Posted by John Jacobus on May 20, 2021, 9:37 pm Edited by board administrator May 21, 2021, 7:04 am
I've got a 12 gauge hammerless double trigger shotgun that I can not figure out the grade. Unfortunately its serial number is 94211. I read through all the descriptions and can not find a mention of an engraved woodcock(quail on the other side) can anyone point me in the right direction?
Re: engraved woodcock
Posted by David Williamson on May 21, 2021, 6:41 am, in reply to "engraved woodcock"
John it sounds like your gun is a Quality or No. 2. If there are a pair of each then it would be a Quality or No. 3.
Engraved Woodcock
Posted by John Jacobus on May 21, 2021, 6:53 am, in reply to "Re: engraved woodcock" Edited by board administrator May 21, 2021, 7:04 am
Thanks for the quick response! There is a single quail and a single wookcock. I don't know if it is important or not but there is also a dog head in relief in a small black circle on the "fore stock"
Re: Engraved Woodcock
Posted by Tom Archer on May 21, 2021, 8:52 am, in reply to "Engraved Woodcock"
"there is also a dog head in relief in a small black circle on the "fore stock"
John, that bakelite dogs head insert in the forearm was a standard feature on all pre-13 graded Smith guns fitted with manual extractors; so by sharing that information, we now know your Grade 2 gun was not ordered with auto-ejectors.
Re: Engraved Woodcock
Posted by John Jacobus on May 21, 2021, 9:14 am, in reply to "Re: Engraved Woodcock"
But I thought that the serial # put in 1927?
Date of Manufacture
Posted by Drew Hause on May 21, 2021, 10:02 am, in reply to "Engraved Woodcock"
About 1902 John. Unfortunately, the 90,000-99,999 SN series are missing from the remaining shipping records, so Dr Jim would not be able to provide a definitive date with a Research Letter
Re: Date of Manufacture
Posted by John Jacobus on May 21, 2021, 10:13 am, in reply to "Date of Manufacture"
That's my great grandfather with the gun(I think he bought it new.)
John: What was your GGF's name? Do you have an idea of the date and location of the shoot? I might be able to find a report in the Sporting Life archives.
What a treasure! It is a shame Dr Jim can't prepare a Research Letter; it might list your GGF as having ordered the gun.
Re: Shoot
Posted by John Jacobus on May 21, 2021, 11:32 am, in reply to "Shoot"
His name was Joseph Jacobus. That was at the Star Gun Club in Elizabeth, New Jersey I've got a photo that shows that too.
Posted by Will Evans on May 27, 2021, 4:41 am, in reply to "Re: engraved woodcock" Edited by board administrator May 27, 2021, 7:56 am
David,
Can you point me to posts or an article discussing the fact a No. 2 has one bird and a No. 3 has a pair? I thought the difference was that a No. 2 would have a circle and No. 3’s had an oval. I have a gun with ovals engraved that lettered as a No. 2 but appears to have No. 3 quality engraving.
Re: engraved woodcock
Posted by Stanley Hackett on May 27, 2021, 6:38 am, in reply to "Re: engraved woodcock" Edited by board administrator May 27, 2021, 7:57 am
Go to the Forum on this website, and use the search function for "Grade 3 engraving patterns." You will find a wealth of informed discussion. John Houchins also discusses engraving patterns in his book.
Will The No. 2 engraving pattern originally had no game scenes; only flourishes of scroll of each lock plate. The No. 2 then evolved to a single bird inside a circle border; while an oval border was used on a No. 3 gun to accommodate two birds. But before production of the No. 2 and No. 3 models ended, these circle and oval borders were eliminated entirely and the single bird on the No. 2 was now surrounded by flourishes of scroll as were the two birds on the No. 3. But there are many grading anomalies in pre-1913 Smith gun production and it is not unusual to see an engraved gun with a recorded grade lower than what is indicated by the features on the gun itself. I've seen several and most recently, a gun clearly engraved to at least A-2 quality, but recorded as an A-1 grade. We'll never know the reasons why this is so, but the resulting speculation makes for lots of interesting discussion.
It certainly does make for interesting discussion...
I had to dig my gun out of the safe this morning to verify that my gun has a pair of birds on each side. I knew the circle vs oval distinction, but the number of birds on each side had been overlooked in my readings.
My interest stems from the fact I have a No. 3 10ga with oval engravings, along with two quail and two woodcock. In addition, the barrels are stamped with a 3. My letter from Mr. Stubbendieck several years ago returned with a No 2 designation.
From a collectors standpoint, is this gun a No 3 or a No 2? Is the gun you mentioned considered an A-1 or an A-2 by the majority of the community?
