AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: hawknknife on August 09, 2009, 01:56:11 AM
-
This smoothbore was purchased today from an individual at a Jackson, MS gunshow. I think this is a British revolutionary war officer's fusil. The barrel is 37 inches long, has never been cut, and has a dramatic flair at the muzzle as can be seen in the pictures. The barrel is straight, not have round/half octagon. There are no markings on the gun or lock other than the proof marks on the barrel. On the tang of the buttplate is the capital letter "R". The lock does work in both half cock and full cock but is sluggish. There is an old repair to the side of the forearm that appears to be wood filler but was done many years ago.
I would guess the gauge to be about 20. There is a a very faint date of "1803" dimmly carved in the side of the butt but is so weak you have to turn the stock just so for the light to hit it.
Any information would greatly appreciated. Any idea as to value?
thanks
hawknknife
Carl Merck
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04968.jpg)
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04969.jpg)
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04970.jpg)
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04971.jpg)
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04972.jpg)
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04973.jpg)
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04974.jpg)
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04975.jpg)
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04976.jpg)
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04978.jpg)
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04982.jpg)
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04983.jpg)
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04984.jpg)
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04986.jpg)
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04987.jpg)
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04988.jpg)
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04989.jpg)
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04990.jpg)
(https://i38.photobucket.com/albums/e105/merckywaters/officers%20fusil/DSC04991.jpg)
-
Nice looking gun, not quite as nice as the one Jim Chambers owns, but nice none the less. You threw me for a loop when you said the barrel was "straight"...I couldn't imagine that. It is actually octagon to round....the octagon part is
just at the breech and peters out in 4" or 5", kind of typical for this kind of gun. It also appears to have a rather large
breech on the barrel. Also, to everyone else, take note of the frizzen.....it's "GROOVED"..............Don
-
Don, I noticed that right off, and it appears to be a resole. The 1803 date might make it more of a war of 1812, and being in Mississippi that it was purchased, it would be worth trying to find history. It's hard to tell but it could be a war trophy. Stranger things have happened.
Bill
-
Looks Continental to me. English style stock, tang carving and buttplate but germanic sideplate, guard, lock.
neat gun.
-
I would say that is English, a fowler and not a fusil (as it has never had any bayonet attachment) and probably a good deal older than you think...more like 1740-1750. A really clear picture of those barrel marks would help but when you get back before the middle of the 18th century there are quite a few good quality guns that are identified only by the maker's mark. I think its a very nice gun and I'd have jumped at it.
-
I think that is a nice mid-grade fowling piece of English origin.
I believe this was made as a dedicated fowling piece and not with intent for an officer's fusee.
All hardware and stock profile looks very English to me just of an early design.
I agree with JV Puleo about the date. With the lock, side plate and TG possibly a tad earlier. That type of side plate, wrist escutcheon and TG style is very much like guns of the 1720-35 time frame although they were used on later guns if not top of the line.
There is a maker's mark between the proof and view marks and that would help with the dating to a degree.
Would also like to have a closer view of the lock.
Thanks for sharing this!
One I would love to own.
-
It's English and very early ca. 1720 give or take a decade. The lock is very curved which is a very early feature for British guns. In fact everything about this gun is incredibly early. pipes, guard , buttplate , thumbpiece, lock sideplate....EVERYTHING. It's really rare to see a gun this early, most you see are post 1750.
-
Nice find, for sure. English to me also.
-
Carl-Thank you for letting all of us out here have a look at your new find. You pretty much have the story on it so there isn't much I can add. It is a pretty great little fowler and is fairly early. The lock compares with the earlier Long Land muskets in shape and having a round face; say 1730-1750. Amazing that it has lasted this long in original flint and without serious damage to the wood. A good coat of wax and a little hand rubbing and it will brighten up to look like it must have two centuries ago.
Thanks again-Dick
-
Tomorrow I'll take some very close pics of the proofs, and the lock does have a maker's name but very hard to read. It start with"Ro" and has the little engraved feather design on the tail. I'll attempt to take the lock off to see internals and post all this.
The proofs are the London builders 1702 marks but the the makers mark in the center is hard to make out. Thanks to all you gents for the help..Carl
-
Very nice, thanks for sharing.
I noticed that the barrel was secured with keys. Was this common on fowlers?
Would it be possible to get angling photo of the underside of the forestock and upper forearm from either the lock forward, or the muzzle back, to get an idea of the cross section of the upper forearm?
Thanks and God bless
-
I noticed that the barrel was secured with keys. Was this common on fowlers?
Very common on English guns.
-
It's English and very early ca. 1720 give or take a decade. The lock is very curved which is a very early feature for British guns. In fact everything about this gun is incredibly early. pipes, guard , buttplate , thumbpiece, lock sideplate....EVERYTHING. It's really rare to see a gun this early, most you see are post 1750.
