"SAXONY"-stamped Charles Daly hammerless gun

[Edwardian]

22 May 2014


Gentlemen:

At a recent auction, I purchased an early 250 model Charles Daly gun in 12-bore, circa pre-1891, with the following stamps underside the herringbone pattern “Manufacture Extra” damascus barrels: the serial number “298” on the right barrel flat; the country of origin, “SAXONY”, on the underside of each barrel alongside the ‘extension plate,’ forward of the barrel flats and lugs; immediately forward of the “SAXONY” country of origin stamp, and also located alongside the extension, the elder H. A. Lindner crown-over-crossed-pistols trademark; just forward of the edge of the extension plate are the barrel-maker’s initials, “LE”; located on the underside of the left barrel close by the under-rib; immediately across from the barrel-maker’s initials, there on the underside of the right barrel, and again close to the under-rib, are the numerals “444”.

There are neither proof house stamps or source of parts/materials marks whatsoever, nor stamps or marks other than the aforementioned, anywhere. Only the serial number, “298”, is repeated on the water-table, left side of the action bar bridge; floor of the rear lug bar slot; and stamped on the underside of the forearm iron, mid-iron.

Basic research and correspondence elsewhere informs me that the combination of “SAXONY”, crown-over-crossed-pistols trademark, and barrel-maker “LE” are comparatively uncommon, indeed quite rare. I have found but two other examples in the literature that bear SAXONY and crown-over-crossed-pistols stamps, but none where the preceding two are combined with barrel-maker “LE”, to my knowledge. Is this assertion correct, or matches your experience?

Who is barrel-maker “LE”, I wonder? I have seen a single W & C Scott hammer gun, presumably finished by Lindner, which bears that very stamp. Could “LE” be, like barrel-maker-filer “T. Kilby” (i.e. Thomas Kilby the Elder or his much younger relative, Thomas J. Kilby, who in the mid-1880s eventually took over the renowned company, maintaining its established name), yet another Briton sourced by the Prussians or Prussian Saxons? Or is he European? How rare or not are SAXONY-stamped Charles Daly hammerless guns? Where can this particular gun be placed as to its probable year of production?

In that respect, I think the gun's action and most of its constituent parts were completed before 1891 but the barrels, necessarily stamped with the country of origin because of being made after 1891, were then exported separately though concomitantly to the United States. I speculate that the second numeric series, or “444” in our example, may have been the result of a business strategy on the part of Schoverling, Daly & Gales that thought to export guns to the United States from abroad unassembled for import because of then prevailing import duties/tariffs, and then had them reassembled upon arrival somewhere in the United States. The numbers “444” and serial number “298” may have been associated one with the other in Prussia for inventory purposes, and ergo for the purpose of associative numbering and easier reassembly once in the United States.

Shown below (or click on the provided link) is an auction house photograph of the gun’s barrel flats, sans views of the barrel-maker’s initials and the numerals 444. The latter two mentioned stamps are not visible because they were formerly hidden by layers of grease and grime, since completely removed. Being 'camera-challenged' and possessed of a digital camera incapable of being focused on detail, I am unable at present to improve on the auction house’s photographs, with the exception of some of the following personal photographs not requiring fine detail.



The following photograph (or click on the provided link) is another produced by the auction house at my behest, which shows the condition of the Charles Daly gun at time of auction and its condition as received by me. The gun is noticeably covered with hardened, waxen appearing grime, which turned out to be layers of grease, whether axle or gun grease, mixed with neglectful decades of accumulated grime, darkly covering both metal and wood surfaces, front to end. Fortunately, these clogging and crystallized layers protected those very underlying surfaces they otherwise obscured and seemingly despoiled.



After many hours of cleaning metal and wood with judicious applications of mineral spirits, Hoppe’s No. 9, assorted soft-bristled toothbrushes, and stacks of clean cotton rags, I was afterwards able to produce roughly representative photographs of my newly cleaned Charles Daly gun, which are shown below (or click on the provided links). By the way, the 100% incredible color case hardening once uncovered appeared far, far brighter and deeper color-wise when the metal was simply lightly oiled; although as depicted here, the metal is dry. The cleaned wood you see will be sensibly, professionally restored, as will be the fine quality and largely undamaged damascus barrels (not depicted), the bores of which remain literally mirror bright. All the grease and grime and that clogging the chequering have been patiently and very carefully removed.




