Antique S&W cardboard gun boxes??????

first-model · #51 10-01-2020, 02:45 PM

Murph, you keep saying that "it's documented" and that you have "proof," but you haven't posted any documentation or proof.

Here's an example of providing documentation:

There were at least two substantial box manufacturers in Springfield in the mid to late 19th century (Springfield City Directories, 1861 - 1880). At least one of them is known to have supplied boxes to the Smith & Wesson factory (Parsons, page 13).

Now, let's see some of your "proof."

Mike

BMur · #52 10-01-2020, 04:11 PM

My posts are very lengthy already,

How long do you want me to make it? I have no problem sharing "some" of what I find after spending hours researching but I definitely have a problem sharing all of my homework with anyone. The information is out there and available to see and read if you know where to look. All you have to do is spend the hours and hours that I do looking and documenting it. I also use my research notes for book writing. So, they are private and may be copyrighted in the future. Theft of another persons hard work is all too common today. So, I'd like to protect "MY WORK" if you don't mind. I'm not an idiot.

Also, the "proof" that you posted is copyrighted. So, credit is given to that researcher.

Some of the members on this forum won't even post simple photo's of their collections and do nothing but talk open trash without research to back it up or post video clips of fiction? but you don't seem to have a problem with that? However, you do insist that I post all of my time and effort and research? My volunteerism only goes so far. Sorry. My time and research belongs to me and when I get tired of it. I'm done.

So, basically....I'm done.

Murph

first-model · #53 10-01-2020, 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

So, basically....I'm done.

Bye.

Mike

BMur · #54 10-01-2020, 05:11 PM

Oh,
You misinterpreted my meaning. I only meant I’m done with answering non applicable input. You could leave my thread if you’d like?
I still have more box research that others might be interested in.

Murph

BMur · #55 10-01-2020, 05:58 PM

I wanted to touch bases on the pencil markings on the bottom of the boxes?

There are several examples of early boxes in my survey that have no markings whatsoever on them. Some can be attributed to the box condition? being worn or damaged, mold, discoloration, etc?

However, I have also documented several boxes that are in near mint condition that have NO numbers or codes, letters, etc whatsoever on the bottom.

It's also my researched opinion that those boxes that have what has been determined to be serial numbers? can and often are applied by collectors at some later date in an attempt to increase the value of the gun/box set as a matching set. So, honestly, and because of the falsifying, the serial numbers in pencil are or can be easily contested as NOT being original or authentic. So I can't see how you can include them in an honest survey.

I did use the information as part of my research in an attempt to date the boxes? but it's easily contested in my opinion since the numbers are in pencil and who knows when they were applied without some sort of expensive chemical testing performed to prove the numbers were written on the box during that time frame. Or at least prove that they weren't written on the box in the last 40 years or so.

What I do stand behind are the Price markings on the bottom of the boxes. Only found in this study marked in pencil. I cross referenced the prices to period Distributor catalog price listings and they match those prices listed in the 1870's through 1890's to the penny. So I do believe those markings to be authentic and obviously applied by the Distributor. There would be no reason for the Factory to pencil in a price for the gun in the box since they are already sold prior to being shipped!

So this researched information at least proves that the Distributor marked the boxes in pencil prior to sale with an applicable period correct price. As B. Mower also kindly provided with his box collection: The Distributor is also attributed with ink stamps of various types denoting finish, advertisements guaranteeing 3in1 oil in the partitioned boxes, a rare smokeless use warning, and different and sometimes odd sticker adds.

Murph

BMur · #56 10-02-2020, 01:25 PM

This is my final input on the boxes and probably the hardest subject is actually dating the "early" boxes? This information is very basic and not by any means complete. In order to have a high rate of accuracy one would have to inspect no less than 200 boxes of each type. I've only looked at a total of 72 boxes
so far of all types so this is very basic reference material. I will continue the study and document boxes found and post more information if I find a significant change.

The earliest boxes seem to be the Green boxes found for the early 44's, 38 Baby Russian, and the 1 1/2 cf 32's prior to 1880. There might be an even earlier box for the 44 American. Also, the SA 38's seem to have maintained this Green box theme throughout production where as the 32's definitely did not. Which only feeds into the Distributor source theory.

Some of the early 44 Americans can be found in a light beige color box but I was not able to find one for this study. Also the maroon or burgundy colored box for the 1 1/2 I have no idea where that box fits into the mix since I have not seen one with a label. It might even be the earliest box? in fact I documented no less than 5 different box types for the 1 1/2 cf. This is exactly what I am really saying about these early boxes. There are so many of them in just the 1 1/2cf model cf during a 12 year period that its very difficult to believe that the Distributor was not involved with the making of at least some of these boxes!

The SA 32cf's seem to also reveal the change from the early label to the most common orange label found on all caliber boxes since their introduction actually pre-dates 1880. However, I did also confirm 6 different orange labels so I have no idea what the entire sequence is or if there actually is a sequence. Or if we are actually mixing in various Distributor made boxes? I did with high probability confirm the earliest orange label with the latest Orange label having the late 1890's to 1900 type instruction/box improvement.

I did not perform a study of the rimfires so they are not included and my information on the 44's is about zero since those boxes are extremely rare and very expensive when found.

The latest box and label is the black and white label and new instructions that date to about the turn of the century and beyond. What is very interesting is that this box design remains constant for many years there after. No variations of same. That should tell us something. I'm also convinced that this later type box is clearly a factory box.

All that I have studied and the information compiled point in the direction that the early boxes prior to 1900 are at the very least often Distributor made boxes. To what extent is unknown but there are a significant variety of boxes found prior to 1900. After 1900 the factory box types stay the same for many years for all calibers and variations of revolvers that I documented. This includes the Perfection model, M&P's, lady Smith's, early hand ejectors. This is what I personally would expect from a factory shipped box. Simple pattern with very clear transitions when they occurred. Those patterns are very clear post 1900!!