I suspect many buyers would consider it to be of the lower grade...until they themselves decided to sell.
Personally, I see this as nothing more than a mistake, likely by the original recorder. I've also wondered if a letter from Cody would see the same "2" in their pencil marks, or would someone else perhaps read the handwriting as a "3"?
Portion of the record for the 10 gauge in question
Or it could have been recorded as a No.2 deliberately; we don't know but there does appear to be evidence that some guns were purposely recorded as a lower grade, perhaps to give a friend, employee, relative, who knows a better price. At any rate, in my opinion the grade recorded in the ledger is the grade designation that must be used regardless of what may be on the gun. Below is a pic of a Smith gun that is graded stamped A-1 on the frame and recorded as such in the shipping ledgers. Clearly this gun is a much higher grade than an A-1; so your guess is as good as mine as to why it is an A-1. Bottom line, we simply can't explain some of the things we see a century or more after the fact.
Re: Portion of the record for the 10 gauge in question
Do you have a record of how many letters have been ordered on this particular gun?
This is certainly up for debate and an interesting topic, but I disagree that factory record alone determines the grade of the gun. We have no reason to believe that every employee in that era was inherently better than what we are experiencing in today’s work force, iykwim.
True story. I once owned an F250 that coded out to the insurance company as a top of the line Lariat edition when it was actually a work truck XL. Just because the factory vin records said it was a Lariat Edition did not make it more valuable. How about this angle - how many guns were recorded in a higher grade than actual? Imagine yourself paying market price for a grade 3 10ga with simple field locks just because it “lettered” as a grade 3.
Just a few thoughts. Value? As always...What the buyer will pay. Or is it what the seller can fetch?
Re: Portion of the record for the 10 gauge in question
"Do you have a record of how many letters have been ordered on this particular gun?" No, although Jim would have a record on the work he's done; but we still wouldn't have any idea as to any inquiries that may have been made directly to Cody.
"This is certainly up for debate and an interesting topic, but I disagree that factory record alone determines the grade of the gun."
I don't disagree with your assertion as I've seen several examples where the grade stamp on the gun itself was consistent to that grade, but the shipping record for that serial number recorded the gun as a different grade altogether (some examples: two guns marked A-2 and recorded in the ledgers as PE grades, an A-3 gun recorded as an A-2 in the ledgers, etc.). BUT, whenever Jim is researching a serial number for a research letter, he is obligated to report EXACTLY what is contained within those records whether the information in the original ledgers matches the grade indicator on the actual gun or not. If he did otherwise he'd be altering the originality of the records themselves[ and in effect, re-writing history. Jim's primary responsibility for the records is to make sure they are never, or become corrupted. Think about this scenario, there are serial numbers in the original ledgers that apparently were never used as the gun specification columns are blank. Do you realize how much an unscrupulous individual might pay for one of those serial numbers in order to build a high-grade fake for resale? We simply can't allow such crap to occur.
"We have no reason to believe that every employee in that era was inherently better than what we are experiencing in today’s work force." Hunter had a finite number of very skilled inspectors, and these guys knew exactly how to distinguish or ID gun grades; so I don't believe for a second that the ledger entries we see were unintentional mistakes. Based on what I've seen to date, those entries (all of which were hand written) recording a gun as a lower grade were deliberate; and most likely done to reduce the sales price as a favor for friend, relative, employee, a celebrity, etc.; or to curry favor from a vendor, a politician, or some other important and/or well connected individual.
"how many guns were recorded in a higher grade than actual?" In all my years of LC research I've yet to see an entry for any gun recorded as a higher grade than was marked on the gun itself; in every case these odd ledger entries were recording a gun as a lower grades than the grade designation on the gun.
"Just a few thoughts. Value? As always...What the buyer will pay. Or is it what the seller can fetch?" The value of a vintage gun has always been, and remains to this day the price a willing and able buyer will pay. In my opinion, when a knowledgeable collector (one who's done his homework) finds a gun such as some I've depicted and discussed in this and the other thread, he'll always be open to paying a premium for ownership. After all, he'd be purchasing a rare and unique one-off; and how often can one make that claim?
Re: Portion of the record for the 10 gauge in question
I never intended to put anyone on tye defensive. I only ask about the history of letter requests for each gun for my own curiosity. I did not know to order a letter prior to buying this gun, but I bought it from a collector of 10ga guns who lives (lived) in Minnesota. I can’t help but wonder if he knew the gun lettered as a grade 2 when he presented it to me as a bona fide grade 3. Rhetorical question, of course.
