AmericanLongRifles Forums

General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: Dennis Glazener on January 01, 2012, 03:21:55 AM

Title: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Dennis Glazener on January 01, 2012, 03:21:55 AM
http://timesjournalonline.com/details.asp?id=66578
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Tony Clark on January 01, 2012, 04:50:59 AM


Well, I don't know but that rifle in the teeny weeny picture sure don't look like it dates to 1776 to me. Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence the way I see it.
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Fullstock longrifle on January 01, 2012, 05:42:33 AM
No way that rifle is the double used by Timothy Murphy, it was probably made at least 60 years later than they claim.  Makes you wonder where the curator of the museum got his degree.

Frank
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: smylee grouch on January 01, 2012, 05:58:30 AM
40 cal sounds small for a 200 yard shot. Not saying its imposible but to me it just sounds too small.   Smylee
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: JIM FRANCIS on January 01, 2012, 06:35:42 AM
I AGREE WITH FRANK AND TONY. NO WAY IN THE WORLD THAT RIFLE IS THAT OLD.    JIM
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: nord on January 01, 2012, 06:37:39 AM
Percussion must have come earlier than I thought... Or maybe not.
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: louieparker on January 01, 2012, 06:46:08 AM
Dennis
 I would say that during the Revolution , the tree that  provided the wood for that stock was a seed or maybe a sprout !....LP   
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Tony Clark on January 01, 2012, 01:05:46 PM


The really sad part is many people see this firearm in the museum and are being "educated" as to what a revolutionary war rifle looks like... supposedly. I think the fault does fall on the curator of that museum. It's there responsibility to know what they are representing is factual and authentic. That is the purpose of a museum. Many collectors fall into the trap of wanting to place an inordinate value on pieces they own for obvious reasons. That is all part of the learning process for them. The gunsmith ledger that is talked about in the article sounds interesting but they say they only have the one page of it which talks about a double rifle, wonder where the rest of it is.
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: JTR on January 01, 2012, 05:07:44 PM
Wow, there's some serious BS-ing going on there, with the picture of the gun, and in the article!
It looks like a typical 1840/50s swivel breech, that someone has added some carving to. It would take some serious wishful dreaming to make that into a Rev War rifle!

John
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: rich pierce on January 01, 2012, 05:24:39 PM
Curators can't be expert in everything and there's unconscious desire to have the real deal.  As a scientist I know that tendency is there, and one needs skeptical colleagues to keep things in check.  It could all be true (each dot) but unconnected.  Murphy may have had a swivel rifle by this Worley, Worley could have used some of the same style elements for 40 years, etc.  Doesn't mean this Worley is the one Tim Murphy owned.  There's nothing connecting the dots.
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Majorjoel on January 01, 2012, 07:28:33 PM
I see a Huntingdon County mid 19th century rifle pictured here. A pretty rare swivel breech for this area. Joe Douglas and family used this same patchbox style. Does anyone have any information on the Worley gunsmith?  The picture is a little vague regarding the forstock area but what little shown appears to be no wood along the barrels. If true, this would be the clincher for me here.
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: 490roundball on January 01, 2012, 07:47:26 PM
if there is documenttion for the Worley barrels, what are the odds that they are original and were reused?  that is certainly not unheard off - A back action percussion lock and new wood and old barrels.


or it could be like the famous George Washington hatchet,  the handle has been replaced four times and the head twice.   ;D
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Dan'l 1946 on January 01, 2012, 08:37:15 PM
  It looks to me like a flintlock that was converted to percussion by a blacksmith. But a 200 yard shot with a .40 caliber rifle seems unlikely to me.
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Tony Clark on January 01, 2012, 08:59:52 PM
Curators can't be expert in everything and there's unconscious desire to have the real deal. 

Your right Rich, although I have known museum people that actually knew what they were talking about. The thing with this rifle is, as the article states, they are representing it as important as George Washington's silver mounted pistols! Don't you think that claim would deserve just a little bit of research? When just a very little bit would make it obvious that this rifle is not what the collector represents it to be?

Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: JTR on January 01, 2012, 09:44:21 PM
Dan'l, despite it having a flint hammer now, that gun was most likely never a flintlock.
The lock is just a common commercial back action percussion lock made from about the 1830s to the end of the percussion era.
And the style of the gun matches the time period of the lock.
The barrels might be older and re-used as mentioned, but at 40 cal, likely aren't Rev War period barrels either.