Murph

BMur · #57 10-02-2020, 03:21 PM

Just a small example of the consistent box theme post 1900.

Murph

first-model · #58 10-02-2020, 03:29 PM

Murph, two questions:

Question 1. If distributors were making boxes, as you've posited, then why aren't they marked by the dealers accordingly? It seems like this would be an easy self-promotion opportunity. Some dealers did this on the guns themselves; Benjamin Kittredge and a few other lesser-known dealers come to mind.

Question 2. Why do you think that there was an abrupt change in or around 1900? What changed in the industry and/or marketplace that would have precipitated this?

Mike

BMur · #59 10-02-2020, 05:12 PM

Mike,
They actually did mark the boxes. The way I approach research is along the lines of the big picture. I use a ton of cross referencing material to achieve a bigger picture of what was going on during the time frame in question. This really is why I often see these boxes as Distributor made "early on" and prior to 1900. Research and cross referencing proves that they often were. Depending upon specific contracts and models with specific gun making firms.

If we focus only on Smith & Wesson antiques the result will be a tunnel view of what was happening during that time and only a partial view of the gun industry as a whole. A lot of my research was conducted based on the Norwich, Ct. firearms history and I admit it, I was drawn to that area because there is so much history there and very well documented information is available from the Historical Society that was a few years ago very active in gathering and storing that history. They had monthly research updates that were actually mailed to members. I still have all of them over a 12 year span. One of many places that I want to visit when this Virus thing ends! So many gun factory's in that area.

Sorry, I go off on tangents easily. Anyway, that research proves so much regarding gun making of that era. It also proves that some of the smaller gun makers would ship guns via a contract with specific Distributors to meet a Trade name Contract. One that I mentioned was "The Old Hickory" but there are several others that went all over the country in bulk. These boxes are Distributor made and marked with their specific logo. Often the trade name mimics their logo seen in their catalogs and the boxes are "often" picture boxes. In other words the gun is pictured on the lid...Not unlike the Baby Russian!

As far as the improvement in shipping being related to the box change? I simply asked that question in my research.....Was there an improvement in the shipping process in or around 1900 that would justify this box change and Up it came...It took a while but several sources concurred that the impact of the shipping improvements to the market were significant around the turn of the century. So I followed that lead and the information fits like a glove. They describe how horrible it was prior to 1900 and how much it improved after 1900. You plug that into this research and the Big picture widens a lot. If I hit a wall? I stop...I don't add to or take away from...You know when you are going down the wrong road. Nothing adds up.....but when you are going down the right road the information just keeps pouring in and keeps leading you in the same direction.

These Smith & Wesson boxes "Prior" to about 1900. I don't know the "Exact date" but it's close to that time frame...Anyway, they are a mess.... No pattern whatsoever. It makes so much sense if we plug in the Major Distributor. It all adds up....Plus one thing I didn't mention?

I honestly think that these early boxes are "ALL" from the East coast area. NONE of them is from beyond say Virginia because of the horrible shipping of that early era...That also adds up. In my mind we would see early Chicago Distributor boxes with their logo on them...Or San Francisco boxes....but I have seen none! ZERO.... Plenty of later boxes though! I guess the research is pointing to improvements in shipping post 1900 as the reason why. If you really think about it? There were a vast amount of improvements that took place at that exact same time. Just following patent research alone we could go on for hours.

Also, to be more specific regarding the shipping technique? The factory would follow the same procedure packing the guns in a shipping crate? The difference is when it arrived at the Rail yard? It would now go into a very secure shipping container that would add a significant amount of padding/packing and protection for the crate/box. Instead of simply stacking them one on top of another on a flat car. So this new technique provided the ability to ship the guns not only in the box? but much longer distances "in the box" without having to deal with product damage and claims or returns, etc.

Oh, lastly....the kittridge & Co marking the guns? I have an early lightning with a stamp on it.....They tend to be first year production and very low serial numbers...Not unlike the Colt Newline series that were labeled "Big Colt" "Pet Colt" Pee Wee Colt? Those were also very low serial number guns..So, introduction to the market. Also fits the Early Baby Russian/ M. Robinson marked boxes...tended to be lower serial numbered guns.....Introduction to the market.

Murph

TheHobbyist · #60 10-02-2020, 06:09 PM

It has been a long week (for me)...but I have a suggestion.

@ the OP, could you narrow down the focus of the post to a major premise or thought and then, just a few supporting statements or questions for feedback that are perhaps more focused?

I'm not 'picking on you' by any means and I think it's cool you are asking the questions, who, when, why, and where.

I feel like you will get more mileage sticking closer to the original post. Generally speaking, information like this Pre-WWI takes a lot of research. Maybe organize it a bit more, narrow it down, then repost?

Again, I understand the thought process of brainstorming and thinking out loud, but it's hard to have a focused discussion and my head hurts.

first-model · #61 10-03-2020, 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

They actually did mark the boxes.

Can you show me a photo of a dealer-marked Smith & Wesson box from the era that we're talking about (let's say, somewhere in the vicinity of the Baby Russian)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

The way I approach research is along the lines of the big picture. I use a ton of cross referencing material to achieve a bigger picture of what was going on during the time frame in question. This really is why I often see these boxes as Distributor made "early on" and prior to 1900. Research and cross referencing proves that they often were. Depending upon specific contracts and models with specific gun making firms.

Your original theory was that Smith & Wesson boxes from the latter half of the 1800's were being made (or sourced) by distributors, and that the Smith & Wesson pistols were shipped to the wholesalers in separate wooden shipping creates. Some other gun manufacturers may have done this at that time, and that this likely included making guns that were privately labelled by other parties (including the distributors). But that doesn't make any of this true for Smith & Wesson.

