. . .

Nice find Joe, thank you for posting so we all can see it.
A small detail but I noticed a screw in the side of the action. I have seen that on other 44 1/2 actions that were factory chambered for .22RF. Any comments from our Stevens experts?

Looks like a Pope style palm rest, and lever. Maybe it's a Pope rifle? Never seen a scope with the large bell on the ocular end? I see the end looks shiny like it's polished metal, so either it's not rubber or the rubber is pretty shiny.
Really neat picture!!

Bill
Interesting question as to Joe's photo being Harry Pope. Here is a photo of Pope taken about 1900. People can look at both and draw their own conclusion.

I also noticed the nice balance point!

calledflyer wrote on Oct 20^th, 2018 at 3:30pm:


Actually, by the time this Stevens was in production, film with a speed fast enough for snap-shots was available, though it required sunlight or good lighting. Even something moving slowly could be "caught" with a minimum of blurring.  This kind of film made Kodak's Brownie series possible, & the first of those were available in 1900.

I've seen only a couple pictures of Pope in his earlier years, so can't comment on if the picture might be Pope. But considering the apparent age of the person in the picture, and if it indeed dates to the early 1900's, then I'd say it would certainly be from before Pope's departure from Stevens. I doubt he'd be caught posing with a Stevens rifle after the way things went at Stevens.
Pope was 40 in 1901, and left Stevens around 1904 I believe? His contract was longer, but he was paid for the entire contract, and then left. Soon after he headed to San Francisco where he lost everything in the earthquake and fire.

The deep eyes, high cheek bone, and shape of the ear look very similar to Pope.  Too bad the photo resolution and angle doesn't give little better view of his nose.

Usually Redsetter is at least very close to the mark if not dead on.  But his last post ... .   

First, if Harry sold all his equipment to Stevens, what did he set up shop with in 'Frisco? (And we know he did; in fact, he was set to open his new shop the day the quake hit.)

Second, even if Harry had a die-hard animus against Stevens, it would have been professionally and financially negligent of him not to use the 44-1/2 action as the basis for one of his rifles.  Or look at it this way:  Are the only Stevens actions with Pope barrels those made while Pope worked for them or before?

Hopefully, Warren Greatbatch will live long enough to finish his multi-volume Pope saga, and then you who can afford a set will finally know all the various truths about that fascinating and frustrating man.

Bill Lawrence

I think Harry was just an unfortunately unlucky in life perfectionist.

Might be my eyes but the forearm looks kind of blocky and crude?

True, Vall, but this isn't a Stevens rifle but a rifle built with some Stevens components.  In other words, my experience with crafts people, and Harry Pope was a supreme one, is that their pride rests in the final product, not the components (which, after all, aren't used unless they are worthy of the task).

So, again, did Pope never build, rebarrel, or rerifle a gun in New Jersey that had a Stevens action?  Or mount a Stevens scope? Or reuse a Stevens stock, lever, palm rest, buttplate, tang sight, etc.?

Also, it's news to me that Greatbatch is only the financier of the Pope project.  I thought he was the man with all the records.  If not, who does have them?  Who is doing all the research, etc.?  Whose name(s) should really be on the books produced so far and, hopefully, yet to come?

Bill Lawrence

Bill Lawrence wrote on Oct 20^th, 2018 at 10:34pm:


Supposedly Pope used his payout from Stevens when they bought his contract out to finance the move to San Francisco, and purchase new equipment. Of course Pope built his own rifling machines, so I'd guess he would purchase material in SF and build there also. 
But Ray Smith says he got his shop totally set up, as he was only there long enough to rent a space and finish setting up when the earthquake took his shop and everything in it.
He didn't return to Hartford for multiple reasons. Foremost being that he was broke. He took a job with Sidle building scopes to get by, but did not get along well there. He eventually was loaned funds by friends and acquaintances, and began his trek back East. He contacted Schoyen about setting up a partnership, but Schoyen had no need for more help. 
When he eventually arrived back East, he was estranged from his wife and family in Ct., so was given a space rent free in the Colgate building in Jersey City to set up his business. That business was financed again by friends, and he never prospered in barrel making again in his life. He made his last barrel in 1937, and none after that.
It's said that Pope's family found correspondence with a woman from San Francisco after his death, and concluded his move there after leaving his family was based on that relationship, or hope of a relationship?
Most of his personal letters were destroyed by the family after his death. He never had a good relationship with his children, but towards the end seems to have developed a bit of communication with his son Allen, according to people who knew him, and comments Allen Pope made later.

marlinguy wrote on Oct 21^st, 2018 at 12:17pm:


He couldn't get along with anybody in any sort of joint business venture.  Read that pathetic letter he wrote to Niedner after the Frisco fiasco, more or less begging to go into partnership with him...which Niedner had the good sense to decline. 