And I agree with Tony, given the significance they are giving this gun, they really need to check their research. Maybe the museum curator needs to check the dates of the Rev War and George Washington!  ;D

John
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: smokinbuck on January 01, 2012, 10:16:13 PM
Dennis,
Rifle made in 1776 or not? The article doesn't say that this is the rifle used by Murphy for his shot, just that he "may" have owned it. It states pretty clearly that Murphy borrowed a rfle from Ellerson that was probably used for the shot.
Mark
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Tony Clark on January 01, 2012, 10:27:26 PM
Dennis,
Rifle made in 1776 or not? The article doesn't say that this is the rifle used by Murphy for his shot, just that he "may" have owned it. It states pretty clearly that Murphy borrowed a rfle from Ellerson that was probably used for the shot.
Mark

That is another thing that was stated in the article that I found amusing. Murphy was the best shot but Ellerson had the best rifle, so He believes Murphy borrowed it to make "the shot'? What kind of rifle exactly did Ellerson have? Why was it the best? What makes him think that he borrowed it to make the shot? I realize this is just a newspaper article and it can't be expected to give all the facts, but come on...
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Dennis Glazener on January 01, 2012, 11:52:31 PM
Quote
No way that rifle is the double used by Timothy Murphy, it was probably made at least 60 years later than they claim.  Makes you wonder where the curator of the museum got his degree.

Frank
That's what I was thinking, as far as the curator goes, I have talked with several curators that knew far less about old rifles than I do and that's not a lot! At one time (may still be there) there was what appeared to be about a 36 caliber percussion mountain rifle at the Guildford Courthouse Museum that was supposedly carried by a local Rev War militiaman. I would have dated the rifle circa 1840! But the park ranger there assured me that the family had provenance back to their ancestor that carried it at that battle! (like the hatchet it probably had the barrel, lock and stock each replaced several times)!
Dennis
 
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: mr. no gold on January 02, 2012, 12:42:41 AM
Perhaps Eastwind will come on board to tell us about some of his forebears, who I believe were among the Worley family of barrel makers and sometime gun builders. The Worleys had a barrel mill in the first third of the 1800s, and they made barrels for S. Miller among and other builders in the upper schools.
No way that this one goes back to the Rev War. Such a rifle would look like the Wm Antes double in the Kansas State Historical Society.
As to Washington's silver mounted flintlock pistols, they are legit and are at West Point in the museum.
This could be a case of the gun having come out the Murphy family and they believed that it had been his; that is a fairly common frailty of family lore. Many guns with imputed history proved to be much later than the supposed event.
Dick
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: jdm on January 02, 2012, 01:35:24 AM
Does anyone  know what year Mr. Murphy  died?  Did he live long enough to own a rifle this late? Years ago  Jerry Noble  and I were set up at a gun show together. A man brought in a carved rifle that had Benn in his family sense  the Rev war. He wanted to know about it. I  told him I didn't believe it was that old.  He did not accept me assessment. So  I ask Jerry what he could tell me about the rifle. His answer " The man who made it is still alive and if he's not somebody killed him. The owner was not happy.  Family history does get embellished.    JIM
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: 490roundball on January 02, 2012, 02:01:24 AM
Does anyone  know what year Mr. Murphy  died?  Did he live long enough to own a rifle this late?  

He died in 1818 - so - nope


and also -

Murphy was a RIFLEMAN - and from what is actually known of his life's history a good one.  A history teacher from the Mohawk Valley did a lot of research and put together a biography of Tim Murphy about 10 years ago.  Murphy grew up on what was the the frontier, shot in matches, hunted to eat and fought.  Why would a man like that carry an inacurate rifle??  just to make life harder??
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Curt J on January 02, 2012, 03:10:23 AM
The man who made this rifle wasn't even born yet, 20 years after the Rev. War!  Nice enough rifle, just way wrong for the story that goes with it.
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Tony Clark on January 04, 2012, 03:39:30 AM
After reading this article the other day I couldn't help myself from taking a moment and emailing the director of this museum and further inquiring about the facts surrounding his decision to exhibit this rifle along with the claims they are making surrounding it. I also stated my opinion as to its date of manufacture which would make those claims impossible.
I received this very nice reply back this afternoon and basically, the director is adamant that they have sufficient evidence to support their claims.