The only 19th century Smith & Wesson that I've ever seen in a factory shipping crate were some of the Schofields, which we know were shipped thus because they were for large military contracts (and not for resale). Because they weren't being resold, there would be no reason to put them in individual boxes.

If any other 19th century guns were shipped in crates (as opposed to in individual cardboard boxes), then why do none of these crates survive? And again, I'm talking about Smith & Wesson. I know other manufacturers did different things, but one cannot extend that to Smith & Wesson by virtue

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

If we focus only on Smith & Wesson antiques the result will be a tunnel view of what was happening during that time and only a partial view of the gun industry as a whole.

You're changing your premise now. You started off talking about Smith & Wesson boxes (which is appropriate since this is the S&W forum). Now you're making broader abstractions about the industry as a whole, and drawing a false equivalency to Smith & Wesson.

There's a lot of logical fallacies in this; you can't move the goalposts to suit your argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

Anyway, that research proves so much regarding gun making of that era. It also proves that some of the smaller gun makers would ship guns via a contract with specific Distributors to meet a Trade name Contract.

Then, like now, there was an entire industry of making goods that were "private labeled" for individual shops / wholesalers / jobbers. But that's not what Smith & Wesson was doing; to my knowledge, every S&W gun from this era was been sold under the Smith & Wesson name.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

As far as the improvement in shipping being related to the box change? I simply asked that question in my research.....Was there an improvement in the shipping process in or around 1900 that would justify this box change and Up it came...It took a while but several sources concurred that the impact of the shipping improvements to the market were significant around the turn of the century. So I followed that lead and the information fits like a glove.

Which is all fine and good, but you still haven't described what these changes are. Yet another claim that is being made without any substance to support it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

These Smith & Wesson boxes "Prior" to about 1900. I don't know the "Exact date" but it's close to that time frame...Anyway, they are a mess.... No pattern whatsoever. It makes so much sense if we plug in the Major Distributor. It all adds up....Plus one thing I didn't mention?

What's a "mess" about it? I've actually seen pretty remarkable consistency in these boxes. So much so, that I think most people conclude that there was one, or a very small number of box manufacturers.

There's a principle called "Occum's Razor." It states that when you have two competing explanations, the simpler one is usually closer to the truth. It's far simpler to conclude that Smith & Wesson contracted with one, or a small number of box manufacturers to make the pasteboard boxes that were used in the 19th century.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

I honestly think that these early boxes are "ALL" from the East coast area. NONE of them is from beyond say Virginia because of the horrible shipping of that early era...That also adds up.

Another false conclusion.

Manufacturing was concentrated in the American northeast through most of the 19th century. There's a lot of reasons for this, but the simplest explanation is that the Southern economy was still largely based on the production of raw agricultural goods. Manufacturing in the South was very much a 20th century phenomenon.

That doesn't have anything to do with whether it was gun manufacturers or wholesalers making the boxes, though ... that's a broader reflection of the economy of the era.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

In my mind we would see early Chicago Distributor boxes with their logo on them...Or San Francisco boxes....but I have seen none! ZERO....

Exactly. Nor do we see boxes with dealer logos from New England. Because they weren't making their own boxes—at least, not for Smith & Wesson guns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

Plenty of later boxes though! I guess the research is pointing to improvements in shipping post 1900 as the reason why. If you really think about it? There were a vast amount of improvements that took place at that exact same time. Just following patent research alone we could go on for hours.

I just plotted patent grants by year, and I see nothing to support this claim. The curve rises with a flat slope until WW2, when there was a noticeable drop in patents. After WW2 the pace of patents picked up again, and I see a real upward swing in the 1980's.

More inventive fiction on your part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

The factory would follow the same procedure packing the guns in a shipping crate? The difference is when it arrived at the Rail yard? It would now go into a very secure shipping container that would add a significant amount of padding/packing and protection for the crate/box. Instead of simply stacking them one on top of another on a flat car. So this new technique provided the ability to ship the guns not only in the box? but much longer distances "in the box" without having to deal with product damage and claims or returns, etc.

Interesting—my research has suggested the exact opposite ... that the packing creates were loaded onto the rail cars exactly as they were delivered to the rail yards. Over time standards were developed in terms of shipping container size, but that had nothing to do with who was doing the packaging.

Murph, here's the funny thing about all of this: what's the point that you're trying to make? In the decades of scholarship on Smith & Wesson, the question of who made the boxes has never really been considered all that important, in part, because the boxes don't vary that much. Sure, we see a few over-stamps and pencil marks and even a few dealer labels, but none of that suggests that anyone other than Smith & Wesson were supplying the boxes. And very minor variations in the label could easily have come about from different production runs, or a change in the box supplier—all things that could easily happen in the course of regular business.

What's your point?

Mike

BMur · #62 10-04-2020, 01:48 AM

I'm sure that "The Hobbyist" has a full blown Migraine after that lengthy post.

The Premise of this thread was "Pasteboard boxes". Boxes that were extremely common and actually identical in many cases to other gun manufacturers boxes of the exact same period.

There I go again talking about anything else but Smith & Wesson is not allowed but actually this thread is technically not about Smith & Wesson's. So the purists need to take a pill. It's about pasteboard boxes with a simple "Sticker" on them or in some rare cases a picture of a Smith & Wesson "glued" on top or on the front of the box.

That is the simple truth. We are talking about cardboard boxes!!! If I was to peel off the Smith & Wesson sticker and paste it on a Merwin & Hulbert cardboard box of the exact same era, post a photo on this thread, Not one member would be able to tell the difference. Identical! Not patented, not a singular box maker, unless we are suggesting that gun makers from all over the East were shopping at the same box makers establishment? That is a ridiculous concept. Take that 500 mile train ride to New York Johnny and pick me up 150 more cardboard boxes so I can ship these guns to Baltimore. ??????