I think you are right on the money Mike. This is a lovely old fowler in every sense of the word with emphasis on old. I think it wears its age well and I'd love to see this one duplicated. Wouldn't it be nice if that trigger guard was availble today--and those thimbles and the entry pipe? That lock and and the furniture and even the barrel's profile indicate an early date to me. I think the quality is a bit higher than found on the usual mid-grade export fowler--especially considering the age of this piece. The 1803 date may have had a significance to its owner, but I can't see any relationship to the fowler, besides it's being just another year it survived.
Thank you for sharing this beauty with us. Don't see one like this very often. Dan
-
I think the quality is a bit higher than found on the usual mid-grade export fowler--especially considering the age of this piece.
Most likely. My comment of "mid-grade" was based on the assumption that this piece was using older parts due to the fact it had a hook breech and keys which would most likely not give the whole gun a date as early as 1720. I was also using the fine pieces of silver mounting as found in Neal as the top and the Carolina type trade guns on the bottom.
I would love to see some of that hardware available. I had quite a time trying to get the thimbles like that on mine.
I have a few questions for those who know more than me.....
1. How far back do you believe the standing breech and keyed barrel go on English pieces? IIRC, Neal and Back did not think they went back as far as some of you are placing this gun based on it's hardware and lock. They felt the hook in breech began to be copied from a gun the French maker Chasteau made in 1722 in the mid 1730's and found favor quickly by the 1740's.
2. How many known "mid-grade" fowling pieces (pre-1770) do we have in existence out there today that have provenance of export to the colonies in America?
I have seen the Bumford fowling piece in Jim Mullins' book. How would you guys rate it's quality?
Thanks for the learning!
James
-
1. How far back do you believe the standing breech and keyed barrel go on English pieces? IIRC, Neal and Back did not think they went back as far as some of you are placing this gun based on it's hardware and lock. They felt the hook in breech began to be copied from a gun the French maker Chasteau made in 1722 in the mid 1730's and found favor quickly by the 1740's.
I believe the French Huguenots brought the standing breech with them when they were chased out of France. So, 1720's or possibly slightly earlier is possible. Problem is these early guns are so rare it's hard top know for sure. I'm intrigued with the square tang, not something I would have expected on this gun. The reason I date this gun to possibly as early as the 1720 period is the lock. That curved lock is totally out of fashion for civilian arms much later than that. Even the Bess didn't use that lock into the 1750's, and the British military was slow to accept change.
2. How many known "mid-grade" fowling pieces (pre-1770) do we have in existence out there today that have provenance of export to the colonies in America?
I have know Idea exactly how many , but Sir William Johnson was importing mid grade and high grade guns for his Indian allies as early as the 1750's.
-
Thanks for responding Mike. This is most interesting to me and I can now understand technical conversations like these that take place over Kentuckies.
For sure some of the best and creative gunsmiths came out of France and brought with them some of their own personal innovations. They introduced a burst of energy to English gunmaking in the beginning and it's intriguing to watch it evolve into British refinement as time progresses. This could mean though that the English could possibly lay claim to that innovation as the earliest French gun known with it is the aforementioned gun by Chateau in 1722.
At the very least, if this is not a restock or a restock along with a new barrel, then this will be the oldest English standing breech gun known to exist and surpass the prior English piece by about 10-15 years.
No doubt the lock and hardware is older but I am still leaning to a restock/new barrel at or after 1740 ish. It's gotta be my conservative nature. ;D ;D
-
2. How many known "mid-grade" fowling pieces (pre-1770) do we have in existence out there today that have provenance of export to the colonies in America?
I have seen the Bumford fowling piece in Jim Mullins' book. How would you guys rate it's quality?
Thanks for the learning!
James
Regarding the relative quality of the Bumford fowler in "Of Sorts for Provincials" by Jim Mullins; perhaps we can derive clues from records of guns ordered at the time by Sir William Johnson and others. I'd guess it would be in the upper 10-20% of guns ordered for "the trade". Johnson etc did order fowling guns but these comprised a small percentage of the totals. I'd not be surprised if guns of this quality (Bumford, again) were readily available in shops in eastern seaport cities such as Philadelphia, New York, Boston, and Southern ports.
-
No doubt the lock and hardware is older but I am still leaning to a restock/new barrel at or after 1740 ish. It's gotta be my conservative nature. Grin Grin
I never considered a possible restock. I suppose it's possible. But still that's a real clunker of a lock for 1740's, it would have stuck out like a sore thumb even on a restock. But, never say never! ;)
-
Thanks for responding Mike. This is most interesting to me and I can now understand technical conversations like these that take place over Kentuckies.