Please note his statement "At the moment, the evidence points to this being the double-barreled rifle that history says Tim Murphy used during the Revolutionary War."

I was wondering if someone would do this gentleman a favor by providing him with the appropriate information to get a better understanding of the truth of the matter? I know there are many very knowledgeable collectors, authors and gun builders who participate in this forum... would someone take a moment to shoot him an email and help him out?



Carle J. Kopecky, Director

Schoharie County Historical Society

Old Stone Fort Museum Complex

145 Fort Road, Schoharie, NY  12157

director@SchoharieHistory.net





The following is his correspondence to me:


Dear Mr. Clark:

 I appreciate your interest in the Murphy rifle.

 At the museum, I / we use a variety of methodologies to identify and date an artifact.  They include the material and style of manufacture, any inscriptions or trademarks, verbal and written provenance, and corroborating research.  The process is ongoing for this object as well as for the single-barrel rifle which accompanied it, and I have serious doubts about that one.  

 In the interest of getting the word out about this acquisition, we verified it as completely as possible in a reasonable time, and described it briefly.  We did relate some of the previously-published history concerning Murphy and his double-barreled rifle, which is well-known.  The initial identification of this rifle was based on documents that have accompanied the weapon for several generations.  I referred to that documentation as an attribution, not as a fact.  The existence of the rifle has been well-known for a long time, but being in private hands very few had actually seen it until now.  Another source was a drawing of Murphy’s rifle done by the well-known artist Rufus Grider in the late 19th Century.  You may be familiar with Grider’s drawings of powder horns.  This specimen matches that drawing.  So the association of that rifle with Murphy goes back at least that far.  

 Is it possible that the rifle was made in the early 19th Century and still belonged to Murphy?  Yes.  Timothy Murphy lived until 1818.  Is it possible that the documents accompanying the rifle were faked at some point?  Yes – the ledger sheet was probably not torn from a book, but is more likely a transcription.  However, the provenance indicated by that ledger compares favorably with a 1911 history of Easton Pennsylvania gunsmiths.  There are some possible discrepancies, so more detective work can certainly be done.  One question which may never be answered to my satisfaction is how Murphy, a simple farmer/woodsman in 1776 could have afforded a £20 rifle!

 A number of local experts have a similar opinion to yours, and a few do not.  One must be careful not to use style alone for such early rifles, since there are too few examples to cite them as the exclusive style of that early period of American rifle-making.  If you care to assist us, I would be particularly interested to see examples of any Golcher over-under rifles of the 19th century.  We would also like follow the story of the Committee of Safety musket manufactory set up by John Golcher in Philadelphia, later moved to Lancaster when the British threatened Philadelphia.  Is there a connection between Golcher, Isaac Worly of Easton, PA  and Jacob Worly – his son? – of Lancaster?  The former Worly shop in Lancaster is supposedly where the ledger sheet came from.

 At the moment, the evidence points to this being the double-barreled rifle that history says Tim Murphy used during the Revolutionary War.   With so much folklore about Murphy, and it is possible that some of the war stories were embellished by referring to a rifle he actually acquired later in life, and this was repeated by historians.  It is even possible that the gun itself is an elaborate hoax, but if so it would have to have been perpetrated before Grider saw it in the late 1800s.

 Our best judgment at this time is that this is the Murphy double-barreled rifle long known by Revolutionary War historians and enthusiasts, until proven otherwise.  If and when that proof is obtained, we will revise the object description accordingly.

 Sincerely,

 Carle Kopecky

Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: 490roundball on January 04, 2012, 03:54:08 AM
so, don't confuse me with the facts.
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Robert Wolfe on January 04, 2012, 04:36:12 AM
Rick, that seems a little rough since he did ask for help in pursuing the question further.
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: 490roundball on January 04, 2012, 05:04:45 AM
Rick, that seems a little rough since he did ask for help in pursuing the question further.

might be,  - but he already says a number of experts have the same opinion,  but a few do not, and that you can't use the gun itself as proof?


" Our best judgment at this time is that this is the Murphy double-barreled rifle long known by Revolutionary War historians and enthusiasts, until proven otherwise."

never met the man,  and certainly did not mean to be rude,  but IMHO he doesn't want to have made a mistake, both professional pride and human nature.

i still wonder if the barrels can be connected to the maker, and that is where the name is, could they have been rebarreled restocked at a much later date.
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: JTR on January 04, 2012, 06:13:17 PM
I doubt that anyone could say anything that would sway this guys opinion. After all, he's a Professional, and well, we're just guys on an internet forum.....