Questions that I posted have gone basically ignored.
But the "demands" for my sources and attempts to "Trash" my research seem to never end. How about answering some of my questions first:

Such as:
"Do you honestly think that Smith & Wesson shipped 800 Baby Russians to The Baltimore Police in Picture boxes"???

How exactly did pasteboard boxes survive the 2900 mile trip from Springfield to San Francisco undamaged by rail in 1880?

How do you account for Presentation boxes? and these are "IDENTICAL" to Smith & Wesson stickered pasteboard boxes!! Locations over 300 miles from Springfield!!!!

Singular shipping and crating of Winchester rifles prior to 1900? That's "crating" ONE SINGLE GUN.??

Then by some miracle they were shipped in cardboard sectional boxes after 1900 in Shipping containers?

Why didn't they cardboard ship the rifles prior to 1900?

A clear photo of a Smith & Wesson revolver "BLOWN Through" one of these "Robust" pasteboard boxes....Oh, they were tougher when new! New or old? It's cardboard with no packing material between the heavy gun and the box. Simple momentum will cause the gun to damage the box in transit. Very simple to imagine and comprehend but the purist will never believe it.

How do you account for instruction labels missing from Smith & Wesson stamped boxes and purposely replaced with an Ideal loading tool add"?

How do you account for "significant" variances in instructions on early boxes?

These instruction variations have absolutely nothing to due with labels. There is no time frame to them "Prior to about 1900".

The Red ink corrections on the Baby Russian instructions?

The purposely cut out M. Robinson on the instruction labels?
etc. etc. etc.

I have many more items of interest in my research that include more photo's of boxes with "Distributor labels on them" but it will never be enough for the "Smith & Wesson purists"...

Methods of production "are" applicable, patterns of production "are" applicable, cross referencing is most definitely applicable. Unless we want to remain ignorant of the truth? Which of course is often the Purists position.

It's also obvious that Smith & Wesson did not manufacture trade named guns but they were not exempt from typical patterns of production that were very common to "ALL" gun makers of that time period!!!

They most definitely contracted large quantities of guns to Major Distributors often in bulk. Some M. Robinson purists actually did not believe that until I posted multiple photo's from my Distributor catalog collection and then was falsely accused of unethical behavior for posting "PARTIAL" Factory letters that also prove that the Factory shipped guns "Directly to other Distributors" as far away as San Francisco!!

That's 2900 miles by Rail....Use and open mind when you imagine that distance in 1880 by old train and not machine laid track! Hand laid track prior to bulk cargo storage in shipping containers. Stacked one on top of the other and roped down on a flat car!!

When I can prove that several other Gun makers used the exact same methods, production patterns, shipping patterns, boxing patterns. This includes the same "MAJOR DISTRIBUTORS" that also received Smith & Wesson revolvers! Why exactly is that not applicable to Smith & Wesson of the exact same time period?

Only the Purist can answer that question!

Murph

mrcvs · #63 10-04-2020, 08:44 AM

I don't know about you, but this thread is really making my head spin!

Let's think about this logically.

Smith & Wesson needed to ship their revolvers to a distributor in something. A box is merely packaging material. Nothing more, nothing less. To maximize profit, Smith & Wesson is going to want to source these as cheaply as possible. Which means obtaining them as easily and cheaply as possible, especially in an era when the costs of both communication and shipping were far greater than today. This means using C C Taylor & Co, also located in Springfield.

C C Taylor & Co is also going to want to maximize profit. This explains variations in boxes seen today. If a green cloth for covering boxes was the cheapest cloth available, that might be used. Maybe months or years later, red or orange cloth is more prevalent at cheaper cost. As for printing variations, lead type was used then, each letter being individually set, and disassembled from a cohesive unit once no longer needed. And could be collectively reassembled when needed as well, perhaps not identical to the first set unit. I'm sure there is better terminology for all this, but this is the basic idea here.

The box was simply a means from getting from point A to point B as cheaply as possible at minimal cost. Most guns were tools, which is why most found today are well used. Most boxes were discarded once the revolver was purchased. The distributor was also desirous of maximizing profits, so they would be unlikely to repackage in another box once revolvers arrived from Smith & Wesson.

When the motivating factor of PROFIT is considered, it all becomes very logical.

As far as damage to boxes in shipment, it helps to think of this purely using physics. Work = force x distance; work is defined as simply the force expended to move an object a certain distance. If the boxes are new, and not well over a century old, it takes a lot of work to puncture one, as new. A significant amount of force over a great distance. If boxes are in a crate on a train, and a train does not stop on a dime, damage is unlikely, barring catastrophe in transit, such as an abrupt stop due to collision, abrupt jarring needed to puncture a box is unlikely. The revolvers within the boxes are traveling the same speed as the boxes they are contained within. These boxes are packaged together so probably, in most cases, a box next to another box means there are two layers of cardboard box between each revolver. Lastly, thinking about work = force x distance, the mass of a Baby Russian being what it is, it would be able to provide little force and, being in a well contained cardboard box, would travel little distance within its shipping box, thereby resulting in very little work produced.

Thinking about the cardboard boxes yet another way, there is no reason to have to even source such a ubiquitous object that is not unique (e.g., not a patented object) anywhere other than as locally as possible, unless the most local source is prohibitively expensive. Given the high cost of shipping in the 1870's, the local producer might even be slightly higher than more distant competitors and still be the most viable option. Also, economy of scale suggests that if a large number of boxes were needed, there likely would be a volume discount.

Let's now think of this from a more modern perspective. If a fragile object such as eggs can today be shipped in a cheap egg carton, with few eggs broken, a cheap locally produced cardboard box will surely be of little concern. Especially when you consider that tractor trailer trucks stop much more abruptly than trains do.

