest, but if they printed info and were laetr informed it is incorrect, a correction is warranted.

Thank you, Nitrah.

You know, this BBS and the Shooting Sportsman bulletin board are forums for many, many opinionated and ethical people.

It's notable that you say it like it is; and too, that so many other looked-up to people, to this point, have not.

I have come to know so many good people in the Shooting Sports community. Ours is a fine and noble Tradition. We are all nothing if not those who hold ourselves to a higher standard.

Doug Turnbull., Dave Weber, where you on this issue?

Franc Otte?

Roger Sanger, Silvio, what say you. One of these fine guns, the 16 signed in three places by the engraver, was entered into a Concours d'Elegance at a Vintage Cup event.
If as I put forth there are 20, not 17; if there are three 16 gauge finished Holland & Holland-style sidelocks from the Britte/Dessart/Pissart collection, all purchased by private parties through Luc Bander Borght before G&H acquired the remaining 17,
what say you about Shooting Sportsman Magazine bringing this to light, in the article they deserve, eh? Or, shall they be overlooked? Omitted?

And Ray, I've never known you to hold your tongue where right or wrong is at issue; All 20, not 17 as this article states, were offered for sale through Mr. Vander Borght, at one of your Vintage Cup events at Sandanonna.
The following year, one of them was entered into one of your Concours events. What say you, Mr. Poudrier? Might you have a good reason for not stepping on a toe?

Niles, your Safari Outfitters offered one of them on consignment; the one with large bold scroll engraving by "Smeets". What say you?

Charles, your British Sporting Arms sold one to a gentleman/lawyer in Texas.

Jack, we looked at this collection of 20, offered by Luc Vander Borght together at The Vintage Cup. One of these fine 16 gauge H&H-style finished sidelocks of the Britte/Dessart/Pissart collection, you yourself imported into La Becasse. Put that Upton down long enough to tell Shooting Sportsman they ought to make this right, if you're of that opinion; I know you have the balls.
Hell, Dani does too; Chime in girl. The article is wrong; they left three out. Should they make it right? By the way, have a good sense of right from wrong, is what I mean!

David T., Barry B. H., Shy Englishmen holding their tongues, I can not fathom. You don't know this but I have hoisted a tot each year to your father on the anniversary of the day we now memorialize and pay our respect to people like your father who fought for what is right. Do him right; Speak up man.

Vic, you want to get it right for your upcoming book, yes? Do not be shy, the Magazine needs guidance, they need to know they should make it right by virtue of a justified article giving full knowledge and validity to the three 16 gauge finished H&H-style sidelocks which ARE part of the Britte/Dessart/Pissart collection, offered by that family through Luc Vander Borght.
Incidentally, introduced by Jack, we met one time; further I missed the opportunity to hunt with you at his friends hunt, only due to a severed achilles tendon. Perhaps another time.

Doug Tate, it was you who was reportedly fed erroneous information you put forth in the article you penned. Here is tremendous opportunity. What say you; do you care if this is set right?
We have never met; it is through others I glean you are one possessing the moral fiber called for on this issue.

Michael M., we too have never met, but have several friends in common. I have supplied fodder enough for at least a couple of bowlfuls, perhaps a raised eyebrow or smile too. The issue is simple. If what I have put forth is accurate and correct, is it right for the Magazine to not make it right?

And where are all the dealers on this? Whether you advertise on this Doublegunshop(.)com or on Shooting Sportsman, we, your buying public ask and expect you to be honest as nails with us. Right now is a fine time to show you are, even if it means stepping on a SSM toe. Is it right? Or does it need to be made right?

People, I can go on, but will cease for now with the comments to the following people.

Luc, you may have told G&H they acquired them all. That is not the truth. Evidence the truth or you put me in a position to do so.

Mr. Bignell, having met you only twice, and being a man I truly feel is a gentleman, I address you more formally.
Are those 17 finished H&H-style finished sidelocks which G&H acquired and marked J. Bury by virtue of the fact that G&H acquired the name Jules Bury, the only finished H&H-style sidelocks of the Britte/Dessart/Pissart collection of 20, three of which are 16 gauge, the only ones of the 20 which deserve proper recognition, or, do they all, including the three in 16 gauge which were purchased from this family collection through Luc Vander Borght before G&H acquired those remaining 12 gauge sidelocks?
Incidentally, at least one of then, signed in three places by the Master Belgian Engraver was also marked with the J. Bury name, through Mr. Vander Borght prior G&H's acquisition of it. Would you not like to see it, perhaps being the finest of them all? In the words of the engraver, it was the only one of those 20 Britte/Dessart/Pissart sidelocks which the family gave him, the engraver, full license to conceive the whole engraving pattern.

