Forums.NitroExpress.com

"It's called making money - A&N couldn't have given a rats ass who made the gun, if the customer wanted the gun made by Purdey, then they would have got it made by Purdey".

Without wanting to be rude I would ask that if you state this, THAT THIS IS A GUN MADE BY PURDEY you should be able to show evidence, your proof, of this is from reading which gun maker's day book or factory records? Or from an example of any Army and Navy gun built using the Beesley system? It is a total nonsense.

Surely the owner has a letter from Purdey that confirms they built thie gun for Army and Navy? It wouldn't be difficult to get, I've seen Purdey's records, so maybe the owner has such a letter? If so I can only apologise.

So if a customer wanted an Army and Navy gun, made by Purdey using the Beesley system, they would get it built by Army and Navy who would then have it engraved as an Army and Navy and add a profit margin?

So the customer had a gun that would probably cost him more than if he bought it from Purdey direct, and yet be labelled as an Army and Navy that was not even a gun maker but a gun retailer and certainly not a name even amongst the second "rank" of British gun names.

Purdey, apart from boxlocks, as far as I am aware did not make sidelock gun using other than the Beesley system. Period.

But, at the heart of it, is an attempt to pass off a gun very much in the "third rank" as the work of Purdey. False pride...an honest error...or something more dark?

A "Ford...made by Rolls Royce" as it were.

Buyers of secondhand English guns suffer enough with "gun coping" let alone with "passing off". At best the owner of the item is mistaken. At worst it could be construed as dishonest.

It isn't an "Army and Navy...made by Purdey" it is, most probably, a Webley.

Edited by enfieldspares (14/07/07 08:27 AM)

Post Extras