Thank you for whatever information or shared knowledge you care to provide, or comments you wish to make, any and all of which will be greatly appreciated. With my


Best regards,

Edwardian

[ellenbr]

What the APUN on the standing breech? Of course additional images would aide, but if the serial number is 298/444 the sporting weapon would date to the mid to late 1880s. LE was one of H.A. Lindner's subcontractors and a tubeset knitter. Not sure on the Saxony stamp but it's shelf life/use was short lived.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[ellenbr]

Looks like several of the Schaefer retailed/finished sporting weapons wears the Saxony stamp. I would expect an APUN less than 200?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[Edwardian]

23 May 2014


"Raimey," thank you for your very informative response. My Charles Daly gun does not evince patent stamps, use stamps or associated numbers. The breech face is devoid of any stamps or marks or associated numerals, as is the water-table, with the exception of the "298" serial number, etc. While I have not seen an example of Schaefer's stamp or trademark, whether personally seen or images, I believe that American gun-maker and retailer's stamp is described as a "lamp"-like object positioned over Lindner's crossed pistols. Have you seen guns sold this company's, i.e. those sourced through Lindner, which also bear the "LE" barrel-maker's stamp?

Following is an auction house photograph of the gun's standing breech, prior to my receipt of the gun and it being thoroughly cleaned. The supposed rust and rusty streaking seen is actually dried and crystallized grease or oil darkened with age, which was later wiped away with mineral spirits. The case hardening, complete and undisturbed everywhere as original, is underneath this grime; its tough, slick surface allowed the accumulated grime to be wiped away. Where not case hardened, the metal surfaces had been so highly polished by the maker nothing stuck to it, and the grime on those surfaces also wiped-off, the surfaces left shiny and untarnished.



Next is an auction house photograph of the water-table, which too appears dirty and stained, but which has since been cleaned and the surface become a mirror. All working parts in view are now bright and shiny, with no discoloration.



If applicable to our gun-maker and the action-type he employed, Anson & Deeley's 14-year patent protection expired sometime in 1889, so the 'basic gun,' sans the barrels which separately seem to be newer or post-1891 (because of the "SAXONY" country of origin barrel stamps), may date to 1889 or possibly 1890. I think, too, that the 'combining' of the constituent parts or completion of the subject gun probably took place post-1891. But my guess is based on the limited information to hand.

This is also an ejector gun, the system is Deeley-type, although I think Lindner employed a local version of the same. The use of this ejector system might also help in dating the gun. The following image is another auction house photograph, and taken before the forearm and ejectors were given a basic cleaning (work as designed and extremely well, by the way). Much needed interior cleaning, necessitating stripping or take-down, will be done by an articled professional, as will be the wood and fine damascus barrels.



Do we know anything more about barrel-maker "LE" with whom Lindner subcontracted the making/filing/joining of barrels? On another blog site, I recall seeing a dated list of barrel-maker's initials together with the serial numbers of Lindner-finished guns with barrels bearing the respective initials listed, and showed some attempt to identify the barrel-maker by name. As well, I saw elsewhere a single entry for "LE", which I believe attached to serial number 3494, if memory serves, another Charles Daly "Diamond Quality" hammerless gun like mine.

Like you, I believe my gun dates to the late 1880s. I know the date range can perhaps be narrowed by identifying the work history of the barrel maker and H. A. (or Georg, for that matter) Lindner, which endeavor would presumably require a larger number of examples to examine. More than we presently have or are aware.

A fact that I previously have not reported is that my gun has 3-inch chambers. This is the original, unaltered chamber length. I do not know when the 12-bore 3-inch cartridge first came in to use, not being a cartridge collector, but this fact, which I have not explored, might be helpful in dating the gun, when considered along with the other physical characteristics of this gun. Just a thought!

Here is another photograph after some initial cleaning, note the reflection of the dust cover on the surface of the water-table; the color case is actually much brighter and colors deeper than depicted.



Again, thank you for your response, which is greatly appreciated.