Redsetter wrote on Oct 21^st, 2018 at 12:49pm:


I think by that time Pope's reputation for not getting along had proceeded him, and probably why Niedner and Schoyen both rejected his offer to partner up. It could never have ended well. 
I also think that some of Pope's attitude stems back to him being orphaned and taken in by his uncle. Being elevated within the Pope company so quickly, and put in charge of the plant at a young age could likely have created a sense of self worth that lasted the rest of his life.

marlinguy wrote on Oct 21^st, 2018 at 3:35pm:


It's certain he never suffered from an inferiority complex!

marlinguy wrote on Oct 21^st, 2018 at 3:37pm:


It really was not what people would think. Cameras at the time were available cheaper than most rifles. So if you could afford a custom rifle, you could afford a camera and the equipment to develop the photo. This ad is from 1905 and bottom line quality. $100 would have been top tier.
(You need to Login or Register to view media files and links)

All I’m saying is people with cameras have been a pain since they became affordable. If the the photo is Pope, posing for a customer makes as much sense as anything else, maybe more.

marlinguy wrote on Oct 21^st, 2018 at 5:08pm:


This mythical story has been repeated so many times that it's now acquired a life of its own.  For ex., Wikipedia's history of the Pope Mfg. Co. identifies Harry as having an engineering degree from MIT. And of course, anything you read on Wiki HAS to be true!

By the way, Jay Leno owns & rides a 1918 Pope motorcycle that's one of the highlights of his huge collection; it, & many other fabulous bikes, can be seen in action on Jay's You Tube channel.

My first wife's son was in the Automotive Restoration Program at McPherson College when Jay Leno made his first visit there.  Mr. Leno was impressed with the program - then the only such run by an accredited 4-year college - to the point that he endowed it heavily over the next few years.  But what was most important to a select group of McPherson students, my step-son included, was that he had them on Tonight where they talked cars and Leno shamelessly plugged McPherson; and the next day he gave them a personal tour of his collection.  The memories are still radiant over 20 years later.

Bill Lawrence

Dellet wrote on Oct 21^st, 2018 at 6:32pm:


True, but portrait photos like the above weren't done with a Brownie! And although there might be some slight possibility it could be Pope, it's more likely it isn't.

marlinguy wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2018 at 9:39am:


Has it been out of the frame to look for a photographer's name & possibly address?  Even if the photo was made by an amateur using his own camera, the negative would have to be taken to a pro for enlargement.   

Hello All !

First, thank you to all of you who have shared a thought or opinion of the photo.  Personally I don't think it's H.M. Pope no matter how much I would like it to be.

Redsetter: The second photo is of the photo itself removed from the frame.  There is no name, city, etc. written on the photo itself or even on the inside lip of the frame.  That was the only reason I removed the photo from the frame after nervously removing each nail holding it in on the backside.  I can't imagine replacing oval slightly dome glass is cheap (or possible).  The photo took on a slight curvature to the glass and cannot be scanned.  I don't know if the curvature is original and intentional of if so previous own stacked things on it.  The photo enlarged (Photo No.3) is as good as it gets.

The forearm does look very chunky.  ... and the buttstock looks non-factory Stevens also.  Granted it's not perfectly clear but the barrel doesn't show a front or rear barrel sight or open dovetails.  It could just be the angle, but the barrel looks heavy and shorter than 30"

Joe

Well put Mr. Lawrence, and bless yor dad for knowing the difference.

I did some measurements, with a CAD program, that you can set a basic measurements of one area.

I used the receiver length of a 44 1/2 @ 1.5"

I get the following measurements, rounded to the nearest 1/4":

Barrel length = 24"

LOP = 13"

C/C distance of the scope blocks = 8.5"

Scope length from front to what ever the rear is = 18.5"

Frank

frnkeore wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2018 at 3:52pm:


What about the length of the octagon? And the forearm wood length?

Wow Frank!  It's forensic analysis applied to photography.  Nicely done!

Joe Do... wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2018 at 8:08am:


Now being done to match unknown human remains to photos of possible victims; it's how the members of the Romanov family were identified from their charred bones. But a scull or part of one is needed for the comparison. 

Think about the angle/OAL this way; 
1. receiver to barrel is a ratio
2. If they are angled, as in this case, both are still the same angle. Ratio doesn't change.
3. What may affect the measurement the barrel in this case is whatever effect the lens may have on the depth. I am just guessing about this but distance from the lens sure seems to affect perceived size of objects in some photographs.

Whatever the length of that barrel and whoever the man is, that is a really nice old picture!

I am also thinking about the rifle balancing on the palmrest, that palmrest could be adjusted to move that balance point from what was advantageous for offhand shooting to what was easy to hold for the picture.

The barrel is 17.75" long??? Sure that's correct? And octagon only 6.5" long?
Just looking at the man, and his build, I'd have guessed much longer on both measurements!

My not so precise ruler and dial calipers tell me the barrel is about 21.5" long. The octagon is 7.5" long, and LOP on the stock is 11.25" long. Forearm wood is about 8.35" long.

Based on a .5" equals 3" scale.

There ya go then. It's a rare Harry Pope glass barrel so you can just look to see if it's leading or has an obstruction, or the muzzle loaded round is fully inserted.
Or, despite, ol' Red telling us about faster film- maybe it was slow photography and the so-called balanced rifle had been supported by a helping hand, now removed by the touch up work. I want it to be the glass barrel

Rebel wrote on Oct 23^rd, 2018 at 6:19pm:

Why, Aaron?

The fact that it isn't just a straight photograph is interesting to me - it doesn't lessen its value, in my view.