One other thing came to mind. Daniel B Wesson and Horace Smith would VERY LIKELY wish to patronize local businesses, like the one owned by C C Taylor, as they likely belonged to the same civic or fraternal organisations. If C C Taylor and Smith and/or Wesson were Masons, for example, they would likely have patronized each other to the maximum extent possible.

first-model · #64 10-04-2020, 09:08 AM

You know, Murph, I finally figured out your game.

When you talked about your .41 rimfire book some time ago, you talked about what a swirl of controversy there was around it. I scratched my head at the time because I'd never heard of such a thing. When people talk about "controversy" in the antique gun world, I think about R. L. Wilson ... but the .41 Rimfire? I'd never heard a peep about that. Nor did I have any preconceptions about the potency of the round ... I've never had a desire to get shot at by any caliber, and that includes the .41 rimfire.

But it has now become clear to my exactly what you meant. I'm sure that you tormented some poor forum back before you wrote that book, positing a bunch of ridiculous theories and offering "proofs" that amounted to nothing. You probably got people there just as riled up as you do here, and then you released your book. And like every good huckster, you continued to hype the "controversy" to help you sell books. "Everyone else got it wrong, but I'm the standard bearer of the truth" was your war cry.

Your book was just an extension of your posts—lots of ridiculous claims and grandiose statements, and nothing of substance to back them up. A jumbled collection of words with no coherent narrative.

I'll remind you that the title of this thread is "Antique S&W cardboard gun boxes." That was YOUR title. Your second sentence was "Who made them has been addressed by a 'singular' maker but I'm not a believer." So no, this thread wasn't about larger box trends in the industry, or whether some companies made private label guns. It was about S&W boxes from the 19th century and who made them.

I'm not going to answer your questions. Not because I can't (in fact, I think most of them have clear and logical answers that even you could arrive at), but rather because this is one of your many obfuscation techniques.

There's a logical fallacy called "burden of proof." It goes like this: the burden of proof rests on the person making the original assertion. You've asserted that distributors and wholesalers and jobbers were making boxes for Smith & Wesson guns, which were being shipped to them from the factory in wooden shipping crates. The burden of proof rests on you. Accordingly, I owe you no answers; the assertions weren't mine to begin with.

You've clearly marked "us" as the "purists" that will never believe you. By dividing the community between "us" and "you," you've now got the controversy for your next "book." And I use the word "book" loosely.

The good news is that your next "book" isn't any real threat, because it'll be as poorly executed, as disjointed, and as full of ridiculous claims as your posts here are.

And here's the really sad part about this. Some years back I did a symposium presentation about the importance of the wholesalers and distributors. My whole point was that there hasn't been enough research and scholarship done on this topic. If we're going to talk about the firearms industry in the 1800's, we need to develop a clearer understanding of what the distributors were doing and how they were doing it, because that was as much a part of Smith & Wesson's success as their high quality engineering and manufacturing. That's where the focus of my own research has shifted ... and while I don't claim to know everything, I have a pretty solid body of research from which to discuss this.

Murph, there's no great conspiracy afoot to protect the "establishment's" ideas and thinking. The vast majority of gun collectors I've met are thirsting for new literature and new ideas. But they're also not fools, and new ideas deserve to be given a healthy dose of scrutiny.

In this forum you're surrounded by some of the world's leading authorities on antique guns. A few of them have tried to engage you in this thread, and you've roundly discounted them.

I remember a history class from some years ago, in which the professor told us that the best compliment a historian can be paid is to have his writing critiqued by another historian. We all bring our own biases and preconceptions to our work, and it's inevitable that we'll get something wrong. When another historian critiques your work, it's not simply to attack you ... in most cases, it's because you were probably on to something, but you perhaps took a wrong turn somewhere in your research.

Good historians—amateur or otherwise—actively seek out the criticism and use it to sharpen their pencil. Instead, you've chosen to use the criticism to manufacture controversy and to martyr yourself.

It's sad. I expect better from a Navy man.

Mike

BMur · #65 10-04-2020, 01:06 PM

What about the list of questions I posted? Once again ignored. Except for the Robust cardboard box of the 1870's? Not good enough to ship a Winchester but a 44 Smith and Wesson? NO problem? Riding somehow safely on the Early "hand laid" train track? With the early train riding gently across the 2900 mile Trek to San Francisco through Indian territory and rough terrain?

There was no such thing as a smooth ride on the early train!!...Sure, you can go ride an Antique Steam train from say Fort Bragg to Willits....Beautiful countryside, the sound of the train whistle, and the long 3 hour trip through forest and open valley? You can even tell your grandson...."This is the way it was Johnny".....BS!

The train may be authentic but the "MODERN" ride is absolutely not! You are riding on modern track...Machine laid track on machine pounded ground that is often Gravel based. Very solid ground that in no way compares to early laid track!!

That is NOT the way it was in 1880. Track was hand laid by labor working gangs and laid on ground that was not machine worked by heavy equipment. The result was poorly spaced track, uneven ground, large gaps in track, ruts, divots, loose track. A heavy storm would change everything about the rail. The actual ride??? Would include surging left to right, shaking violently at times from the heavy train hitting ruts on the track. Even divots from uneven ground caused by storms and settling were also a real problem and would often cause derailing and very hard bumps when running over this type of uneven track.
Early cars were not as securely fastened as modern cars so the early train ride would involve constant surging often to a point of whiplash. These problems were NOT ironed out until 1900. Until then the tracks were constantly being repaired and replaced along the lines. Especially those lines that crossed mountain ranges! Following patents from that era you can witness continued improvements to rail cars and the primitive designs of rail cars from that era.