Best regards,

Edwardian

[ellenbr]

Georg pulled in his gun making shingle possibly in 1874. H.A. Lindner's perfection is based on Anson's improvement with belts and braces being an 1882 patent. I'm not sure if we know the last year an APUN was applied at a satellite stamping station.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[ellenbr]

Anson's 1882 - Britain & 1884 - U.S. of A.

I guess there are a couple of possibilities. One that it just wasn't stamped, but that seems unlikely. Another that it has screws where the overhanging and are there to fake the overhanging scear variant and possibly waited until the protection period lapsed. Another was that it was stuck back and completed after the protection period ended.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[Edwardian]

23 May 2014


"Raimey," thank you for your continued helpful and informative comments, and especially for copies of William Anson's 1884 U.S. patent application and detailed drawings. I like your suggested third option anent William Anson's overhanging scear patent of 1882 (U.S. patent protected in 1884), as I understand you, in which the gun was possibly inventoried until the patent protection period passed, which passage of time would have perhaps also included the use number requirement. With that in mind, I am going to speculate with what is currently known, hoping that I have my dates and facts reasonably correct.

I believe your option is demonstrated by these facts: (1) the ejector system is based on Deeley's patent of 1886, as good as it got at the time, and not the better Southgate ejector system patented in 1889 (When did it have actually come into use? Maybe 1890 or latest 1891?), a development which one should think Lindner would have soonest possible have gravitated to because of its superiority and comparative simplicity; (2) there are no country of origin stamps on the water-table or the forearm iron (We will discuss the barrels below.), those required by law in (in accord with the U.S. McKinley Tariff Act of 1890) and effective in 1891 if the piece was intended for import into the United States, as all Lindner-finished Charles Daly gun were; (3) no proof house stamps in evidence, as were required by governing authority as of 1891, if memory serves, although there was a one-year or so leeway incorporated in to the new regulations; (4) the Lindner trademark in evidence is the elder crown-over-crossed-pistols in use through 1891, but not much later, because the authorities, as you know, chose to use the crown symbol together with their proof marks, causing Lindner to employ after 1892 or so the "HAL" over-crossed-pistols trademark instead; (5) however, the barrels by themselves neatly create a time-gap between them and the gun's other constituent parts because they, unlike any other of the gun's parts, are marked "SAXONY" in declaration of their country of origin, which requisite identification had its beginning in 1891; and (6) the numeric series "444" also appears stamped underside of the right barrel, though we do not know the true time period in which "LE" 'knitted' barrel sets for Lindner.

So I posit that between 1886 and 1889, or latest, 1890, the major parts of the subject gun were indeed completed and inventoried, and Lindner and/or the controlling authority for inventory awaited the patent and patent use numbers expiries protecting the use of the mechanics and designs incorporated in this gun. The barrels were built some time subsequent to the major parts being placed into inventory. The time for the gun's completion and disposition arrived after 1890, but surely before the full effect of the governmental proof house stamp requirements were established and governing the trade, following the grace period prior to their final imposition. Based on the foregoing, l would suggest in or about 1890 to 1892 as the estimated date range for the completion of the Charles Daly gun.

Still seeking information on the mysterious barrel-maker, "LE". I think his identity and nationality may be helpful in understanding the business of constructing Lindner guns and also provide a better understanding of those guns bearing serial numbers in the 200-400 range. The difficulty is, as you point out, LE's career was exceedingly brief, few comparative examples of Lindner-marked productions combining his work product exist, and the many trade sources and highly skilled outworkers available to Lindner, as well as his selective though extensive employment of these outworkers, makes discerning the identity of "LE" the more difficult.

Again, thank you for your very informative and helpful comments. I greatly appreciate them all.


