Posted by Kenny Graft on February 10, 2021, 5:34 am
How much do we know about the guns built for friends, family and best employee's? I have herd them called executive guns, also that they may not have any info in the books about them? What info is available? Do we know of any? thanks Kenny.....SXS Ohio
Re: Executive guns
Posted by Tom Archer on February 10, 2021, 7:02 am, in reply to "Executive guns"
We know nothing concrete to my knowledge; only rumor, unless you can shed some heretofore unknown information. The rumor has always been that the Hunter brothers would make and sell guns at lesser prices to special friends/persons, or trade guns for favors, or dogs (John Hunter specifically). To date I've never seen, or heard of any materials documenting such behavior; and the best evidence I've seen that such may have taken place is found in the original pre-1913 shipping records. I've personally handled two A-2 12-bores recorded in the ledgers as a PE Grade; and one A-3 recorded as an A-2. The story I've always heard is that a Hunter brother would commission a special order gun, personally manage it's construction and final inspection; then record the gun as a lower grade, for price discounting purposes, within the shipping ledgers. Who knows if that is rumor or truth? We do know that Hunter made some special guns graded "A-4" because Kraus lists the A-4 Grade on his engraving schedule; BUT Dr. Stubbendieck's found no listing for any A-4 Grade guns in his exhaustive research of the original ledgers, so we've no idea what constitutes an A-4 Grade. John Houchins theorized in his book that an ungraded Smith gun I once owned was an A-4, but that gun is recorded in the ledgers as a "Special". Hope this helps, but in the interim we remain all ears should you have access to any hard documentation.
Re: Executive guns
Posted by Drew Hause on February 10, 2021, 11:34 am, in reply to "Re: Executive guns"
Rumors of "Executive" guns and coach guns for railroad executives originated with a person with whom Tom and I have had contact, and he continues to post on the 16g Society and Shotgun World sites regarding his "special order pre-production" guns. I have offered to pay for Research Letters to confirm the records if he would share the SNs thereof, including what he claims to be a Regular frame 20g, and he has declined.
“Special Order Guns” 2-12-2011 https://shootingsportsman.com/community/guns-ammunition/sharing-l-c-smith-information/ I pass along our families intimate knowledge of Hunter Arms from time to time. After 1913 Hunter Arms changed drastically, due the death of John Hunters Srs best friend, and silent business partner. These gentlemen built railroad and steel industries together. All Weapons produced by Hunter Arms have matching original SN numbers on each part of the weapon, even the Executive Guns and the gifted Coach Guns to the different Railroads, identifying them as Hunter Arms L.C. Smith weapons.
Posted by Jim Stubbendieck on February 10, 2021, 3:21 pm, in reply to "Re: Executive guns" Edited by board administrator February 10, 2021, 3:35 pm
Drew
Thanks for posting these links. I found two things that were especially interesting:
1. That a couple of L.C. Smith "experts" have not joined the L.C. Smith Collectors Association because the group has little collective knowledge about L.C. Smith shotguns, and
2. Theories developed by these same individuals from questionable information are far more important and valuable than factual data drawn from Hunter Arms Company documents and production records.
I think that this illustrates the point that "ignorance is bliss."
Re: Executive guns
Posted by Tom Archer on February 10, 2021, 9:03 pm, in reply to "Executive guns"
Kenny The two individuals Drew noted above are not members of the LCSCA and don't post here to my knowledge, but they do post to other forums and are repeatedly exposed as the frauds and charlatans they are. No one has done more research on the history of Hunter Arms and Smith guns than Dr. Jim, and together he and Drew are THE authorities on Smith guns. But understand that there are no shortages of pretenders; those living amongst us and those dead. To illustrate the ineptitude of some of these characters, consider this experience. When I first acquired the above referenced "SPECIAL" we didn't have the LCSCA, or the records access we have now; so I contacted a now deceased pretender who boldly and proudly proclaimed himself "THE LC SMITH MAN" in an effort to try and understand what it was that I'd acquired. So I sent this individual detailed photos and he responded with a lengthy hand-written letter (which I still have) advising me (among other things) that my 1901 vintage gun had been engraved by Albert Kraus's apprentice Charles Jerred. Not long afterwards I personally researched Charles Jerred whereupon I confirmed that Charles Jerred was indeed an apprentice to Kraus; however I also learned that Charles Jerred wasn't even born until 1928 and further, that he didn't begin to work at Hunter until 1945. What I learned was easily discovered, and obviously it'd be impossible for a guy born in 1928 to have engraved a gun built in 1901; so clearly this self-anointed "LC SMITH MAN exposed himself for the uneducated puffer he actually was. My point is that one should always be skeptical of any information about a Smith gun unless one also check here. We don't know all there is to know, and don't claim too; but if that information or artifact is original, the LCSCA is the best source to check for confirmation.