My Uncle was actually an engineer and I would listen to his stories as a kid in the early 1960's from his experiences in the 1930's. The photo I posted was a wreck he was in from loose track where he was actually the engineer and lost his thumb from the locomotive rolling off the track and this was "Machine laid track"...not hand laid track from the 1880's. The track had come loose and caused the derailment.

I honestly don't know how we can't open our minds to the reality of the way it was in those early days. Sure, train travel was much better than a freight wagon or a covered wagon on the Santa Fe trail? but early train travel wasn't much better, that's a fact! It was in no way smooth or cardboard package safe.

That's why they shipped Winchester rifles in "singular" heavy crates prior to 1900. The general improvements in the lines completed and improvements in shipping is what allowed the safe long distance shipping of cardboard packed goods.

That's why cardboard box shipping wasn't generally used prior to 1900. Only crate shipping was used.

That's also why the 800 Baby Russians that shipped to the Baltimore Police in 1876/1877 were also shipped in crates, not pasteboard boxes. Because that's the only way they would have made it to Baltimore without damage from that very rough ride from early hand laid rail.

Murph

mrcvs · #66 10-04-2020, 02:44 PM

I wouldn't say that train travel back then wasn't necessarily a smooth ride back then, but it wasn't wholly the jarring ride you describe, either. Plus, most revolvers remained on the east coast because that's where most of the population was. A relatively short train trip from Springfield to NYC in most cases, most often not much further than that.

Maybe the reason why some boxes have dividers and others don't is perhaps dividers were utilized in boxes traveling further afar or less tame routes?

reddog81 · #67 10-04-2020, 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

My posts are very lengthy already,

How long do you want me to make it? I have no problem sharing "some" of what I find after spending hours researching but I definitely have a problem sharing all of my homework with anyone. The information is out there and available to see and read if you know where to look.

So, basically....I'm done.

Murph

Your posts are extremely lengthy, but they provide absolutely no proof for the claims you make. Asking 20 questions (half of them only tangentially related to the topic at hand) does not provide any support for your claims. Provide some tiny shred of evidence to support your claims and the audience will be much more receptive.

Pictures of a Ideal mold ad inside a S&W box only proves that if distributors or retailers were paying for boxes that they would have included their name, advertisements for their brand and would be markedly different from the S&W standard. Your so called proof only makes your claims less likely.

I have a feeling first-model’s post is 100% spot on accurate.

BMur · #68 10-04-2020, 03:06 PM

Several of the major Distributors that received guns from Smith & Wesson were literally right next door to one another in New York. These Distributors are also known and proven to have boxes not only Identical to these Smith & Wesson boxes the only difference being the color, label, and instructions.

A great example and I know the purists will have a problem with this reference but it is applicable. Hopkins and Allen are proven gun manufacturers for Merwin & Hulbert. The Hopkins & Allen firm was located in Norwich, Ct. Merwin & Hulbert was located in New York.

I one was to perform a miniscule amount of research and examine Hopkins & Allen marked gun boxes and compare them to Merwin & Hulbert boxes? They are in no way alike. Since we know for a fact that Hopkins & Allen was in Norwich, Ct. Common sense research strongly suggests that Merwin & Hulbert was boxing their products in New York. The exact same box style that is seen with Smith & Wesson boxes of the exact same period.

Hodgkins & Haigh 300 Broadway St N.York
Schoverling Daly & Gales 302-301 Broadway St. N. York
H.H.Kiffe Co. 523 Broadway St. N. York

Charles Folsom 106 Chambers St. N. York
Merwin & Hulbert 83 Chambers St. N. York

Murph

reddog81 · #69 10-04-2020, 04:15 PM

That only shows the ability to buy boxes from the same supplier as S&W.

first-model · #70 10-04-2020, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

What about the list of questions I posted? Once again ignored.

I'm not doing your research for you. Answer your own questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

Except for the Robust cardboard box of the 1870's? Not good enough to ship a Winchester but a 44 Smith and Wesson?

If you can't imagine the difference between shipping a .44 Smith & Wesson handgun and a full-length Winchester rifle, then I can't help you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

That is NOT the way it was in 1880. Track was hand laid by labor working gangs and laid on ground that was not machine worked by heavy equipment. The result was poorly spaced track, uneven ground, large gaps in track, ruts, divots, loose track.

Now you're proving that you know very little about the railroads.

If we were describing tracks in the 1830's, then I would agree with you. But by the era that we're talking about (we are talking about the 1870's through the 1890's, right?), track construction was far more uniform and consistent. It was still brutal from a labor perspective, but that doesn't mean that it was poorly done.

It's also worth noting that trains weren't running at the high speeds that we think of now. I seem to recall that 30 mph to 40 mph was all that they were doing during this time. Since rail transport was primarily competing with steamship, there was little incentive to go faster than that. Slower rates of speed also meant a gentler journey for the people and goods on board.

And a bit of history for you: the Pacific Railroad Act was passed by Congress in 1862. The first trans-continental railroad was complete by 1870, and there were at least three more by the end of the century. During this three decade time span the amount of track in our country almost quadrupled.

No track was perfect, of course, but tracks were being continually improved. Things weren't uniformly "terrible" and then magically "better" after 1900; it was a continual process of improvements and refinements, both to the tracks themselves, the processes involved in laying the tracks, and to the rail cars.

In fact, railroads became so enormous and so complex by the 1880's that we saw the full development of the modern business enterprise: professionally managed departments, elaborate cost accounting, etc.

And I know that this is somewhat tangential to your argument, which is that the ride was insufferably bad. Of course, none of us were alive in 1880 to speak to this firsthand, but given that the volume of goods being moved by rail was increasing exponentially during this time, I very much doubt the veracity of your claims that it was insufferable. America would not have become the economic powerhouse that it became if it was as bad as you claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

I honestly don't know how we can't open our minds to the reality of the way it was in those early days.

Murph, the only person here that isn't open to the "reality of the way it was" is you.

Have you ever actually read a book on the railroads? Or is all of your knowledge divined from childhood conversations with your uncle?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

That's why they shipped Winchester rifles in "singular" heavy crates prior to 1900.

No, you're patently wrong.

The Winchester rifle was a much longer and heavier object. Unlike a handgun, there's a real risk of bending a rifle if it isn't handled properly. Ergo, it's appropriate for a rifle to be packaged in a much sturdier container. And, interestingly, rifles eventually did eventually start shipping in cardboard boxes; every Ruger rifle I've ever owned was shipped in a cardboard box. So it's clearly possible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

That's why cardboard box shipping wasn't generally used prior to 1900. Only crate shipping was used.

And yet, you can offer no "proof" of this claim. You have nothing. Zilch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

That's also why the 800 Baby Russians that shipped to the Baltimore Police in 1876/1877 were also shipped in crates, not pasteboard boxes.

Has Roy Jinks confirmed this claim? He has the factory records from this era; surely if this were true, there would be mention of this in the day book.

Everything else you're offering is conjecture ... and we could drive a city bus through the many loopholes you're ignoring.

By the way: do we have any surviving shipping crates from this era for Smith & Wesson pistols, other than a small handful of surviving Schofield crates that were used for military shipments?

No, we don't. We don't, because they never existed.

Mike

mrcvs · #71 10-04-2020, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by first-model

The Winchester rifle was a much longer and heavier object. Unlike a handgun, there's a real risk of bending a rifle if it isn't handled properly. Ergo, it's appropriate for a rifle to be packaged in a much sturdier container. And, interestingly, rifles eventually did eventually start shipping in cardboard boxes; every Ruger rifle I've ever owned was shipped in a cardboard box. So it's clearly possible.

By the way: do we have any surviving shipping crates from this era for Smith & Wesson pistols, other than a small handful of surviving Schofield crates that were used for military shipments?

No, we don't. We don't, because they never existed.

Mike

I quoted the two sections of your lengthy post I wished to comment about.

1) Very correct! Rifles to this day are shipped in cardboard boxes, usually without a hitch. Again, the "work" taken to damage a box by a firearm in transit, this being force x distance, a much larger rifle would by default create much more force than a tiny Baby Russian. If this was so problematic, manufacturers would have abandoned cardboard shipping boxes decades ago.

2) Since the pasteboard/cardboard box functioned just fine, there was no need for these crates to even exist, which is why they are not found anywhere today. Had they been utilized, they might be rare or uncommon, but a few would have turned up somewhere, even in a well used state. Just like today, a wooden crate can serve later purposes later and some might still have been discarded immediately after use, but other more frugal minded individuals would have repurposed them back in the day and some would be showing up somewhere as an attic or basement find, had they ever existed at all.

mmaher94087 · #72 10-04-2020, 10:24 PM

"..the Pacific Railroad Act was passed by Congress in 1862." This also established the 'standard' gauge, used to this day, to be 4' 8 1/2" between rails whereas the 'narrow' gauge was anywhere between 1' 11 1/2" and the more common 3' 6". This made for a stable base to ship goods by rail.

BMur · #73 10-05-2020, 12:07 AM

Well,
Actually, I have done a lot of reading and research on the early Railroads. Uncle Bill told great early stories but the modern world provides a more detailed account of transitions only. My Uncle told me what it was actually like. His years of experience did not come across to me like it was a great and smooth ride. Not even in the 1930's.

Achieving standards mentioned by Mike was no simple task. Quality standards didn't exist in the early railroads. Methods were not standardized until about the turn of the century "country wide". You can read about early standards but in order to actually meet those standards in that early period required machines and years of labor...Not just manual labor like the early rail. Manual labor or the laying of track without machines and clearly followed methods resulted in poorly laid track. People are not the same. Work gangs are not the same. Some bust butt. Some are lazy. Some knew what they were doing and some had no clue. Just like today!!

Work gangs often included prison labor.(see photo).... Early photo's of train track was both disorganized and in no way standardized. Take a good look at that track! Uneven, poorly laid, no drainage, different ties of different shapes and sizes, ruts, twists, etc. Is this the steady smooth ride track sitting on a dirt base that you are trying to sell me on?

Drainage for track is monumental. see photo. Early track very often lacked minimal drainage or good base rock for a solid foundation for the ties and track, resulting in gross settling, loosening of rails, widening of track, uneven track, ruts, heavy bumps, bending of track, tilting of track.

Look at what the desert heat can do to rails if they are not fastened correctly? see photo of heat bent track. Doesn't look too smooth a ride to me!

Look again at the requirement for modern track with two layers of drain rock? Was this possible with work gangs? NO it wasn't. So the track would warp, sink, spilt, become uneven, etc. What impact would that have on the ride?

You guys are dreaming if you think these codes and improvements all happened overnight. The 1880's railroad was filled with these examples of poorly laid track country wide. Granted, the track was improved gradually but it took many, many, years of improvements and labor backed up by improvements in heavy equipment to actually install this drainage, and implement these new codes and requirements.

Also, this "Missing Crate" concept is interesting but it honestly means little to me. A crate is a crate. Why would it be saved or show up at some auction? Unless there was some reason to save the crate. How do you know that the crate was even stamped "Smith & Wesson"? It may have only been stamped with numbers representing a shipping ID and destination. Which was often the case with shipping crates. But you already knew that right? A lot of these so called early crates don't even date to the 1800's...Many of them are early 1900's when shipping was typically secured in large containers.

Murph

first-model · #74 10-05-2020, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

Also, this "Missing Crate" concept is interesting but it honestly means little to me.

