Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: "SAXONY"-stamped Charles Daly hammerless gun

  1. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    553
    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

  2. #12
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    553
    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

  3. #13
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    553
    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

  4. #14
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    553
    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

  5. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    7
    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

  6. #16
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    553
    Just a sidebar, but post WWI after the loss of his son in harsh fighting with the Brits, the serialization is that of that specific maker that was tasked with manufacture and has nothing to do with Lindner's serialization. H.A. Lindner might have been a middle-man, but S,D&G, the Daly Gun trademark, are being peddled, consolidated/merged & dissolved on a whim. Most difficult to track in a tumultuous period without the ledgers.

    I still contend that your example was conceived in the mid 1880s and completed some time later so for argument's sake, let's concentrate efforts in the 1880s. I guess it is possible that your example might be one of the promotion breechloaders that were made to be used as a demo in target shooting on high seas enroute to NY, where upon the examples were disassembled, cleaned, etc. and peddled as new Daly Breechloaders? Still a lot of ground to cover. Also being quite removed from the data sampling of the W.R. Schaefer examples, I can't say which ones, if any had the APUN stamp. But W.R. Schaefer was an outlet for H&R and R.E. Couchman would have drug him into court if the APUN was not paid. When the APUN was paid for, the frame was sent to Westley Richards, or a satellite stamping station & the APUN was applied.

    An 1881 advert of S,D&G displays an image of a hammergun and has W.R. Schaefer of 61 Elm Street, Boston and Thos. L. Golcher of 116 Girard Avenue, Philadephia listed.

    Then an 1884 advert of Wm. R. Schaefer & Son of 61 Elm Street, Boston, Mass. notes Schaefer being an agent of Harrington & Richardson Hammerless and the Daly Hammer and Hammerless Breechloading Shot Guns - Choke Boring Guns & Bending Gun Stocks are specialities.

    A S,D&G 1889 advert has an image of the early Charles Daly Hammerless with Cartridge Ejectors & has the odd somewhat sqaure or squatted frame sides.

    I'm not sure when The Daly Gun was fitted with ejectors but the above 1889 advert makes Cartridge Ejectors an option and that too may narrow the completion date of your Daly Gun.

    Kind Regards,

    Raimey
    rse

  7. #17
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    6

    Saxony Charles Daly

    Gentleman, I was very excited to find this thread as I have Charles Daly number 301 with Saxony and 443 and LE stamped on the barrel ahead of the flats. image.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpg

    It would appear our guns were made on or near the same time. I was so excited to learn all of this history on a gun I have owned for 4 years and knew nothing about. Any additional information you can provide about these guns is very appreciated!

  8. #18
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    6
    image.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpg
    In addition I found some text stamped on the underside of the butt plate, I was curious if yours was the same? Also is any of your artwork the same?

  9. #19
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    6
    image.jpgimage.jpgimage.jpgSome further pictures for your consideration

  10. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    553
    Interesting. Had to just about be in the same batch. So the text is:

    H. Silver & Co. P.
    Patent
    Cornhill London
    ????

    I would assume the alteration was performed in the U.S. of A.

    Kind Regards,

    Raimey
    rse

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •