Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact
NitroExpress.com: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis

View recent messages : 24 hours | 48 hours | 7 days | 14 days | 30 days | 60 days | More Smilies


*** Enjoy NitroExpress.com? Participate and join in. ***
You are not logged in. [Login] Main Index · Search · Active Topics
New user · Who's Online · FAQ · Calendar

Double Rifles, Single Shots & Combinations >> Double Rifles
Previous topic Previous   View all topics Index   Next topic Next   Threaded Mode Threaded  

Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)
empirevr
.375 member


Reged: 03/09/06
Posts: 614
Loc: England,but now Italy.
W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis
      #84476 - 23/08/07 07:09 AM

Same quality?

Which maker is generally better?(regardless of gun type, i.e. two identical guns)

Many thanks

Ben

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
400NitroExpress
.400 member


Reged: 26/11/03
Posts: 1154
Loc: Lone Star State
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: empirevr]
      #84486 - 23/08/07 12:54 PM

W & C Scott.

--------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
88MauSporter
.375 member


Reged: 06/06/07
Posts: 530
Loc: Alaska / Texas
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: 400NitroExpress]
      #84488 - 23/08/07 01:02 PM

I own two Issac Hollis SXSs. One hamer gun and one boxlock. Both are very nicely made. I would put them against the W C Scotts for close comparison. The name recognition isn't ther for the Hollis. Hollis and WC Scott both took in guns from other makers to finish and put their name on them.
I have seen Isaac Hollis shotguns, double rifles, revolvers, etc.
Mine are from the 1890s and then from 1924. I shoot them both.

--------------------
"A hunter should not use a rifle that will kill an animal when everthing goes right; you should use one that will do the job when everything goes wrong." 88MauSporter

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
400NitroExpress
.400 member


Reged: 26/11/03
Posts: 1154
Loc: Lone Star State
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: 88MauSporter]
      #84493 - 23/08/07 03:47 PM

I've always had an interest in the historical aspects of the British trade, especially so the "who made what for whom" question. I've been researching that issue in particular, and the "trade" makers in general (primarily with respect to double rifles) for some years, and the answers differ considerably from "conventional" wisdom.

Quote:

Hollis and WC Scott both took in guns from other makers



While I believe that the Isaac Hollis enterprise may have, I've never seen any evidence that W & C Scott, (or Webley & Scott after 1897) ever did so. That simply was never their role within the British trade. Webley & Scott (separately prior to the merger) was the behemoth of the British trade, by a wide margin, and the core business of both firms had long been as anonymous gunmakers to the trade. Put another way, they were the primary source of guns that other gunmakers "bought in" (and rarely, sometimes stocked and finished) and retailed, not the other way round. Webley & Scott made double rifles and shotguns for almost everybody that was anybody in the retail British trade. They were able to provide finished guns, made entirely in their factory, to the cream of the trade (to be sold under the retailer's name) because their quality was up to standard. Finishing guns "bought in" from others was just never in their line.

Quote:

to finish and put their name on them.



This is the old conventional wisdom regarding how such things were usually done with "trade" built guns, and, to a certain degree, I think it's what the retail trade wanted folks to think. However, the facts don't support it.

Webley's stated, in their own catalogue, that 90% of their output was for other gunmakers and that such guns did not bear their name, which is true. We know from Webley & Scott's shotgun records, which survive, that the vast majority of the double guns they built for other gunmakers left their shop complete, not as barreled actions in the white to be stocked and finished by the retailer. I can tell you from research into their double rifles (for which records don't survive) that something on the order of 90% of those built for other gunmakers left their shop complete. In other words, they rarely sent out guns that other gunmakers stocked and finished....and they were, by far, the largest supplier of double guns to the British trade.

As for the relative qualities of I. Hollis vs W & C Scott generally, I regretfully have to disagree.

--------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
88MauSporter
.375 member


Reged: 06/06/07
Posts: 530
Loc: Alaska / Texas
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: 400NitroExpress]
      #84567 - 24/08/07 02:28 PM

I don't have a WC Scott. I have only looked at them. I like my Hollis guns.
I will certainly bow to your researched study of the trade. I only go by what I have read. As with computers sometimes, you input bad info and thats what you spit out. I do like the info available from knowledgable sources as your self. Maybe my Issac Hollis guns are made by WC Scott!!
Any ideas about my Clabrough and Johnstone? It states a London made gun, but I understand they were marketed under the same name as a retail shop in San Francisco California about 1890-1900.

--------------------
"A hunter should not use a rifle that will kill an animal when everthing goes right; you should use one that will do the job when everything goes wrong." 88MauSporter

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
empirevr
.375 member


Reged: 03/09/06
Posts: 614
Loc: England,but now Italy.
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: 88MauSporter]
      #84574 - 24/08/07 06:50 PM

Thanks for the info guys

But regarding simply the quality, and perhaps some of the value too......then is there much difference?

Ben

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
88MauSporter
.375 member


Reged: 06/06/07
Posts: 530
Loc: Alaska / Texas
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: empirevr]
      #84610 - 25/08/07 05:35 AM

WC Scott. Value is much better than the Hollis guns of same condition, arrangements.

--------------------
"A hunter should not use a rifle that will kill an animal when everthing goes right; you should use one that will do the job when everything goes wrong." 88MauSporter

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
400NitroExpress
.400 member


Reged: 26/11/03
Posts: 1154
Loc: Lone Star State
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: empirevr]
      #84612 - 25/08/07 05:58 AM

Quote:

Thanks for the info guys

But regarding simply the quality, and perhaps some of the value too......then is there much difference?

Ben



A friend is a life-long serious shooter, and formerly a long time managing director of one of the old London gunmakers. True to the best traditions of the London trade, he is highly biased in favor of the London "Best". He isn't very high on Birmingham guns. However, he IS high on Scotts. These days, he fiddles mostly with British black powder hammerguns. In those days, Scott made many of Holland & Holland's guns, and also some for other high end London shops. He recently commented to me that he felt it a pity that Scotts still don't bring what they're really worth.

--------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
400NitroExpress
.400 member


Reged: 26/11/03
Posts: 1154
Loc: Lone Star State
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: 88MauSporter]
      #84613 - 25/08/07 06:22 AM

Quote:

Any ideas about my Clabrough and Johnstone? It states a London made gun, but I understand they were marketed under the same name as a retail shop in San Francisco California about 1890-1900.



I've handled a number, but none from a trade maker that I could identify.

Boxlock or sidelock? If boxlock, count on it being from Birmingham. Sidelock could be either.

What about the proof marks? If Birmingham, then it was built there. If London - you wouldn't believe how many Birmingham guns were proved in London. For example, I've never seen a Webley built double rifle that wasn't proved in London, even those that Webley retailed themselves. It was just part of the subterfuge.

--------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
88MauSporter
.375 member


Reged: 06/06/07
Posts: 530
Loc: Alaska / Texas
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: 400NitroExpress]
      #84614 - 25/08/07 08:22 AM

400NitroExpress/
We shoot our lowly Issac Hollis guns, and many English and European best guns too, evey other month at sportng clays events. Different places and shooting grounds in this Lone Star State
Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, Burnie, etc.
Your welcome to bring your fine guns and expertise. We have good talks, shoots and showings. Looking for fans of the SxS.
Texas Side by Side Club.

--------------------
"A hunter should not use a rifle that will kill an animal when everthing goes right; you should use one that will do the job when everything goes wrong." 88MauSporter

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
88MauSporter
.375 member


Reged: 06/06/07
Posts: 530
Loc: Alaska / Texas
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: 88MauSporter]
      #84624 - 25/08/07 02:16 PM

400NitroExpress:
The Clabrough and Johnstone is a BP proofed hamer gun. Mid range engraving on the side locks, trigger guard and fences.
It has a Birmingham address on the barrel rib, the proofs are BV , Birmingham.
Nice steel barrels. Wood is pretty standard straight grain walnut. Overall, nicely finished gun.
Little use. Bright barrels that measure as if no polish or freshing has been done. 2 1/2 chambers.
My boxlock I. Hollis is a I. Hollis, London, but, after reviewing again, it has the typical Birmingham Nitro proofs of Birmingham. My Hammer Hollis is a Brimingham address on barrel and Birmingham proofs. This one with a bit of use, but solid and shootable.
Maybe one or both are WC Scott built guns!?

--------------------
"A hunter should not use a rifle that will kill an animal when everthing goes right; you should use one that will do the job when everything goes wrong." 88MauSporter

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
400NitroExpress
.400 member


Reged: 26/11/03
Posts: 1154
Loc: Lone Star State
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: 88MauSporter]
      #84714 - 27/08/07 08:57 AM

Generally, trade makers usually did assign their own serial numbers to guns they built for others, but some did not (Wilkes comes to mind). The maker's number was usually stamped somewhere near, or on, the fore-end loop and, of course, this number usually won't match the retailer's number. By the same token, some retailers (such as Wilkinson, later Manton's, etc.) didn't assign their own numbers, and the guns were sold with only the maker's number on them. Generally though, a gun built for a retailer will have a non-matching trade maker's number on it.

While I'm not certain of the earlier guns, those that Webley & Scott built for others after the merger were stamped with their own number. If the number is absent, or is not correct for the time frame, then it came from someone else.

--------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
bonanza
.400 member


Reged: 17/05/04
Posts: 2335
Loc: South Carolina
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: 400NitroExpress]
      #84715 - 27/08/07 09:39 AM

"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just has one."

--------------------


"Speak Precisely" G. Gordon Liddy.

"Life is absurd, chaotic and we must define its purpose with our actions" Abert Camus

"I''m the dude playing a dude disguised as another dude."

"Yo! Mr. White"

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
400NitroExpress
.400 member


Reged: 26/11/03
Posts: 1154
Loc: Lone Star State
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: bonanza]
      #84734 - 27/08/07 05:40 PM



--------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
enfieldspares
.224 member


Reged: 12/07/07
Posts: 36
Loc: Great Britain
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: 400NitroExpress]
      #84741 - 27/08/07 09:49 PM

I think that any gun can be a "good 'un" or a "wrong 'un".

The fact is that Hollis isn't now, perhaps never was, a "fashinable" name. All the few Hollis guns that I have seen have been of good quality. I think I can remember even owning a Hollis 450/400 BPE. That was certainly well made and finished and quite pleasing. It had hammerless back action locks.

I have only seen a similar number of W & C Scott. One with the "crystal" indicators, I think, and one that was an "Imperial". I didn't particularly like either as I thought that they were "over done" in terms of engraving etc., etc. I also never considered W & C Scott a "fashionable" name either...the Holland connection in the 1970s notwithstanding.

There is almost a reverse snobbery in some ways. That if one is to have a Birmingham gun it is better by far to be honest about it...and have a Webley, or a Midland Gun...than have the same gun but "put up" as an Evans or whoever else.

The "base level" English makers such as Webley, Midland Gun, Cogswell & Harrison, etc., etc., are all worthy of note in themselves.

But, the end is, if YOU like it...and it shoots well and in a manner that pleases YOU...the so what. If it is a "good 'un" as far as YOU are concerned...then that is an end of the matter.

I've had Powells, Hollands, Churchills and all the rest. Cogswell & Harrison, Westley Richards, the lot! But never a Purdey or a Boss.

But what I enjoy now are just two. My late father's Henry Clarke of Leicester bought for him when he was in his teens so at least seventy-five years old now. A simple boxlock ejector, with fine line engraving to the endges of the action and converted at the time to an ejector with a Westley Richards box.

The other a Midland Gun 32" barrel 3" side-by-side boxlock ejetor with all "the bits"...cross bolt, side clips, semi-pistol hand, flat file-cut rib. From about 1970s. A wildfowl or marsh gun at the very time all that was in decline!

I even now think that I actually wouldn't enjoy shooting a Boss!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
400NitroExpress
.400 member


Reged: 26/11/03
Posts: 1154
Loc: Lone Star State
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: enfieldspares]
      #84753 - 28/08/07 03:50 AM

Quote:

I have only seen a similar number of W & C Scott.



You've seen a great many more than that, you just didn't know it. Like I said, the majority were built for and retailed by other gunmakers.

Quote:

One with the "crystal" indicators, I think, and one that was an "Imperial". I didn't particularly like either as I thought that they were "over done" in terms of engraving etc., etc. I also never considered W & C Scott a "fashionable" name either...the Holland connection in the 1970s notwithstanding.



Your knowledge of the history of British gunmaking is rather incomplete. Holland & Holland's association with Scott in the 1970s was merely the sunset of a relationship that had lasted for 100 years. Scott was building guns for Holland well before Holland started building most of their own best guns in the 1890s. One of the models that incorporated the crytal cocking indicators was the so-called "7 Patent Scott". Holland's sold many of these under their own name as the "Climax Safety Hammerless Model".

Scott's reputation was one of the best in the trade, especially so for pigeon guns. The Imperial was their best gun, and one of the best made anywhere. The Premiere was the next best. The Premiere sold for slightly more than a Holland Royal, the Imperial was 40% more. Unfashionable? That's absurd.

Quote:

There is almost a reverse snobbery in some ways. That if one is to have a Birmingham gun it is better by far to be honest about it...and have a Webley, or a Midland Gun...than have the same gun but "put up" as an Evans or whoever else.



Well, that's certainly quite irrational as it cuts out the majority of the better output of the Birmingham trade. The point is that a little study highlights the ignorance of "name only" buying and eliminates the need for it. Holland & Holland, Rigby, Gibbs, Lancaster, Alex Henry, Evans, Churchill, Wilkinson, Lang...all sold double rifles under their names that were bought in complete from Webley, and Webley sold few themselves. The quality was there, no matter the name.

Quote:

I even now think that I actually wouldn't enjoy shooting a Boss!



Now that's reverse snobbery for sure. But hey, I wouldn't either. I don't like sidelocks.

--------------------
"Serious rifles have two barrels, everything else just burns gunpowder."

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
enfieldspares
.224 member


Reged: 12/07/07
Posts: 36
Loc: Great Britain
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: 400NitroExpress]
      #84759 - 28/08/07 05:52 AM

"I even now think that I actually wouldn't enjoy shooting a Boss!"

Not reverse snobbery as such, but just that it is a lot of money to spend on a gun. I can remember my Uncle, very late on, in his sixties, and in the late 1960s, going being approached one day, whilst shooting, by a young "thruster" to tell him that the pair of Boss guns he was using were worth "at least £1,000" or some figure! Unfortunately it put my Uncle right off, and he never shot with them again but sold them and bought a pair of AYA guns!

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
empirevr
.375 member


Reged: 03/09/06
Posts: 614
Loc: England,but now Italy.
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: enfieldspares]
      #84770 - 28/08/07 09:43 AM

Ok lets throw a spanner in.....

What if the Hollis is a top-lever with Greener x bolt third, and the Scott a standard underlever gun at about a 25% higher price?!

Thanks!

Ben

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
gatsby
.375 member


Reged: 05/09/05
Posts: 862
Loc: inland valley CA USA
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: empirevr]
      #84863 - 29/08/07 11:57 AM

Which one do you like best?
I have a couple Holland/Scott underlever guns. I don't know which company is responsible, but the fit, finish, and regulation is outstanding on each one.

--------------------
"Recoil is insignificant when there is a tiger on the head of your elephant" The Maharaja of Cooch Behar



Edited by gatsby (29/08/07 01:15 PM)

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
empirevr
.375 member


Reged: 03/09/06
Posts: 614
Loc: England,but now Italy.
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: gatsby]
      #84910 - 30/08/07 07:00 AM

Well.....

I like them both, however i want just ONE!

Are the Scotts working guns or not particularly?

Who makes the tougher, heavier gun then???

Many thanks

Ben

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
gatsby
.375 member


Reged: 05/09/05
Posts: 862
Loc: inland valley CA USA
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: empirevr]
      #84916 - 30/08/07 07:55 AM

The Scott/Hollands are heavy working guns. They comprise but are not limited to the 4, 8, 10 and 12 bore rifles including paradoxes. Built for Kings, Earls, Dukes, Maharajas, Nizams, Nawabs amoung others.

--------------------
"Recoil is insignificant when there is a tiger on the head of your elephant" The Maharaja of Cooch Behar



Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
watto
.275 member


Reged: 10/06/07
Posts: 90
Loc: Victoria,Australia
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: gatsby]
      #85042 - 02/09/07 09:03 PM

G'day All

I would just like to add a little to this historical discourse. I have a Tipping and Lawden 16 bore cape gun and while tracking down it's history I discovered that T & L where taken over by W & C Scott & son in 1878. From a Birmingham historical site they are listed as Manufacturers of rifles and pistols, with a picture of their factory in the 1830's ( I think the date is correct). Further investigation shows that they were the licensed manufacturer of Sharps patent handguns during the mid 1800's. They were also listed as being manufacturers to the trade, supplying to other gun makers.

The 1872 edition of the W. & C. Scott & Son catalogue has pictured a s x s double which to all appearance is pretty well identical to my cape gun. On the inside cover is a notice stating quote "Every gun bears their full name, namely,- W. & C. SCOTT & SON and full London Address on rib of every medium and fine quality, and no Guns are genuine unless so marked, excepting plain Guns which bear their name and 'London' only." My cape has no mention of W & C Scott & Son, only Tipping and Lawden.

In the catalogue they describe the under lever as being an older and slower design which makes me think that maybe they sourced their under levers from Tipping and Lawden allowing them to concentrate
on their newer designs. This would also make sense as to their take over of T & L in 1878.

Just some more food for thought.

By the way, shot my cape for the first time at the weekend, a mild load of 75g of fff with 450g hp and a solid which I could not weigh on my scales as they only go to 500gn, but would estimate about 700gn.
Both were extremely mild to shoot.

All the best and good shooting, Ian.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
empirevr
.375 member


Reged: 03/09/06
Posts: 614
Loc: England,but now Italy.
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: watto]
      #85048 - 03/09/07 12:22 AM

Watto-

You are saying the ones sold under other makers names,even if bearing w.c. scott stamped on the gun also, are made by another maker then?? or are of low quality?

What are the 'plain guns' with 'London' on them like?

Is a fine grade Hollis better than a low grade Scott then? top-lever former, and underlever latter.

Thanks

Ben

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
watto
.275 member


Reged: 10/06/07
Posts: 90
Loc: Victoria,Australia
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: empirevr]
      #85074 - 03/09/07 08:09 PM

G'day Ben,

I am afraid I am certainly not the one to answer your question, but I think it is very interesting working out who supplied what to whom. If two companies were both recorded as being suppliers to the trade then the waters definitely become a little muddied.

If I was suggesting anything it was the possibility that T & L supplied plain under levers to W & C Scott & Son Prior to the amalgamation in 1878. But it is equally possible that the reverse could have been the case.

Also in the quotation "their name and London only", do they mean W & C Scott or the name of the company to whom the gun has been supplied? If the latter is correct then my cape was probably built
by W & C Scott, as it is marked Tipping and Lawden London. T & L were a Birmingham company but had an office and retail outlet in London to which I thought they were referring.

All the best,

Ian.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
watto
.275 member


Reged: 10/06/07
Posts: 90
Loc: Victoria,Australia
Re: W C Scott vs Isaac Hollis [Re: watto]
      #85098 - 04/09/07 08:20 AM

Correction to my last post.

I must apologise for some confusion in my last post. The take over of Tipping & Lawden, which should have read 1887 was actually by P Webley & Sons, who then amalgamated with W & C Scott & Sons and Richard Ellis & Sons in 1897.

Good Shooting, Ian.

Post Extras: Print Post   Remind Me!   Notify Moderator  
Pages: 1 | 2 | >> (show all)


Previous topic Previous   View all topics Index   Next topic Next   Threaded Mode Threaded  

Extra information
0 registered and 696 anonymous users are browsing this forum.

Moderator:  CptCurl 

Print Topic

Forum Permissions
      You cannot start new topics
      You cannot reply to topics
      HTML is disabled
      UBBCode is enabled

Rating:
Topic views: 9627

Rate this topic

Jump to

Contact Us NitroExpress.com

Powered by UBB.threads™ 6.5.5


Home | Ezine | Forums | Links | Contact


Copyright 2003 to 2011 - all rights reserved