Interesting comment from someone that is so concerned about the surviving boxes themselves. I thought your whole intention was to do a survey of surviving boxes? Now you're surveying crates that don't exist?

Quote:

Originally Posted by BMur

A crate is a crate. Why would it be saved or show up at some auction? Unless there was some reason to save the crate. How do you know that the crate was even stamped "Smith & Wesson"?

I don't think you even know what you're arguing at this point.

Your original contention was that the guns were *not* shipped from Smith & Wesson in pasteboard boxes, but rather that the guns were stacked in a custom made shipping crate that would cradle each gun individually (some military guns like the Mosin Nagant were shipped this way). You also argued that the wholesalers—not Smith & Wesson—were sourcing the pasteboard boxes and packaging the guns accordingly.

The "evidence" you've presented to support this theory is that the railroads were (in your opinion) too rough for the guns to survive the journey in a pasteboard box. You've also argued that the minor variations in the pasteboard boxes "prove" that they were being sourced by the wholesalers.

None of this is "proof" of anything, of course. The whole thing about the railroads is conjecture, based on conversations you had with an uncle as a child. I have warm childhood memories too, but they don't form the basis of my historical theories. And you have absolutely no "proof" that wholesalers were sourcing boxes for Smith & Wesson guns, outside of some fancy presentation cases that we all know were sourced separately.

There's a very basic problem with this whole theory about wholesalers and boxes: if the wholesalers were sourcing the pasteboard boxes, then how did the guns then survive the journey from the wholesaler to the end retailer? The ride from Springfield to New York City was a short hop on one railroad; it would have paled in comparison to the ride from NYC to Charleston, or New Orleans, or San Francisco, or even Chicago. Surely you're not suggesting that the guns and the wholesaler-sourced boxes were shipped separately? Nobody would have wanted to manage the nightmare logistics (and extra shipping costs) of shipping them separately. And if a wholesaler received a shipment of a hundred guns, surely you don't think that they then contracted a bunch of smaller shipping crates to handle shipments of one, five or ten guns to an individual retailer?

This is ridiculous. It makes what should be a very simple transaction ludicrously complicated.

The most logical answer to all of this is that the guns were shipped from the factory in pasteboard boxes, and that they were shipped from the wholesaler in the same pasteboard boxes. They were almost certainly stacked brick-like in some sort of generic outer shipping container, which would have kept the guns fairly still and inside of the boxes.

If the wholesaler wanted to overstamp the box or paste in an advertising label, then they could have done that after-the-fact ... but the labor involved there would have been minimal.

Most importantly, using Smith & Wesson sourced boxes would have saved labor for the wholesalers, who wanted to minimize their handling of the product. Time that they have to spend handling the product is money lost; their preference would unquestionably have been for S&W to supply the boxes, and for the gun to ship inside of the box.

Mike

glowe · #75 10-05-2020, 12:43 PM

Would you guys please let this thread die!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Even though I ignore this member, I still see he posted about 40 times, with what must be a record of 10 unanswered posts in a row!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Paul Kolbenstvedt · #76 10-08-2020, 07:26 AM

I do collect the cardboarboxes and have a lot of different ones. Often you have the different colours on the label for blued and nicle. what puzzels me is that I have never found a box for a blued 32 S&W double action. You find for the safety in 32 and 38. also the 38 da`s. Does anyone have one?

mmaher94087 · #77 10-08-2020, 12:41 PM

Paul, they DO exist. Over the years, I have owned 15 .32 DA's in boxes but only four were blue. The four blue revolvers were all 3 1/2".

model3sw · #78 10-13-2020, 09:52 PM

Please wait.

OK, now I have a cold brew and a bag a chips, in hand ... please continue !
This is almost as funny as a Maury Povich show.

Oyeboteb · #79 10-16-2020, 02:19 AM

So...

If I read this right...an important part of the question is...

How were S & W Revolvers packaged for shipment from S & W to various distant Distributors or Retailers, or, to whom-ever as may have been allowed to Order from S & W directly...

Given that such shipments could be a single Revolver, or could be a dozen or more various model Revolvers, or could be a Hundred or more at a time.

Military shipments we all know and agree were shipped from S & W to the designated Depot or whatever in Purpose-Built "fitted" Crates, same as everyone else did and had done since the Cap & Ball era, and which the Military required to be done in that way.

Yet we know of no such Crates or styles of Crates to have been used by S & W in shipping large Shipments of Revolvers to Distributors or Retailers.

So...how were such Commercial Shipments packaged?

Am I framing the essential question right?

mrcvs · #80 10-16-2020, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oyeboteb

How were S & W Revolvers shipped from S & W to various distant distributors or Retailers, or, to whom-ever as may have been allowed to Order from S & W directly...

Given that such shipments could be a single Revolver, or could be a dozen or more various model Revolvers, or could be a Hundred or more at a time.

So...how were such Commercial Shipments packaged?

I believe you hit the nail squarely on the head.

Yes, given that a commercial shipment might consist of one revolver, or 10, or 15, or 50, or 100, etc., the wide variety means that commercial shipments were not consistent, and each individual revolver would have been shipped in its cardboard/pasteboard box, as packaged in such by Smith & Wesson, as contracted out by them to have been produced by C C Taylor & Co, or other similar manufacturer.

But, how might several of these, 10, 20, 50, etc., been packaged to ship by rail? I'm guessing in durable brown (or otherwise) paper, bound with string, if a smaller shipment, or in a wooden box, if a larger shipment. I'm guessing this wooden box might have been fairly nondescript and unmarked as I'm sure that if they were stenciled with "Smith & Wesson", some collector somewhere would have one, or they would turn up in basements or attics somewhere. Many wooden boxes/crates get discarded after use, but many get repurposed, too.