diana/original history

[sarpaul]

was wondering if anyone can shed any light on a diana/original conundrum... i have a diana model 25 made in germany, dated 11.72 i was under the impression diana never got their trademark back untill 1984 when milbro collapsed, also i have an original model 22 dated 54 , has "original mod22 made by xxxxx rastatt germany on cylinder, looks like diana has been erased by the x`s why would that have been done? any info appreciated, thank you.

[Garvin]

was wondering if anyone can shed any light on a diana/original conundrum... i have a diana model 25 made in germany, dated 11.72 i was under the impression diana never got their trademark back untill 1984 when milbro collapsed, also i have an original model 22 dated 54 , has "original mod22 made by xxxxx rastatt germany on cylinder, looks like diana has been erased by the x`s why would that have been done? any info appreciated, thank you.

My understanding is that Diana was a trademark that M&G could still use in Germany and that 'Original' was for export only.

I don't think Original was ever officially connected with Diana, so it may be the first marking was a mistake?

[Drew451]

The Original trademark was mainly used on guns intended for the UK market although a few made it to the US and other places. M&G used the Diana name for most continental European markets when we had Originals here. They used several other trademarks, Gecado, Condor etc...
Your '72 25 would have not been intended for these shores and would have been imported from Europe, most likely, at some point in its life, unofficially, so to speak.
Your earlier gun may have been a very early UK Original, with the xxxx Rastatt refering to Diana name that couldnt be used in Britain. Rastatt was the location of the Mayer and Grammelspacher plant "Dianawerk".

[sarpaul]

The Original trademark was mainly used on guns intended for the UK market although a few made it to the US and other places. M&G used the Diana name for most continental European markets when we had Originals here. They used several other trademarks, Gecado, Condor etc...
Your '72 25 would have not been intended for these shores and would have been imported from Europe, most likely, at some point in its life, unofficially, so to speak.
Your earlier gun may have been a very early UK Original, with the xxxx Rastatt refering to Diana name that couldnt be used in Britain. Rastatt was the location of the Mayer and Grammelspacher plant "Dianawerk".

hi drew, yes, thats where i get confused, with the 22 i have closely inspected the stamping and under the x`s i can just make out some of the lettering for diana, why would they mark the gun `original` made by diana rastatt for uk market knowing that they could not use diana trademark here? seems a bit bizarre

[Geezer]

Danny and Drew are spot on.

M&G lost the Diana trademark, but only in the U.K. (and at least some of the British Empire/colonies). Hence they were Originals here, and Gecados (British Empire, mostly) and Condor and whatever. In Germany, and to the best of my knowledge the rest of Western Europe, they were still Dianas. The U.K. Dianas were made by Milbro, as the French, who had taken over Ratstatt (Diana factory) sold them the remaining machinery (Ratstatt was bombed heavily) and the U.K./Empire trademark.

The details are not 100% clear. There is misinformation out there too. The “Blue Book” says that M&G lost the trademark in Germany and used Original. Not the case.

They were also badge-engineered in the US at various times as Crosman, Hy-Score, Peerless, Winchester, RWS, and others.

For a while they were also sub-branded as Firebirds, including in the U.K in the mid-80s. I can’t remember if that was as RWS Firebirds, Original Firebirds, Diana Firebirds, or just Firebirds. I think the first.

M&G’s challenge in the U.K. when they got the Diana brand back was (a) by then Original had become a respected mid/high range brand, (b) Diana (Milbro) was an established much less respected low-end brand.

From memory, they appeared to move from Original to RWS to RWS Diana to Diana in the 1983-86 period. And cut prices to the bone, undercutting HW and even Webley and BSA - in 1985, a Diana (or RWS or Original) newly-introduced 34 cost less than a Vulcan or BSA Mercury S.

I assume, sarpaul, that yours is a factory stamping error that they rectified rather than throw away the receiver.

Probably a longer reply than you need, but getting it on here for the record.

[sarpaul]

Danny and Drew are spot on.

M&G lost the Diana trademark, but only in the U.K. (and at least some of the British Empire/colonies). Hence they were Originals here, and Gecados (British Empire, mostly) and Condor and whatever. In Germany, and to the best of my knowledge the rest of Western Europe, they were still Dianas. The U.K. Dianas were made by Milbro, as the French, who had taken over Ratstatt (Diana factory) sold them the remaining machinery (Ratstatt was bombed heavily) and the U.K./Empire trademark.

The details are not 100% clear. There is misinformation out there too. The “Blue Book” says that M&G lost the trademark in Germany and used Original. Not the case.

They were also badge-engineered in the US at various times as Crosman, Hy-Score, Peerless, Winchester, RWS, and others.

For a while they were also sub-branded as Firebirds, including in the U.K in the mid-80s. I can’t remember if that was as RWS Firebirds, Original Firebirds, Diana Firebirds, or just Firebirds. I think the first.

M&G’s challenge in the U.K. when they got the Diana brand back was (a) by then Original had become a respected mid/high range brand, (b) Diana (Milbro) was an established much less respected low-end brand.

From memory, they appeared to move from Original to RWS to RWS Diana to Diana in the 1983-86 period. And cut prices to the bone, undercutting HW and even Webley and BSA - in 1985, a Diana (or RWS or Original) newly-introduced 34 cost less than a Vulcan or BSA Mercury S.

I assume, sarpaul, that yours is a factory stamping error that they rectified rather than throw away the receiver.

Probably a longer reply than you need, but getting it on here for the record.

no, thanks for that, interesting read, its a learning curve when you come across an oddity like this.