Yes, Red, I know you were quoting Grant.  But it was you, not Grant, that drew the conclusion that my Catalog # 51 therefore had to be a revision (which, again, I grant you is very likely right).

Bill Lawrence

Stirring the pot, even more:

Quote:


He also, could have been as involved as everyone here at getting it right, too. It seems that Grant, may have concluded the same as this discussion has. Either with more or less info. It's really to bad that we can't go back and interview some of our historical, historians!!!

Who knows but, it's been a very interesting read, with excellent speculation, to boot

I think it was a long constructive discussion and may not be over?

Not to mention ( I love that phase), way OT to the original post.

Frank

For what it's worth, original Stevens Catalog # 53, the one that has the grayish-tan embossed cover titled Stevens Firearms and has 72 pages, is dated on both the cover and the title page 1911.  So I now say that Red is right that the Catalog # 52 which lists both the Model 404 and the "High Power" lever guns should be dated 1910.

Bill Lawrence

BP wrote on Oct 29^th, 2018 at 3:31am:


No, the war-profiteering greed of Stevens management accounts for that.

But no other gun company created such catalog confusion; even such a giant as Winchester was satisfied with one main catalog per yr, supplemented by separate flyers or brochures if some new product was introduced after its publication.

Numbering, rather than dating, catalogs was a common commercial practice (unfortunately!), the obvious purpose being to prevent a catalog from appearing "outdated" to customers. But Stevens refused even to be consistent in doing that--as if it was just "too much trouble" to change the number on the cover!  Compared to other large companies with strict protocols & procedures in writing for regulating every step in the mfg. process, I think that even after Stevens expanded into what they boasted was "the largest gun company in the world," their factories was still managed with an informality, or laxity in rule-making, that would have horrified the management of Winchester, Remington, Marlin.   

Redsetter wrote on Oct 29^th, 2018 at 9:25am:


Remember than Stevens plant was owned and controlled by New England Westinghouse during the war.

Got an answer from Rob Mouat, but all he could add was a name, the late Nick Niles, whom Rob said dated all their Stevens stuff.  No help to us, he being dead.   Ring any bells?

Rapid growth can lead to chaotic organization.  A glance at Tesla is all you need for proof.

I've long believed that Page grew the company on borrowed money, so when Westinghouse wanted a plant, all they had to do was talk to his lenders.  Saw this happen to a entrepreneurial friend/mentor when I was in my '20s.

uscra112 wrote on Oct 29^th, 2018 at 1:42pm:


Money can be borrowed, but where did Stevens find so many skilled workers so quickly:  from 150 in 1898 to 900 in 1901!   
Doesn't seem possible that many could simply be hired away from all the other gun makers & machine shops in the area.