But, from what I see with my non-professional eye and from the small low quality picture they show, I see a commercial percussion lock style that wasn't invented until the percussion era, say 1830ish.

As for the swivel breech mechanism, it has an oval shape that does not follow the contour of the barrels like an early swivel works would have.

Also, the latch to unlock and turn the barrels is a lever ahead of the trigger guard, instead of incorporated into the forward part of the trigger guard as you'd expect to see on an early gun.

Also, there is no sign that there has ever been any forearm wood along the length of the barrels, nor any provision for, or a remaining forward part of the lock plate that would have held the flintlock frizzen and spring.

From the picture, it is obvious that the bow on the trigger guard is narrow, and the grip rail arched up into a nice curved shape.

Also from the picture, it looks like the toe of the butt is very narrow, and that would suggest that the butt itself is very narrow as well, say an inch to an inch and a half, certainly nowhere near two inches.

And from the picture, the wood strip showing between the door and the side plates of the patchbox would be very unusual on a Rev War period gun, but common on a late period gun.

Taking the above items that I see in this single picture, I see a late period rifle, made more or less between 1830s, to even 1850s or later.
None of what I see matches what you would expect to see on an early or Rev War rifle, but fits perfectly on a late period swivel breech rifle.

As Dick suggested, compare this gun to the Wm Antes Swivel rifle.

Of course there are always exceptions to the rule, but stretching this rifle back to the Rev War period is more or less impossible.

No, on second thought, it’s totally impossible!

John


Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Dphariss on January 04, 2012, 06:42:19 PM
People who quote 19th century provenance need to remember that the fake Rev-War Artifact  business started in 1876 if not before.
There is no way that lock dates to the time of Murphy's death, the flint cock looks like something from 1970s Spain. This rifle could be an 1870s restock or a 1930s restock as easy as not using bits and pieces. OR it was simply made late say 1850 maybe and someone stuck that cock on it as a replacement.
From the photo who can really say?
Using a borrowed rifle?
Read the account of the sharpshooter at Breed's Hill. People below the breastworks were loading guns for him, probably rifles, and he did the shooting. If Murphy or one of the other Riflemen was in a tree and had the shot they likely WERE passing guns to him since loading the the tree would have been difficult.
I seriously doubt that ANYONE knows what rifle was used to shoot Fraser. I don't think there is any known on the scene written account. IE someone who WITNESSED it and WROTE about it at the time.
So we have legend.
If the museum wants to delude themselves with this gun there is little that can be done to change their minds.

Just for reference the Billy Dixon shot at Adobe Walls was apparently fabricated, possibly by his wife, after his death. There is no mention of it known before his death. The killing of Fraser is documented but the actual shooter seems a little more nebulous. Probably Murphy, my vote, but not hard proof.
Dan
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: spgordon on January 04, 2012, 08:33:37 PM
Seems like the curator is relying heavily on what the original article describes as "a page from a ledger of gunsmith Isaac Worly of Easton, Pennsylvania"--but which the curator admits in his reply to Tony is actually a transcription, not a page from an actual ledger. It would be the easiest thing in the world to invent a transcription that includes an entry that reads: "A Rifle Made for Timothy Murphy a two-barrel Rifle-with both barrels Rifled only one made."

Why would the owner of the gun (or later descendants) possess the page from the gunsmith's ledger? Where is the rest of the ledger? Has anybody ever seen other pages/transcriptions from it? If not, this particular piece of "evidence" seems every bit as suspect as the stylistic irregularities that everybody else has pointed out.

Scott
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: rich pierce on January 04, 2012, 09:57:52 PM
There's little likelihood of anyone changing the way the rifle is described at the museum.  It's a good draw.  "You can't prove it's not" is the tactic being taken.

The best one could do is get a dated rifle with back action percussion Golcher locks very similar to this rifle, as well as earlier and later Golcher locks, and  show the guy that the style of the locks is 1830's to later.  Could be much later.  Similarly, one could catalogue 10 Pennsylvania rifles from each decade, 1770-1830, and provide buttplate pictures and dimensions, so the curator could decide which decade the buttplate on this gun fits best.  But I would not put a lot of effort into it expecting a good outcome.