For sure some of the best and creative gunsmiths came out of France and brought with them some of their own personal innovations. They introduced a burst of energy to English gunmaking in the beginning and it's intriguing to watch it evolve into British refinement as time progresses. This could mean though that the English could possibly lay claim to that innovation as the earliest French gun known with it is the aforementioned gun by Chateau in 1722.
At the very least, if this is not a restock or a restock along with a new barrel, then this will be the oldest English standing breech gun known to exist and surpass the prior English piece by about 10-15 years.
No doubt the lock and hardware is older but I am still leaning to a restock/new barrel at or after 1740 ish. It's gotta be my conservative nature. ;D ;D
You, know, now that I look at that breech, there is something odd about it. The tang doesn't really match the style of the barrel or the rest of the piece for that matter. I wonder if the gun is original and the tang was fitted later along with a new breech plug to give this gun a hooked breech--maybe to keep up with the fashion of the day? I admit that I've never heard of such a thing but that doesn't mean much. Could explain why things don't quite look right there. Dan
-
Hawknknife, intersting barrel profile. Any chance you would entertain us with some measurements of the barrel at the breach, waist muzzle, lengths, etc.? Really appreciate you posting this piece and especially the photos. Will look forward to more. What a great find. Tom
-
More than likely the barrel has a bore that is flared inside for the first few inches and then it goes down to true bore size. It may also have the breech area of the bore larger than bore size as well.
-
Gentlemen,
I appreciate all the information and comments and this has been most interesting to me. These are some additional photos showing proof marks, lock markings, lock interior, and lock mortice. After removing the lock and looking at the maker's name in good natural sunlight, the maker's name is Robert Harvey. The proof marks on the barrel are the London Gunmaker's 1702 proofs. The cartouche between the proofs is clearly an "RH" as can be seen in the pics. According to the book, "Small Arms Makers" by Gardner, Robert Harvey was a maker in London from 1690 to 1722.
I have not attempted to clean this fowler in any manner and the lock mortice is full of dirt, grime, and even a few cobwebs.
I'll take some exact measurements of the barrel as far as the muzzle, waist, and breech tonight and post them.
In agreement with Mr. Getz, I feel the breech may be wider than the bore size as the fowler is light in weight.
I honestly do not know about the restocking business as there are members who are far more knowledgeable than myself on this. I can say that if it were restocked, it was done by a gunsmith who really know his stuff and from the fit of the metal to wood has been done for many, many years.
The gun was bought from an old family in Pensacola, Fla.
Thanks for the info,
Carl
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC04992.jpg&hash=96ffda2d7d5025aee86bbc48c2e80029ba352987)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC04993.jpg&hash=d761a8c228690853da799f878c2fc5fbe2f1459d)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC04994.jpg&hash=9773b941160e486c2927263faef799649bdb1586)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC04994Robharvey.jpg&hash=cfd1a1d5b7efa4e2af900382636b9d3900c2efc7)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC04995.jpg&hash=eafb1212df80ce7b3e6d184b8a88e174656e392c)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC04996.jpg&hash=8cdc896d53561bf3f7705f2aa027ebc47f426890)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC04999.jpg&hash=2f1ce78fc35bab2ffca38744575268b79d951ed9)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC05000.jpg&hash=b76cceb06046105de1144f3eab65b0a01fbe63e4)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC05001.jpg&hash=82c4769c2dd697542cdb03a58e20803d981839ad)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC05002.jpg&hash=f6146ad653bf336541b537e64a8c72646143278a)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC05003.jpg&hash=4b5fc4e1bbe337990436976af61c1be9c8a96384)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC05004.jpg&hash=73d9684098c2117186f81b76c05727ee5354cea5)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC05005.jpg&hash=16a2ff1255d9e4af758f2d047d8abf6721ac048f)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC05006.jpg&hash=6f41466586b0c40bfa5975d268633304ca8b94bc)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC05007.jpg&hash=5299316e2914dfc324ec18b2d27dc6617aa76ecb)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC05008.jpg&hash=d64ce16368222a005fb40eb487f9760bc35390ea)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC05010.jpg&hash=dbd45ea4844d2a23e96e5dad02e377ffd1a7d175)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC05011.jpg&hash=e814cdd335712067dc854561a0ae00cca73e4987)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC05012.jpg&hash=e971ccb723def4b135ad935e494a9be8448afbdb)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC05013.jpg&hash=a0b3be4a035f6d8360de2ed99c70354e39646a59)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC05014.jpg&hash=b1f5e2903833686c04cf23dd8f64e27c97737687)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi38.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fe105%2Fmerckywaters%2Fofficers%2520fusil%2520part%25202%2FDSC05015.jpg&hash=8ae261bc3dbcaaae93dfa435387608648e8ca7b2)
-
This is a super piece. :o
I thought this could be Robert Harvey. He apprenticed under Dafte
Neal reports records of him into the early 1730's.