Re: Executive guns
Posted by Drew Hause on February 11, 2021, 3:14 pm, in reply to "Executive guns"
Posted by Tom Archer on February 11, 2021, 5:51 pm, in reply to "Re: Executive guns"
Hey Drew, I couldn't help but chuckle when I learned that Walt Schissel bequeathed his moniker "The LC Smith Man" to Brother Beans or Diamond Grade (or whatever is chosen moniker may be today) upon his passing. But I'm remain confused 40 years later as I have a Cliff White business card from the early '80's (maybe earlier?) where Cliff clearly claims the moniker "The LC Smith Man"; so my question is who claimed that title first? Based on what I know personally of Cliff, I'd have to give him the edge from among those three choices, but that's just one man's opinion. But wouldn't it be interesting if we could examine that 1898 vintage Grade 2 twenty gauge LC; a danged shame that DANGEROUS set of Damascus barrels has been mono-blocked to 28 gauge! You'd think ole "Diamond Grade" could at least give us the serial number off the frame; but we all know he won't because his claim would be proven beyond any doubt to be "fake news". He'll never became that brave.
Posted by Jim Stubbendieck on February 12, 2021, 8:27 am, in reply to "Re: Executive guns"
Diamond Grade's No. 2 twenty gauge must be a real rarity, since the first twenty gauge (a No. 2, Serial Number 1000) in the Hunter Arms Company records was finished on May 5, 1907 (Ledger 11, page 100).
Why would he make this up? Did he do it before we had a copy of the Hunter Arms records and thought that it could never be checked? At the time, did it simply make a good story for him to tell his buddies? Or, did he have something else in mind such as its potential value? Is he trustworthy on any statement about L.C. Smith shotguns? I think not, and I am disappointed that anyone would do this. It just causes needless, self-serving confusion.
Interesting that the first promo for the 20g did not appear in Sporting Life until October 17, 1908 https://digital.la84.org/digital/collection/p17103coll17/id/32116 “Hunter Arms Company Places High-Grade Shotgun on Market” A double-barreled, single-trigger shotgun that a girl can use, and that any Nimrod would be proud of, now that the hunting season is on, the announcement of a brand new high-grade shotgun of that sort is one of timely interest to the readers of “Sporting Life.” It is the product of the Hunter Arms Company. The new gun is a 20-guage, L. C. Smith, and is described as a beauty, perfect in balance, correct in its lines and weighing only 5 1/2 to 6 pounds. Mr. John Hunter, in speaking about it, said: “It is the neatest, daintiest little proposition we have ever put on the market.” The Hunter “Boys” spent eighteen months in making a complete set of tools before a single one of these guns was turned out. This new 20-gauge will be No. 0 and better grades. Barrels 24, 26, 28, 30 and 32 inches in length. And the sportsman can have anything he may want in the way of pattern from cylinder to full choke. Stocks are standard length and drop, and the gun is supplied with or without automatic ejector, as with all other gauges, and is so constructed that the Hunter One-Trigger can be fitted to it. The Hunter Arms Company emphasize the fact that this little 20-gauge Smith is not a 16-gauge cut down and called a 20, but is correctly made from the foundation stock, lock and barrels. It is something new under the sun.
Jim, based on my conversation with this individual years ago, I'll take a stab at some of your questions: Why would he make this up? I believe he believes the tales he tells are absolute truth; in his mind his facts are "fact".
Did he do it before we had a copy of the Hunter Arms records and thought that it could never be checked? Yes and No he doesn't have a copy of the records; but then he had access to an even better resource than the actual records, Walt Schissel the "LC SMITH MAN"
At the time, did it simply make a good story for him to tell his buddies? Or, did he have something else in mind such as its potential value? In my opinion the promotion of his LC Smith ideas/convictions have nothing to do with pushing gun values; not even his own. But he does claim, and is absolutely convinced that all the Smith guns he owns are indeed special; and revels in expounding their virtues to anyone who'll listen. Over the years some of the assertions he's made about Smith guns and gun production are nothing short of outrageous; and Dr. Drew likely has a detailed written history of the things he's posted.