I have zero issues with the letter as issued by Mr Jim. The records are the records. My apologies to him if I have implied such. I have; however, read about the inconsistencies of Cody letters for the same gun. Are those the result of human error, or just misinterpretation?
A gun that is stamped a 3 with grade 3 engravings is a grade 3, even if it was shipped out at a discount for a friend. I believe I am aware of at least one other grade 3 10ga that was improperly recorded, raising the total to at least 53 produced.
Perhaps someone will write an article on mistakes in the ledger books.
Re: Portion of the record for the 10 gauge in question
Will If I gave you the impression that you somehow placed me on the defensive, then my apologies as I can assure you that's not the case; nor did I intend to put you on defensive, so my apologies if I've done so. But the fact is that there exists, and is espoused much misinformation about what is contained within what remains of the original Hunter Arms shipping records; and confusion is the obvious result. Thru Dr. Jim's research we now have as complete of an understanding of those records as will ever be possible given that the company ceased to exist 70 years ago; and no one from that era who could enlighten us remains alive. Clearly there are errors in the original shipping records. The DGJ just recently published a story of one such gun; a 16-bore A-2 Grade two-barrel set. In the records that gun is recorded as having shipped with one set of 16-bore and another 20-bore barrel set, which would made the gun a unique "double gauge" example; but on examination of the gun itself, both barrel sets were 16 gauge. And in researching we find the shipping records document NO Smith gun having shipped with barrels of different gauges or bore sizes; so clearly a mistake. Why or how such a mistake was made we'll never know. In my opinion, the actual grade of a Smith gun is the grade designation found stamped onto the gun frame itself regardless of the grade entry that may have been entered within the ledgers. That said, collectors pay a premium for a gun that "letters" to the original shipping records as regards grade, gauge, barrel length, etc. Did the dealer who sold you the gun request grades verification from Dr. Jim or Cody? Clearly a question you needed to ask; but this is also a good topic for discussion as it is a most important question all collectors should ask prior to purchase. I'm not trying to defend Dr. Jim as he can do so much better than me, but Dr. Jim's job as conservator of the original Hunter Arms shipping ledgers is TO REPORT THE EXACT INFORMATION RECORDED IN THOSE RECORDS; HE IS NOT RESPONSIBLE TO RE-WRITE, AND OR "CORRECT" THOSE RECORDS SO THAT THEY CORRESPOND TO WHAT SOMEONE MIGHT WANT THEM TO SAY OR CONFIRM. So whenever a research letter is requested, Dr. Jim responds with a letter revealing exactly what is contained within that ledger entry. It is vitally important that collectors understand his purpose here. If that grades information differs from what is seen on the gun itself, that is unfortunate; but the original record remains the historically correct record and will not be changed or "corrected" by the LCSCA As already noted I've personally observed a fair number of guns with grades that don't correspond to the grade mark on the gun itself. I've also observed a fair number of Smith guns with grade stamps much lower than the features seen on the gun itself, but where the ledger entry matches the grade designation on the gun (the A-1 and Grade 3 guns referenced below are examples). We don't understand why these differences exist, we only know they do; and the reasons given as to why are speculative and remain to be confirmed. Again, I can't speak for Cody but I can assure you whatever Dr. Jim reports is exactly what is recorded in the ledgers; and no one has spent more time studying and analyzing the surviving Hunter Arms records than Dr. Jim. As to your 10-bore, with a Grade 3 designation stamped onto the gun frame; then I'd certainly call it a Grade 3, and represent the gun as such whether that grade assignment matches the ledger entry or not. The only issue you might have is on a resale and the fact that the gun doesn't letter to the records; but only if that issue was an important factor to the purchaser. And yes, the total production by grades recap will never be entirely correct; they can't possibly be because of what we know from examples we've observed. As to writing "an article on mistakes in the ledger books"; don't see how that would ever be possible without having every gun ever produced and being able to compare each one with the record entry. We/I have, and continue to write about some of these grades anomalies I've encounter because I find them extremely interesting. And in that regard, my experience as a researcher has 1) found that the over whelming majority of the entries in the ledgers are accurate; and 2) thus far, that every ledger grades entry not matching the grade stamped on the gun itself recorded that gun as a lower grade. Isn't that interesting, and why was that so? Clearly we'll never know, but in my opinion the recording of an A-2 Grade, which grade was clearly marked A-2 on the gun, as a PE grade was intentional; and NOT accidental. That gun represents just one of several such anomalies I've personally observed over the years. I hope sharing my personal experience/observations is helpful; but again, everyone is free to have their own opinions.