Best regards,

Edwardian

[ellenbr]

I'll get to the mechanic LE, one of a talented pool of mechanics that H.A. Lindner pressed on in order to fill S,D&G's orders. H.A. Lindner was more of quality control than anything & it was the talented pool of mechanics that made it happen. The stocking effort is very seldom address and for now I have few ideas regarding the mechanics sourced here and I'm not sure when Schäftermeister Rudolf Finke was active. But back to your example, I'd be hard pressed to put faith in a 76mm chambers without hard data. I think that early on that this example was destined to W.R. Schaefer of Boston and maybe a client cancelled an order. Then Daly had Lindner to press into service on another occasion. So you are confident that you have overhanging and intercepting scears? By 1891 much thought was dedicated to the new proof law and I'm sure the 2nd set of H.A. Lindner serialization was conceived. I'm highly confident that H.A. Lindner 2nd series Nr. 430 was completed & onhand between January and April 1893. But the 2nd series wears the HAL over crossed sidearms. Yours is not 2nd series as per the Crown over crossed sidearms so for sure some more thought, and more than likely out loud on the keyboard, must be given.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[ellenbr]

W.R. Schaefer had 289, 495, 593, 610 but then there is the odd ball Daly 394. For now I still content that early on it was destined to W.R. Schaefer(& Sohn) of Boston. It will take a bit to time to sort out those known examples of Schaefer with the Saxony stamp. Remember Daly & Schaefer were real chummy during this time and Schaefer was an outlet for Daly's wares.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[ellenbr]

Certainly by 1883 partners W. R. Schaefer and J. K. R. Schaefer are noted as peddling hammerless scatterguns. Daly was more than likely their primary source.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[ellenbr]

Also there was a Charles Daly Nr. 29? with the stamps Saxony over Crown over Crossed sidearms with a barrel number of 425. Initials are difficult to read, maybe AB? It is a 12 bore with 30" pattern welded tubes.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[ellenbr]

Some W.R. Schaefer info I've composed along the way:

In 1853 William R. Schaefer hung out his gunmaking shingle in Boston at 11 Dock Square(House?). Interesting that this is also where Fred. G. Doell hailed from while William Richard Schaefer was at No. 61 Elm Street. In 1858 his is still at the same location, 11 Dock Square, as before per the Boston Directory. By 1868 he had partnered with J. Fredrick Werner to advertise as W.R. Schaefer & J. Fred. Werner Boston. It must have been somewhat short lived as in 1871 his address is No. 61 Elm Street, Boston where he advertises as being adept to re-boring scatterguns, which was a very new topic at the time. Even though a Schoverling, Daly & Gales catalogue? gives that the rights to the Ballard rifle were purchase by Schoverling & Daly in 1876, it appears that the acquistion was actually in 1873 and this may be what paired Schoverling & Daly with William R. Schaefer, who was listed as a Schoverling & Daly agent in 1877. William R. Schaefer was a superb shot and offered an Improved Ballard Rifle in 1876/1877 while advertising as "guns bored to shoot close and hard." W. R. Schaefer donated prize money for shooting events and in 1878/1879 donated a Daly Gun for an event. The 6 1/2 P.G. Ballard Rifle with Rigby pattern tube in 38-50 arrived on the scene about 1880 and I'm curious if W.R. Schaefer was involved. The organization of W. R. Schaefer & Son occurred in the 1881/1882 time period when J.R.F. Schaefer came aboard. In the next few years another son, Richard F. Schaefer, joined their ranks and the looks to have reflected it in advertising as W.R. Schaefer & Sons. Richard F. Schaefer, Dick as he was known, like his father was quite the shot and by age 17 could put on quite the exhibition of glass ball shooting at the Raymond Sportsman's Club in Melford, Massachusetts But this too was short lived and by 1890 there was a divorce with Richard F. Schaefer leaving William R. Schaefer & J.R.F. Schaefer at the helm. From here, Richard F. Schaefer's life doesn't appear to be a smooth one as he bounced around from city to city and on July 21st of 1909 was a clerk at a hotel in Norway, Me.(Maine?) he committed sucide abandoning a wife & son. I can't say if they were still a family unit or not but it would seem that William R. Schaefer would have taken in his daugher-in-law & grandson. Another interesting tid-bit is that just a few days later on July 23rd,1909, Fred. G. Doell also expired after a long bout with poor health. William R. Schaefer may have been a cock fighter or really liked chicken as in a 1900 advert, he promotes the wares of the Cyphers Incubator Company. Probably just the latter as he was peddling dunghills and/or showing dunghills. He may still have been active in 1917.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[ellenbr]

Another item to ponder is the length of the protection period for the initial A&D Action Body patent in 1876. For now I contend that patent infringement is constrained by the patent filed in the Country where the sporting weapon is retailed. So we are looking at 1876 plus 17 years equates to a termination in 1893 per the original A&D Action Body protection. S,D&G were masters at business, a model that I believe was developed by Schoverling & Daly while at Boker, and they probably thought since they were ponying up APUN funds to Land Surveyor Couchman, Westley Richards collection cat who would drag you into court, that the protection period applied to the original A&D Action Body filing and not the subsequent safety adapation in 1884(1884 plus 17 puts you into the 20th century). Did they follow this closely, probably not but I do think they gave it some thought and added approx. 7 years to the end of the British protection period for the A&D Action Body patent.

