Gray & Co telescope - production differences?

[webley701]

I’ve seen Gray & Co telescopes with serial numbers of over 4300 but I’m not sure if they started at 0001 or perhaps 1000.
Whatever the range in serial numbers may be - was there any differences in construction, lens coatings or quality during the production period?

 

[webley701]

Any info welcome.

 

[BenC]

As far as I’m aware the only change was is the leather, both case and on the telescope. The older ones were in darker leather then they changed to a much lighter tan almost like pigskin. I have one numbered 1910 and it’s the old bridle leather type. Someone else may have better info on them but they’re a great scope. I use mine on the hill up in Scotland and down south for evaluating trophy Roe, fantastic scopes

 

[webley701]

As far as I’m aware the only change was is the leather, both case and on the telescope. The older ones were in darker leather then they changed to a much lighter tan almost like pigskin. I have one numbered 1910 and it’s the old bridle leather type. Someone else may have better info on them but they’re a great scope. I use mine on the hill up in Scotland and down south for evaluating trophy Roe, fantastic scopes

Thanks for that. I assume your’s has the 30 Union Street address?

 

[BenC]

No problem at all and yes 30 union street. I was offered an awful out of money for it last year by an American chap but it’s indispensable and I don’t believe they make them now so I said no. The swaro spotting scopes are the only ones comparable in quality but they’re not the same to carry around.

 

[gerarddwatts]

The swaro spotting scopes are the only ones comparable in quality but they’re not the same to carry around.

....and they are too short to use properly as a stalking scope....

 

[webley701]

I’ve read mention of a ‘wide angle’ model - I got the impression from such comments (rightly or wrongly) that the later ones may have had a wider field of view than earlier ones. I’ve not this specifically mentioned in contemporary Gray & Co adverts.

 

[webley701]

I’ve read mention of a ‘wide angle’ model - I got the impression from such comments (rightly or wrongly) that the later ones may have had a wider field of view than earlier ones. I’ve not this specifically mentioned in contemporary Gray & Co adverts.

Further to my comments above, having done a bit of digging - below is telescope number 2210 with the later address, there’s mention of ‘wide angle’ on the box label.



Ditto for number 3460, below, which has an even later address.



However, the one below is number 1374, with the Union St address, the label lacks mention of ‘wide angle’



I wonder if there was a genuine difference or was it just a label change for ‘marketing’ reasons to particularly highlight a feature all the instruments possessed?
If it was a change, when may it have occurred in production other than somewhere between 1374 & 2210?

 

[BenC]

Mine isn’t boxed but my guess is that the scopes haven’t changed although they certainly changed the leather about a fair bit.

 

[webley701]

Dorset,
Thanks, yes the case colours have certainly varied with your’s being very appropriate. I’d like to imagine the case colour of 2210 (the top photo in my last post) looks different in reality!

 

[Freeforester]

There was indeed a change in spec and fov in the later models, my first one was around 1880, second was 3378, and definitely had a wider fov (and a better, bespoke case!)

 

[Fosbery Holster]

@webley701

Have you searched Grays on here yet ? or searched Ross scopes you’ll find interesting information about the Grays wherever you search.

 

[webley701]

@webley701

Have you searched Grays on here yet ? or searched Ross scopes you’ll find interesting information about the Grays wherever you search.

Thanks for the information regarding the wider FOV. Yes I’ve done a search, it was on the forum that I saw mention of the wide angle version hence my questions - actually it was one of your posts which mentioned it. I was unsure if in reality they were all ‘wide angle’ - obviously not from your experience.

It was also mentioned in a post on the forum that the Red Deer Commission had the first 20 made, there was a photo of one engraved with the Commissions name (number 1014) so presumably serial numbers range from 1000 to 1020? I wonder where the 20 all are, an interesting find for someone.

Caberslash did an excellent set of notes on Ross stalking telescopes. Gray & Co telescopes are on the one hand just a working tool for some owners but on the other they are a lovely part of sporting history & deserve to have their history recorded including related oral history whilst there are still plenty of people around (such as yourself) who knew the company. Some record of production differences is also handy for potential buyers.

 

[webley701]

There was indeed a change in spec and fov in the later models, my first one was around 1880, second was 3378, and definitely had a wider fov (and a better, bespoke case!)

Thanks for the info.
Might that solid looking case be one you’ve had something to do with?

 

[Freeforester]

Just as an aside, the darker tan coloured case shown at #8 might only be described to possibly be ‘like pigskin’ in terms of colour, for it has none of the hard wearing attributes of genuine pigskin, which was mostly used for riding saddle seats, as well as the often, though not always black leather handle/covering on original Ross glasses, and indeed I converted my original Gray’s glass to have a pigskin handle, being a bit underwhelmed with the supplied covering. Pigskin has a tell-tale wrinkled skin and pores that go all the way through, something absent from practically all other leathers, and is extremely hard wearing (Swaine Adeney etc used pigskin on their better quality seat sticks, etc).