Most folks who don't know much about kentucly rifles won't know the difference and won't see much detail anyway.  All they will know is "2 barrels- flintlock- nice brass stuff on the gun".  I mostly feel sorry for the knowledgable enthusiast who hopes to see a Revolutionary War era rifle and is disappointed when they get there.  Thankfully the museum has a lof of fine early fowling pieces and muskets to look at.
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: spgordon on January 04, 2012, 10:40:48 PM
By the way: isn't £20 an unlikely contemporary valuation for a rifle in 1776? The fancy Oerter rifle that Bob Lienemann and I wrote about in the most recent KRA Bulletin was valued by Oerter at £8--and other contemporary rifles seemed to run at about £5. Are there any other contemporary records that valued a single rifle (in early 1776) at such a high price?

Scott

Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Dphariss on January 04, 2012, 11:03:04 PM
This is why I would never donate a gun to a museum.
Even one dedicated to firearms.

Dan
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Dphariss on January 04, 2012, 11:11:26 PM
By the way: isn't £20 an unlikely contemporary valuation for a rifle in 1776? The fancy Oerter rifle that Bob Lienemann and I wrote about in the most recent KRA Bulletin was valued by Oerter at £8--and other contemporary rifles seemed to run at about £5. Are there any other contemporary records that valued a single rifle (in early 1776) at such a high price?

Scott



Given the work required a nice swivel breech is worth about 3- 4 times the price of a nice Kentucky.
See page 16 of Kindigs book.
In the 1820s Reedy lists a double rifle at $40. The highest price for a rifle is $16.
Making a swivel from bar stock will confirm this. Making the swivel, fitting the barrels, shaping the parts and making the locks is harder than making  rifle.

Dan
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Tony Clark on January 04, 2012, 11:15:30 PM
Seems like the curator is relying heavily on what the original article describes as "a page from a ledger of gunsmith Isaac Worly of Easton, Pennsylvania"--but which the curator admits in his reply to Tony is actually a transcription, not a page from an actual ledger. It would be the easiest thing in the world to invent a transcription that includes an entry that reads: "A Rifle Made for Timothy Murphy a two-barrel Rifle-with both barrels Rifled only one made."

Why would the owner of the gun (or later descendants) possess the page from the gunsmith's ledger? Where is the rest of the ledger? Has anybody ever seen other pages/transcriptions from it? If not, this particular piece of "evidence" seems every bit as suspect as the stylistic irregularities that everybody else has pointed out.

Scott


Those are my thoughts exactly... it seems like the primary evidence they have is that page of the ledger book which as it turns out is not even an actual page of any ledger, just a transcription as he calls it. Why they wouldn't question the authenticity of such a page or even existence of such a ledger is hard for me to understand.  To me it seems like something is amiss with the logic of the entire situation.

This morning I was reading an article from a local (to that area) newspapers archives which dated to the 1940's and was highlighting a local gun collector who had owned this very same rifle at that time. What I thought was amusing is he also claimed to own a rifle that belonged to Chief Joseph Brant the famous Mohawk military leader...  ::)

In a way it's all kind of entertaining though.
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: JTR on January 05, 2012, 12:24:55 AM
Maybe the museum paid a pretty penny for this very important rifle, and the curator isn't willing to admit he goofed.... or was snookered by a smooth talking seller.... :o

John
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Eric Kettenburg on January 05, 2012, 03:18:26 AM
In 1779, Traugott Bagge charged Col. John Luttrell 25 pounds 12 shillings for a new-stocked gun in NC, probably by Valentine Beck although this is not completely clear as the brethren technically were not building arms at this time.

Inflation, or one heck of a gun?
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: spgordon on January 05, 2012, 04:43:38 AM
Probably inflation in 1779--which is why I was surprised by a £20 rifle in 1776. But I didn't realize that swivel-breeches regularly sold for 4 or 5 times the cost of a typical rifle... - Scott
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: WaltDavies on January 05, 2012, 09:32:33 AM
Has anyone ever considered that this gun might have been flint lock that converted to a percussion using the Gloucher locks.  Sometime old thing have been updated many times and cause trouble in identifying them.

