A gem made by Gem

[fernando]

Hi Stu

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

... A very nice piece and much the sort of thing I used to collect. Its a model 1855 Beaumont Adams revolver

Yes, it has a Beaumont Adams silhouette, but with a few alterations, both in body as also in assembly, with some "luxury" optionals.
And it is obviously a 54 bore caliber and not 58 as i first mentioned.

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

... and all the original bits seem to be still in the case---a real bonus!! Is there any marking on the mould?

The only mark in the mould is the caliber digits 54. The powder flask is marked Bartram.

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

... Edward Gem & Co is not shown as a MAKER in my books, so I assume that he was the retailer. This was quite usual on these and more often than not, the RETAILER was marked on the rib, rather than the maker.

Well, not propperly as retailer in the generical sense. It took me five years to find out that Mr Edward Gem was one of a number of Birmingham Gunmakers and dealers who became a shareholder in the founding on the Birmingham small arms Co Ltd.
He has also been a factor for a number of Birmingham makers; i guess in a sense that, at a certain stage there were several "workshops" in Birmingham, making loose weapons parts, that were later assembled by those that sold the guns to the market ... retailers, governments and other.

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

... I take it that the Trade Label which would normally be inside the lid of the case is no longer there?

I ignore if ever there was a Trade Label; some ignorant, thinking he was doing the right thing, has painted the whole case interior with some thick plastic paint, thus covering all traces of a possible label. One of these things you will never know the reason for.

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

... A lot of these revolvers were actually made by the London Armoury Co and were usually marked L.A.C somewhere on the frame or barrel.

As introduced above, i don't think this was the case; more probably a "white line" specimen or, which also took place in those days, a customized and or personalized specimen, ordered with instructions not to bring any maker's codes.

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

... I see British Proofs on the cylinder. Anything on the barrel?

Yes, both Birmingham and London proof marks on both cylinder and barrel

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

... STILL ASHAMED FERNANDO??? I DON'T THINK SO!!! ITS A LOVELY PIECE!

Well, they are not all junk

Fernando

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by fernando

Hi Stu



Yes, it has a Beaumont Adams silhouette, but with a few alterations, both in body as also in assembly, with some "luxury" optionals.
And it is obviously a 54 bore caliber and not 58 as i first mentioned.



The only mark in the mould is the caliber digits 54. The powder flask is marked Bartram.



Well, not propperly as retailer in the generical sense. It took me five years to find out that Mr Edward Gem was one of a number of Birmingham Gunmakers and dealers who became a shareholder in the founding on the Birmingham small arms Co Ltd.
He has also been a factor for a number of Birmingham makers; i guess in a sense that, at a certain stage there were several "workshops" in Birmingham, making loose weapons parts, that were later assembled by those that sold the guns to the market ... retailers, governments and other.



I ignore if ever there was a Trade Label; some ignorant, thinking he was doing the right thing, has painted the whole case interior with some thick plastic paint, thus covering all traces of a possible label. One of these things you will never know the reason for.



As introduced above, i don't think this was the case; more probably a "white line" specimen or, which also took place in those days, a customized and or personalized specimen, ordered with instructions not to bring any maker's codes.



Yes, both Birmingham and London proof marks on both cylinder and barrel



Well, they are not all junk

Fernando

Hi Fernando,
I had noticed a few differences between this item and the Beaumont Adams. The most noticable to me was the way on which the cylinder release pin was held. The Beaumont has a screw on the side of the frame rather than underneath as this one has.
The TRUE Adams mould has an oval shaped stamp with Adams name and the bore size--not just the bore number.
I am intrigued that you say that this has both London AND Birmingham Proof marks. MOST unusual in my opinion. Any pics?
Regards Stu

[fernando]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

Hi Fernando,
I had noticed a few differences between this item and the Beaumont Adams. The most noticable to me was the way on which the cylinder release pin was held. The Beaumont has a screw on the side of the frame rather than underneath as this one has.

... plus a different chamber rotating lock ... an inverted turning lever instead of the horizontal sliding wedge; the various lubricating orifices ... a luxury detail. But also a difference in the frame, in the back upper part; and the hexagonal barrel that, besides having exterior sharper lines, has an usually seen and highly esthetical three rifle bore. As i said before, the global appearance of an Adams, but with a lot of alterations. This thing must have had a price much above that of an ordinary revolver from massive production.

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

... I am intrigued that you say that this has both London AND Birmingham Proof marks. MOST unusual in my opinion. Any pics?

MOST unusual, you say ? Now you surprise me
Could it be because the seller was established in both London and Birmingham that he wanted to test his units in both proof houses ?

Fernando

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by fernando

... plus a different chamber rotating lock ... an inverted turning lever instead of the horizontal sliding wedge; the various lubricating orifices ... a luxury detail. But also a difference in the frame, in the back upper part; and the hexagonal barrel that, besides having exterior sharper lines, has an usually seen and highly esthetical three rifle bore. As i said before, the global appearance of an Adams, but with a lot of alterations. This thing must have had a price much above that of an ordinary revolver from massive production.




MOST unusual, you say ? Now you surprise me
Could it be because the seller was established in both London and Birmingham that he wanted to test his units in both proof houses ?

Fernando

Hi Fernando,
Those are DEFINATELY BOTH Birmingham Proof Marks. The one on the left of the pic is the VIEW MARK and the other the DEFINITIVE MARK. I have attached here (and I hope you can read it clearly) a scan of a book page showing both marks. I hope it is of interest. You will note that the London VIEW MARK in use from 1813 is a crowned V.
Regards Stu

[fernando]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

... Those are DEFINATELY BOTH Birmingham Proof Marks ...

Man, your'e right .
When i bought this revolver eight years ago, i didn't yet have my Directory of proof marks. I instinctly thaught at the time that, having two marks on the barrel and cylinder, those would be from the two proof houses. I never had a real look to the marks ... something unusual for my character, i should say.
Thanks for having corrected me, Stu
Fernando

[kahnjar1]

Originally Posted by fernando

Man, your'e right .
When i bought this revolver eight years ago, i didn't yet have my Directory of proof marks. I instinctly thaught at the time that, having two marks on the barrel and cylinder, those would be from the two proof houses. I never had a real look to the marks ... something unusual for my character, i should say.
Thanks for having corrected me, Stu
Fernando

My pleasure Fernando. Most, if not all British Proved guns, whether Birmingham or London proved, have both a VIEW and a DEFINATIVE mark and often other marks relating to calibre/bore and type of powder for which they were proved. ALL foreign made guns which were imported by retailers for sale, were also submitted for proof at one of the proof houses. This did not necessarily apply to guns imported by "joe public" for his own use, but if he then wished to sell his gun, he would have to (or should) submit it to be proved first.
A cumbersome process but it at least safeguarded the user to a large degree.
Stu