The leatherwork with the Gray’s glass was always the only real detracting feature from an otherwise superb instrument, imv, they used a split hide on the handle area, and inferior quality leather for the cases, especially when compared to original Ross cases, which were made of superb and hard wearing leather, though unfortunately were no less vulnerable to neglect/forced drying out after wet days on the hill, etc.

Pigskin is typically used in saddlery at thicknesses under one millimetre, so would not be suitable for the outer telescope case, though eminently so for the hand rest on the body of the telescope itself. It has next to no stretch, hence its suitability for seats of various types, as stated.

 

[webley701]

Freeforester,

Thanks for that interesting post.

I do like the texture of pigskin but I didn’t realise it doesn’t stretch as much as other leathers.

I’ve had a Ross telescope & the case was impressively robust as you say. It was very thick leather on the Ross case but for whatever reason the leather seemed exceptionally stiff even allowing for the thickness. Is this ‘age hardening’ or due to some original process or…?

Whilst certainly not an inexpensive prospect, a run of a few ‘bespoke’ cases made to original Ross standards would I feel find buyers (nudge!)

 

[webley701]

To add something to the background of the Gray & Co telescope below are two extracts from their website c.2007-08 obtained via the ‘Wayback Machine’ website archive. Gray’s own website is now long gone.

The comments about being recently acquired by Grahams are contemporary to the date of the original website.

It’s been mentioned more than once on this forum that whilst the ‘early’ [sic.] Gray’s telescopes could be taken apart for cleaning the ‘later’ [sic.] ones couldn’t. The term ‘early’ was never defined; it presumably referred to the 3 draw telescopes retailed by Gray & Co (bearing their name) up to the late 1960’s, being made by the British optical trade. In the context it was used ‘later’ can only have referred to those actually made by Gray & Co from 1971 onwards.

One important point to note in the second extract is the statement that the Gray & Co telescope (i.e. the ‘late’ type) can indeed be taken apart if required (just like a Ross).

 

[Freeforester]

Freeforester,

Thanks for that interesting post.

I do like the texture of pigskin but I didn’t realise it doesn’t stretch as much as other leathers.

I’ve had a Ross telescope & the case was impressively robust as you say. It was very thick leather on the Ross case but for whatever reason the leather seemed exceptionally stiff even allowing for the thickness. Is this ‘age hardening’ or due to some original process or…?

Whilst certainly not an inexpensive prospect, a run of a few ‘bespoke’ cases made to original Ross standards would I feel find buyers (nudge!)

The lack of stretch in pigskin was its advantage, along with its great durability (see several old Ross glasses around still with good handles made of pigskin).

My old Ross had the case made of not overly thick hide, but it was extremely solidly built (double walled, as was deemed necessary to protect the glass which of course is relatively delicate) and nigh impossible to squeeze out of shape - I think they were this as a result of the making process (possibly wet moulded), but the top quality of the butt hide used had a lot to do with this.
In earlier times, we made quite a number of cases for Gray glasses for Hill men all over, they knew the value of the glass, but also the ‘worth’ of the supplied case! At one point Gray’s director Colonel Milne asked me to quote for one hundred telescope cases, but even at £34.50 per case (all hand made and out of proper bridle butt leather), a quote so cut to the bone I was in fact rather relieved when he advised me my price was ‘too dear’, there is a day’s work in making one properly. We continued to make them when professional stalkers who mostly knew each other did the advertising among their peers for our work. There is at least one case maker still making them, in the Highlands.

Colonel Milne advised me the lenses were of Schott glass, and by Schmidt and Bender, but I cannot confirm or otherwise as to this, I recall the discussion I had with him when I went to buy my first ‘big’ rifle ( - a Finnish Tikka M595 in .243 - I’d grown up stalking and shooting the roe using first the .22lr, then still legal, and later a ‘proper’ deer rifle - in the much loved .222!) - when I arrived at 30 Union St, the rifle was waiting for me as communicated, but with a somewhat increased price written on the tag than I’d been quoted, to which he commiserated somewhat with the young tyro, observing that “Alas, the Austrian Schilling had recently been somewhat devalued in the intervening period”….!

 

[Heym SR20]

I have a couple of Ross Scopes. One an aluminium with fixed magnification. Its well used, but a superb tool for the job. Its light to carry and optically moor than good enough to look over a stag at 1,000 yards.

The other is a brass tubed one with variable magnification. Also optically good, but its in good condition and somewhat heavier than the aluminium one. So it doesn’t get much exercise.

Do they have as good optics as a modern Swaro / Zeiss spotting scope. No. But then modern spotting scopes need tripods etc etc A scope on a tripod is ideal for watching and studying wildlife etc.

But a stalking scope is designed as an easy carrying optic that you use without the need of all sorts of other paraphernalia.

 

[bambislayer]

A bit of info.
The late Denis Ferranti [owned Meoble Estate] had 1001 & 1002.
My glass is 3195, which was made in 1993 and one of the 1st wide angled models using Schmitt & Bender lenses.