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[ellenbr]

A.D. 1882, August 26 - No. 4089.
ANSON, William. - Safety arrangements for hammerless drop down guns and other small arms. Improvements on the inventor's prior Patent, No. 4513 A.D. 1876. The invention consists in certain improvements for farther securing guns and rifles against accidental discharge. An additional spring is applied to the mechanism used for locking the triggers at "safety;" this spring bears upon the tails of the sears so long as the gun is at "safety" but rises clear of the sear tails when the safety bolt is moved to permit the discharge of the gun. The elasticity of the spring permits the slight movement of the sears necessary for coming into bent. A secondary sear is applied to each tumbler, so arranged that it will hold the tumbler if the sear proper should get injured. In discharging the gun these secondary sears move out of bent before the sear proper and so leave the "pull off" of the gun unaffected.

So the William Anson overhanging scear design with belts and braces is based on the British Patent No. 4513 of A.D. 1876. Maybe this is the one to which S,D&G was adding 14 years?

Kind Regards,

Raimey
rse

[Edwardian]

24 May 2014


“Raimey,” you are a veritable font of information and provide many new directions for further research, an avocation I enjoy nearly much as collecting, shooting and taking afield fine antique or vintage game guns. I still am assimilating much of it, although I am beginning to discern the rough outline of a path through the obscuring thicket of time.

I enjoyed your discussion concerning the biographies of William Richard Schaefer and his sons very much, as well as the description of his early business enterprise styled W. R. Schaefer & J. Fred. Werner, which later became just W. R. Schaefer when Werner left the business, and about the business name again changing to its final style, W. R. Schaefer & Sons, with the addition of his sons J. R. F. Schaefer and Richard F. Schaefer to the business. I do not know, however, who “Fred G. Doell” was or what his involvement or association may have been to events or persons under discussion, although I am now curious to know of his importance or historical standing. As an early and apparently successful independent agent for Gales Schoverling & Daly, William Richard Schaefer must have come to know the principals of Schoverling & Daly very well. This early familiarity helped build a lifelong, enduring and lucrative business relationship between the managing parties.

It may be that W. R. Schaefer were both hardware and fine gun merchants, which might partially explain their business connection with Cyphers Incubator Company of Buffalo, New York. Because much of the country remained rural, and due to the fact that farming and related businesses were major sectors of our 19th century national economy, a business relationship with a well-established company like Cyphers is not too surprising. Nevertheless, Schaefer’s “dunghills,” his inexplicable “showing” and marketing of the same? Now, that is an oddment!

Further addressing W. R. Schaefer and their wares, I believe you are probably correct in being content with your suggestion that my Charles Daly gun, bearing serial number 298 and barrel number 444, was from the outset conceived and “destined” for Schaefer. I was not previously aware of the many examples of Charles Daly guns thought to have been retailed by W. R. Schaefer (i.e. those bearing serial numbers 289, 495, 593, 610). I was aware of serial number 29, possessed of barrel number 425, however, although I think this may differ somewhat from the other cited Schaefer examples, in that it has the standard elder H. A. Lindner crown-over-crossed pistols trademark, as opposed to the other cited examples that may evince a “lamp”-like object over his crossed pistols. My understanding is that W. R. Schaefer guns obtained from Lindner were generally marked with the so-called “lamp” above crossed pistols and not the period usual crown stamp atop the ubiquitous crossed pistols. With respect to my Charles Daly gun, bearing serial number 298, I am persuaded this gun was built for retail by W. R. Schaefer and furthermore to the order of a specific customer. My thought is that because it was a onetime special order or perhaps simply an aging out-of-inventory gun provided by Daly or Lindner to Schaefer for that purpose (or for general sale), it was not uniquely stamped with the Schaefer retail mark. Would it be correct to say that, in some instances, Lindner in-the-white productions were further refined by Schaefer when received, or completed under its auspices for retail by them in the United States, which caused their unique stamp to be employed?