Ralph Stuart, hear me clear; you do a disservice of major concern if you do not as prompty as possible, make this right. There is a responsibility which Shooting Sportsman has.
Ralph, I ask you this:
"Why is it so easy to ignore a problem until it lands in our backyard - to convince ourselves that a concern is someone else's, when we know deep down the repercussions could someday reach our doors? Is it because we, as individuals, feel helpless to effect change? Because we don't believe that one voice - or vote - makes much difference these days? Maybe it's just human nature to stay off the front lines and hope the fight doesn't come to us."

Actually, I correct myself; it is not "I" who ask you, as those are your words in the opening paragraph of the "From the Editor" column on page 5 of the March/April 2004 issue of Shooting Sportsman magazine, so ask yourself if you want to do right by your advertisers, your writers, the Sporting Tradition, those who have come before us, those will come behind us, to our departed friends, a legacy to our Sporting life, including Tim, to the makers of fine guns which are the soil in which your business and perhaps pleasure roots, you have planted - to History, to your readership, but mostly, man, to yourself.








In the March/ April 2004 issue of Shooting Sportsman Magazine

I am sure there lots of guys mentioned above who are watching the Super Bowl festivities. They will probably come forward after the game.

Daryl, Interesting game and outcome!
During the game, one good friend told me he agrees the magazine should run a follow up article, but will not say that here as he sits with so & so, a vendor at all the big events and would not want his post here to make waves for his associate.
While noble of him for taking his friend into consideration, it remains the principle of the thing.

By their posting or lack of, we'll see who are the principled and who are not.

Daryl, you have not said yet what your feelings are; if they published an article and were promptly, courteously informed it is incorrect, is a correction warranted? Or, are the readers to accept so little in the way of honest, inclusive publication?

Too, I received an email from a friend; it seems another SSM writer told him the Editor offered to print something if I write it.
My point is, it is His place to be principled enough to insure his Magazine steps up and rights this issue in the form of an article they publish; 1/2 page, quarter page, I am available for them to speak with. I have documentation, bills of sale, email communications from the engraver who shares his first hand recollections of these guns, as well as the SuperBritte guns, the family, and more.
G&H gets an article, I am told write a letter?
This does not sound very principled to me.

Bob Rowley...I just started this thread to ask people about the H Y Andrews marks on my nice Belgian Gun....
As Manuel on Fawlty Towers would say.."I know nothing seenior Fawlty" about those new old guns,..though I remember seeing a pic of two...looked gorgeous!!
Franc

Bob, in a perfect world I would like all of the information to be correct. From time to time I have offered corrections to authors and sometimes I get a thank you and sometimes they don't respond. This subject seems too far down my list of windmills to challenge. It does sound like you have some access to some good information and good guns. Unknown to me until this year, Britte started actions appear all over Europe with names like Nowotny etc. I think an article expanding on what has been found recently and remains unpublished on Britte, etc., would be fascinating.

Bob,
As a friend of long standing, forever SSM suscriber, SXS collector/hunter, I would advise you,
and the Texas gentleman/lawyer to prepare and present to the author, Doug Tate, information, (photos,
documents, etc.) necessary to enable Doug to properly expand upon the article in question. I have personally
inspected two of the (3) omitted 16 ga. Holland & Holland-style Sidelock guns in question, and feel that your logic with reference to misstatements and facts omitted in the article appear legitimate.

Furthermore, several years ago, Doug Tate wrote an article about John Dickson trigger plate (round) action guns that initially omitted mention of a rare pair of "sideplated" Dickson 12 ga. triggerplate action guns. However, Doug later/or sequentially "added" a brief article, with photo, describing this rare pair of guns. At one time, I owned gun number 2 of this pair, and at an SCI event was fortunate to have had it inspected by Dickson's CEO. The CEO was very excited to know that these two guns existed, as their serial numbers had been left blank in the original factory records. Doug Tate was very helpful to me in my quest for information on this gun, in fact, he personally set up the above mentioned interview/inspection with Dickson's CEO.

Good luck with this, Bob. What's right is right!!

Buckwheat

To All-
I want to let everyone know that Bob's statements regarding the Britte guns are true and correct. I was involved with the original offering and had considered purchasing all three of the 16 gauge guns which were offered at the Vintage Cup. Indeed, there were 20 original finished guns. However,as I recall,only few represetative samples were present and they were very nice. Anyway,I think it would be most appropriate for Shooting Sportsman to do a story on the "missing" 16 gauge guns because they were unique.

I think buckwheat has exactly the right approach. Doug is the guy who wrote the story and would be the guy to amend it. I do suggest that when contacting him you do not use the names bumbellybeak or buckwheat.
Best,
Steve

Daryl, Mal, Jack, Thank you.