As to the reasons behind one of his fabrications, I can only relate my personal experience and a small portion of what he told me. Seems his great great grandfather (not sure how many greats) owned/operated a steel mill in PA at the turn of the last century; and thru his business had become great friends with the Hunter Brothers and John Hunter. That friendship resulted in the gifting of 5 LC Smith guns; all lower grades EXCEPT for one A4, and two of those had been nickel plated. His ancestor had made sure to record all the serial numbers, and he was the descendent who had those numbers. Allegedly his ancestor was killed in a suspicious accident at the steel mill, and had died intestate; and since women didn't have rights in those days, his ancestor's brothers came in and basically stole their brother's estate. In the process they left their bother's wife and seven kids destitute; and they also confiscated their brother's Smith guns. These brothers then allegedly left on a pilgrimage for Utah (they were Mormon's) with the 5 Smith guns on a mission to assist in building the Mormon Tabernacle. The oldest child at the time was a son who, when he reached 16, left home determined to track down his thieving uncles and retrieve his inheritance and his father's Smith guns. He did track them down, but only retrieved one Smith gun; and it wasn't the A-4. I understood that one other low grade was later recovered, but the other three are still AWOL; and our friend is still searching. This guy had contacted me because I had made public the fact that Kraus noted the existence of an A-4 Grade; in his mind this was a secret passed down thru the generations by his great ancestor that no one was supposed to know. His thinking was that my making that public knowledge would make his search that much more difficult. He also said that, when John Hunter had presented this A-4 to his ancestor, the story was that the company had made a grand total of 6 Grade A-4 guns; which fact indicated just how special this model gun was. He also claimed that his ancestor had written a detailed description of the gun's engraving motif, but I don't recall those details. At some point I asked for the serial number of this A-4 (knew you could check same), but my request was refused; so I said let me "guess". I said the number is 210073 right? He was stunned and wanted to know how I'd known the number. It was actually a lucky guess, but you will recall Brophy's article on the Sousa gun serial number 210074; and you will also recall that serial number 210073 and 210074 (both from 1908) have their grades designations recorded as hand-written notations long after the guns were finished. The hand written entry for gun 210073 is "Deluxe Grade"; and although the grades recap considers this gun to be a Deluxe, it is way to early for a Deluxe Grade model and is the only Deluxe in the recap void of any other information. I personally believe #210073 is indeed a special gun, but that it isn't a Deluxe. But until it surfaces for examination, which to my knowledge it hasn't, we can never know.
So, is the story just related true? Based on what we don't know of gun #210073 it sure as heck could be; and if that gun is ever located I'd sure like to write the story! So Jim, in regards to your question, can you find within your imagination a more interesting LC Smith story than what I've just related?
Is he trustworthy on any statement about L.C. Smith shotguns? I found this individual to be a person who can spin a persuasive and captivating story, so that determination must be left to the individual to judge for himself; but from my personal experience my answer is NO. However, by sharing the information shared here I do believe we can make our members aware of such individuals and encourage caution.
I think not, and I am disappointed that anyone would do this. It just causes needless, self-serving confusion. Couldn't agree more, but Smith collectors are not the only group forced to deal with misinformation and rumor. However we are fortunate in that, when it comes to gun questions, seldom will you not be able to resolve those issues.
I think you fellows have drifted pretty far afield from the original post, as well as making this personal. I certainly don't know any of the characters mentioned in this thread. My $0.02 worth.
That's why we didn't mention the name Steve, and I'm glad to know you haven't encountered this individual. And whether folks think this thread has drifted off topic or not, the fact is that this is a very important topic that should be thoroughly discussed here; as this stuff goes on every day, and harms all collectors in a variety of ways. In my opinion the name of this individual, and others like him, should be exposed; and he should not be known only by the various handles he uses on web sites. Don't know or care much how others feel about the dissemination of misinformation, but as one who is dedicated to researching and reporting factual information, I take it personally when someone represents himself as an authority; then posts information on public forums that is absolutely wrong and misleading. And further, when these falsehoods are exposed; changes his moniker and moves onto another forum to spread the same crap there. This kind of stuff can be quite damaging and costly to a novice collector, and it also cast dispersions on the work of honest researchers like Dr. Jim. And for what it's worth, I also have a huge disdain for any individual who won't join the LCSCA, but then has the gall to claim he's the "LC SMITH MAN".
Personally I find this discussion fascinating and most informative and helpful to me a novice collector. I know our forum rules probably prohibit exposing his name but it would be great to know who to avoid. Thanks for the information and the factual data we can count on.
This is the problem
Posted by Drew Hause on February 18, 2021, 7:41 am, in reply to "Executive guns"
No. 00, engraved by Kraus as a No. 1, with "preproduction" BTFE, which was not introduced until 1922, and the "Skeet style" not until 1929.
His 1898 No. 2 Regular frame 20g with 28g tube inserts (not sleeved) by Briley. He has previously refused to share the SN with me.
And Dave's confusion regarding the 'R' suffix.
He has his reasons for his creative fiction, but his "expert" advice is inaccurate and unhelpful, and it is not a personal attack to correct his errors when he posts them in a public forum.
