BP wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 5:19pm:


Never imagined it had anything to do with the Stevens company!  When did any company ever hand-date catalogs?  But it's the kind of thing a customer might do, right after he got it.  The full date written in ink on the cover is same as that one you described,"9-1-1912," & it looks like old handwriting.

The 44-1/2 was introduced in 1903, at which time the 44 was cataloged as no longer available in any centerfire caliber larger than .32-20.

However, for some time prior to that, perhaps even before Catalog # 50 (1902), the 44 parts pages list both "old style" and "new style (central)" extractors.  Therefore, to best answer your question, those who have original, earlier catalogs must chime in until we find, at best, the last catalog that lists only one extractor and the first that lists two styles.

And by the way, I underlined original simply to emphasize that it's dangerous to consult Cornell "reprints" in this exercise.

Bill Lawrence

Bill Lawrence wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 6:48pm:


"Amen" to that!

As for the Model 404,  my devil's advocate argument is that Sharpe was closer in time to original sources.

Be that as it may, if by some miracle, Cornell got the dates more-or-less right on its Catalog # 52 "reprints" - i.e., 1907 and 1909 - I'd say there's very good chance that both Cope and Grant are right that there are multiple editions of Catalog # 52.  Moreover, since both the 404 and the "High Power" lever gun appear therein, I'd guess that if Flayderman is right, the Cornell "1909" Catalog # 52 can really be dated no earlier than "1910". 

So now my question is, how did Cope, a Canadian yet, conclude that there are 4 versions of Catalog # 52?

Bill Lawrence

Redsetter wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 6:51pm:

Redsetter,

Are you stating that the #52 in Grant's statement "the 404 listed in a #52" couldn't have been intended to be #53 instead?
A type setter could have accidently grabbed a 2 instead of an intended 3, that could have been missed during the proof-reading of Grant's book.
Such mistakes were not unknown to happen.

I agree with Bill when he says " those who have original, earlier catalogs must chime in ". 

BP wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 7:47pm:


Typos are always possible, but if you're going to raise that concern, look at all the other numbers & dates on almost every one of his pages that would be equally subject to typo errors; if any of them have been questioned, I haven't heard of it.

The "52 statement" I referred to appeared in his first book, so he had plenty of time to correct any mistake in his later books; which sometimes he did when new guns or info became available to him.   

Bill Lawrence wrote on Oct 27^th, 2018 at 8:42pm:


Maybe there were five!  One he never saw!  But his chronology makes sense--one new ed. per yr.  What a shame Stevens' original practice of dating their catalogs was discarded in favor of the numbering system!