Walt Davies
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: rich pierce on January 05, 2012, 04:35:39 PM
Complicated but possible.  Originally flint, then percussed by using new locks, then re-converted (haha) to flintlock and made to look like a flint to percussion conversion.  Possible.  Anyway the buttstock style suggests post-1800 to most of us, doesn't it?
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Tony Clark on January 05, 2012, 05:27:47 PM
Complicated but possible.  Originally flint, then percussed by using new locks, then re-converted (haha) to flintlock and made to look like a flint to percussion conversion.  Possible.  Anyway the buttstock style suggests post-1800 to most of us, doesn't it?

Rich I don't believe it was ever flint. It just has a flint hammer on it. Everything else about it suggests what others have pointed out, 1830-1850 or later. The fanciful stories included with it seem to have been created by wishful thinkers from an earlier era of firearms collecting. Today, we have so much more information available to us it is easy to see through that and examine the firearm on its own merits. Which are lacking regarding the attribution to Timothy Murphy.
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: nord on January 05, 2012, 06:25:15 PM
For a moment let's put the supposed provenance aside and look at just the mechanical aspects of this firearm:

For this to have been a flint ignition gun there would have to have been a provision for a frizzen and associated components forward of the hammer. While not by any means an impossible task there looks to be no evidence of such.

In addition it must be remembered that a powder charge had to be held securely in place. This while one barrel was upside down. A split lock would be required to work on this rifle. At best awkward. At worst almost unworkable. In truth highly unlikely. (Edited- Highly unlikely on THIS rifle.)

Hammer and frizzen need to meet precisely for positive ignition. I'm skeptical that one could expect a priming charge to survive being upside down, then rotating into battery, locking in position, and having even a modest chance of making a reliable spark. (Again - On this rifle.)

Further, there may be some profit gained by looking closely at the back action lock assembly. No matter how we cut it, the general architecture screams 1830 and later. A single lock design such as this would only be practical with a percussion ignition.

Given the general layout of the stock, the design of the turret, the absence of any evidence of original flint characteristics, and my observations as noted, I'll call foul.

It's a good story and a nice dream. The physical evidence argues compellingly against the story though. I have a feeling that the stock came from a tree still young during the Revolution and the overall design of the firearm was still a futuristic dream at that time as was possibly its maker.

Oh... I like the white gloves. They give the story credence. ::)
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Dr. Tim-Boone on January 05, 2012, 07:15:08 PM
You get my vote!!
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Bill of the 45th on January 06, 2012, 12:49:54 AM
Not a total dispute, but I used to have a swivel barrel for a time, which was in rough shape, but was a Bucks County gun.  It was missing the front frizzen and pan on one side, and looked much like that without the drum.  The whole fore arm wood is missing. That gun was definitely a flint in its first life.  It possibly being a 1770's gun is a different story.  That patch box should give some more info if the pic was better.  Also the fact that this fella is using an artists license rendition 100years after the fact as provenance is really a discredit of his credibility.  I agree with 1800-1820 period for this gun.

Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: debnal on January 06, 2012, 06:29:48 PM
Why don't you send this thread to the curator or have him read it. Maybe he could learn something.
Al
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Dphariss on January 06, 2012, 07:34:16 PM
There is so much wrong with the rifle for a 1770s gun that in my opinion the entire back story is fabrication.
The rifle could have been made in 1860 or  5 years ago for all I know.

Dan
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Dphariss on January 06, 2012, 09:15:34 PM
In assessing values we need to consider if the "pounds" were PA. VA etc currency or British pounds.
The variation in value was considerable and makes trying to determine what something actually cost very difficult unless British currency is specified.

Dan
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: mr. no gold on January 06, 2012, 11:14:49 PM
Looking at it again it appears that it could be a Conrad Horn gun. Looks a lot like is work. He made a few flints, but most were caplock. If so, it would be an 1830s gun.
Dick
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: 490roundball on January 08, 2012, 06:29:22 PM
I did find a matching piece, in an antique shop yesterday. 

a back action percussion pistol, the bolster was a integral part of the barrel,  about 10 inches overall

it was tagged as a 1760's British military pistol         ;D


Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: Howard on January 09, 2012, 01:42:38 AM
Dennis, I got a friend who owns George Washington's axe, the haft has been replaced 8 times & the head three.  This is probably a parable to this rifle.
Title: Re: I wonder how credible this is
Post by: jdm on January 09, 2012, 02:39:12 AM
Howard, I think I bought that axe from you!