There have been over TWENTY-SIX HUNDRED looks at this thread to date; thank you for being principled enough to to speak-up.

A rare find of 20 Belgian finished Holland & Holland-style Sidelocks, three of which are 16 gauge and were purchased by private parties, ought not be reported as a find of 17 acquired by an advertiser in the magazine, and left at that.

Of course others believe that as well.

Now, over Twenty Eight Hundred looks at this thread.

Question: Does a well regarded magazine have a responsibility to its readership to tell the entire story, or, is it appropriate for them to ask their readership to accept and believe their reporting there were 17 finished 12 gauge Holland & Holland-style sidelocks among the Britte/Dessart/Pissart collection, which were acquired by a major advertiser of that publication, when, in fact, there were 20, three of which are in 16 gauge which were selected and purchased by private parties, before G&H acquired those remaining 17?

Or, do they have the responsibility to publish the factual truth?

See Nov/Dec 2009 issue; bottom of p.59 & top of p.50 where it is incorrectly asserted that there were 17, all in 12 gauge, which is erroneous.

It is sad that this magazine and others published like it do not take the resposibilities they have to their subscribers seriously. A few gorgeous pictures of a few gorgeous guns, edged with filler, and enough advertising to make a profit is the formula they follow.
To the great credit of this bulletin board,there has been more solid facts,well documented history,and intersting stories, written right here than I have read in the slick mags over the past three years.

Over Three Thousand looks at this thread.
Only a few people willing to express their opinion? And they are all in agreement.
Don't be shy. Let's hear from you..

Over Three Thousand Two Hundred times readers have looked at this thread.

I remain unable to understand why Shooting Sportsman magazine would publish an article which includes information on some of the guns one of its advertisers acquired, and not be interested in telling their readers about the three other finished Holland & Holland-style sidelocks which were part of the very same collection but acquired by private parties, once that information was brought to their attention.

Their subtitle contains the words " fine-firearm find of the century".
However, the article reports on only "part" of the find; that part which remained and which was acquired by one of their advertisers after the first three were purchased through the very same individual, by private parties.

If the find is significant enough to publish an article about, it would seem to me, being a magazine of integrity, they would do what ever they could, just as quickly as they could to correct the erroneous information by following up with the information made known to them about the three finished Holland & Holland-style sidelocks which their advertiser did not acquire, but, were, in fact part of the very same collection.

Do they think it is acceptable to not put forth the complete accurate information, I wonder?
Do they expect their readers to just keep buying their magazine knowing this is the kind of less than accurate reporting which is published, I wonder?

A simple follow-up article could make this right, is called for, and, simply put, is the right thing to do. It would be a way to honor their responsibility to their profession and to their readers. Not to mention they could give validity to the various makers, the barrel makers, the engravers, the guns themselves.

Where is the harm in that?

Interesting advert on steel from electric furnaces from Littlegun's site: http://www.littlegun.be/arme%20belge/artisans%20identifies%20t%20w/a%20thonon%20fernand%20gb.htm

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Thanks

Steven:
Ah, I didn't mean to drudge up too many issues but wanted to add to the John Henry Andrews info. Possible a set of blinders or a filter will prevent a distraction by the collateral stuff.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

Funny thing about the Truth- how it endures. Nothing collateral about that.
Shooting Sportsman Magazine published the article, reportedly getting the information from a large advertiser of theirs and, knowingly or unknowingly left out three of the Britte Family finished Holland & Holland sidelocks that their advertiser did not get; not any three mind you, but the first three choices from the lot of 20 offered for sale by Luc VanderBorghdt, again,those first three all in 16 gauge.

If the magazine, or the article's author want to present the entire truth, they can contact me.

Everything they have worked hard to be, the image they try to project, all go down the ink well each day they are willing to settle for publishing partial truth articles which spotlight their large advertisers, and refuse to correct and make accurate and right, even when it has been brought to their attention. That, proper attire can not alter.

There are three beautiful 16 gauge finished Holland & Holland style sidelocks which were part of this Britte family collection, which was reportedly removed by the Britte family from their factory sometime around 1936. The collection of 20, not 17 as the article states, remained in the Britte family possession until offered for sale here in the United States at a Vintage Cup event, by Luc VanderBorght. Three were purchased, through Luc Vanderborghdt, by private parties before the rest were acquired by Griffin & Howe.

The truth can not be refuted. But apparently the magazine chooses to ignore it.
I am a Shooting Sportsman. Many of you here are. Many of the readers of Shooting Sportsman are as well. But how "Sportsman-like" is it to ignore the Truth, refuse to report the entire Truth, correct a wrong. Where is the honor, the integrity, the Sportsmanship, in that?

Hey

Steve, ...."might"?