The primary patent that I refer to is the famous 11 May 1875 patent (British patent number 1756) by Anson & Deeley for their basic boxlock action per se. The 1875 patent year is that to which I am referring when applying a 14-year period of patent protection. The significance of this protection period for dating the subject Charles Daly gun is heightened by your cite of the other William Anson patent of 1876 (British patent number 4513), which concerns a secondary scear and the associated spring arrangements. This importance is equally true for your Anson’s 26 August 1882 patent cite that incorporated improvements to the 1875-patented mechanics (the original 1875 patent is mentioned in the 1882 patent application’s description). If the safety scear and spring arrangement employed by Lindner were indeed based on the earlier Anson 1876 patent, and not the later improved mechanics version, and knowing that the boxlock was patented in 1875, as well as assuming a 14-year British patent protection period is correct, the patents' expiry years would have been 1890 and 1889, respectively. Those years accord with the years previously speculated for the initial production and subsequent completion of the subject Charles Daly gun.

I do not believe that making application for and taking out a patent in some country to protect an original patent and patentee rights previously granted in another country restarts the clock for the term of patent protection established by the original patent. I am uncertain and unschooled, however, in patent use numbers and their terms of employment or when needed or not. Although it may be useful to this area of discussion, I have not researched the exclusive license arrangement surrounding the lawful manufacturing by Harrington & Richardson of the patented Anson & Deeley boxlock, which terms might tell us something of the use of patent rights and use permissions in that era. I believe Harrington & Richardson ceased production, which was closely monitored by Westley Richards personnel, when their trade advantage expired along with the action's patent protection period.

I believe my Charles Daly gun does incorporate the mechanics of the aforementioned secondary scear patent of 1875 discussed above, which is evidenced by the screws located just the shoulder line either side of the action body and straight behind its ball fences, situated mid-radii. Although, I cannot be absolutely sure that this is a fact until the gun’s action is completely disassembled by a professional for more thorough cleaning purposes. I know this particular and rightly popular safety attribute was sometimes faked by unscrupulous makers, but I am unaware of this ever being a Lindner or Daly practice.

Like you, I recognize a 'First Lindner (hammerless gun) Period' prior to 1892 and a 'Second Lindner Period' immediately following it, which seems to have continued past the 1900 demise of Charles Daly and for but a few years after the turn of the century. Perhaps a 'Third Lindner Period' began after the First World War, when H. A. Lindner came out of semi-retirement to oversee the reputation of his perfected gun and the construction of the new century Charles Daly gun by other manufacturers. Many new laws and regulations confronted U.K. and European gun-makers (and other businesses, in other locations, too) in 1891 and had definite and serious impact. The world at large and business in particular were changing, and governments were becoming more 'organized' and exercising their sovereign power, compelling adjustments to be made to business practices (and undoubtedly to personal lives as well). That H. A. Lindner and Schoverling, Daley & Gales survived the tumult, uncertainties and dislocations resultant from this wave of transition to the new and even continued to prosper, speaks very highly of their fine products, personal character and business acumen.

My gun is definitely a First Lindner Period example. It possesses none of the requisite stamps of the post-1891 Second Lindner Period, whether the stamp is acknowledgment for passing proof or for country of origin, etc. I believe the major parts of the gun were constructed and assembled in or about 1889, inventoried for a time, and that the gun was subsequently completed no later than calendar 1891. The “SAXONY” stamps underside of the damascus barrels are indicative of recognition on the part of the maker or finisher of the need to provide the name of a country of origin, which would have been known by the maker to have been a requirement effective in calendar 1891. Moreover, the complete lack of proof stamps indicates there was no current, fully established requirement to have the gun proofed, although this dearth is perhaps due to the grace period allowed by the regulating government authority for an orderly phased-transition to a regulatory environment.

Thank you, once again, for your continued efforts in researching this gun, and for the very informative information provided to me and to the other correspondents reading this ongoing exchange of ideas and information.


Best regards,

Edwardian