Carl, The re-stock hypothesis I propose would have been early and done by a professional gunsmith.
If not a re-stock, I still want to believe the standing/hook breech system to be added a decade or two later.
-
The lock uses an odd/old system for fastening the sear spring to the plate. Thanks for the close-ups!
I don't know enough to comment on whether the hooked breech was original- but would love to see a picture of the breechface and the hook on the barrel if it could be safely removed.
If it was re-breeched then perhaps not everything would line up and something would have to be modified- the touchhole to the pan might not remain the same, the fit of wedges to the lugs might require some work.
-
by richpierce
I don't know enough to comment on whether the hooked breech was original- but would love to see a picture of the breechface and the hook on the barrel if it could be safely removed.
If it was re-breeched then perhaps not everything would line up and something would have to be modified- the touchhole to the pan might not remain the same, the fit of wedges to the lugs might require some work.
Me either really Rich ;D i am just trying to learn and maybe inspire some conversation from some of those in the know who have not posted yet.
Yes, something might come of light from the inside. The keyed areas on the barrel tenons might show something fore sure.
Interesting that the tenon mortises come all the way thru, a feature that I have heard many say did not exist on English made guns.
-
It has been many years since I have seen a nice old gun like this show up at a gun show for sale. Mostly black guns and junk now! I hope you realize how fortunate you are in having attended this particular show on this particular day. Somebody up there likes you!!!
-
The standing breech looks original to me. The only odd thing to me about it is the square tang finial, other wise it is a very typical fully evolved standing breech. It even has a pin lug on the bottom of it that you can see with the pictures of the lock out. The "humped' look to it is right on for an early gun. The sear spring is very typical, even as late as the late 1760's. Did any one notice the tumbler and how flat it is where the mainspring rides on it? No caming action there, Mr. Chambers would not approve.... ;)
The only way to know for sure about the originality of the tang would be to remove it and look for any evidence of a previous inlet of the original solid tang......but I doubt you'll find anything. If Harvey worked as late as the early 1720's this would be the earliest English gun yet found with a hooked breech as Capt. James already pointed out. This is a very important gun in English gun making.
Thanks for posting this Carl, very cool.
-
If the piece did indeed reside in Pensacola, FL for hundreds of years, that might help to explain the grooved frizzen. Pensacola along with Florida was held by the Spanish until 1821. There was that brief interlude of 20 years when it was owned by the British. The Spanish loved to use the grooved frizzen on their firearms and the half-soling of the frizzen may reflect some Spanish influence. It's a wonderful piece and you are indeed fortunate.
James Levy
-
Look how thin the stock is where the front lock bolt goes. Man - not much room for a ramrod there.
-
I was just wondering if it could have been made for on ship with the flared muzzle it would have made for easier loading with the movement I ihave seen some barrels like this when I was at parris island working in the museum. Aritfacts that have been recovered from around there..
-
Look how thin the stock is where the front lock bolt goes. Man - not much room for a ramrod there.
Notice, too, how thin the forestock is and how the upper forearm follows the contour of the barrel to the muzzle. There also seems to be more thimble showing below the stock than I see on modern reproductions, too.
What a great opportunity to see such a wonderful, early piece. Thanks again for sharing.
The lock uses an odd/old system for fastening the sear spring to the plate.
How so, Rich? Apparently I'm missing something? Please explain.
Thanks and God bless
-
I was just wondering if it could have been made for on ship with the flared muzzle it would have made for easier loading with the movement I ihave seen some barrels like this when I was at parris island working in the museum. Aritfacts that have been recovered from around there..
Very common feature of 18th century English fowling guns.
-
Look how thin the stock is where the front lock bolt goes. Man - not much room for a ramrod there.
Typical 18th century English stock architecture. SLIM SLIM SLIM
-
I have taken exact measurements on the barrel. It is 37 and 1/8 inches long, .903 at the muzzle, waist is .766 14 inches from muzzle, then 1.275 at the breech. It is a bit larger than I had guessed. The forearm is paper thin at the top edge and looking down on the barrel from the top, it is hard to see wood as it is so close and thin...Thanks..Carl
-
Thanks very much for the barrel measurements. Could you tell us how long the waist is and how far back from the muzzle it satrts? That would also give us the legth of the flaired portion of the barrel, forward of the waist to the muzzle. Just a few more details to make it complete. Thanks again. Tom
-
I was just wondering if it could have been made for on ship with the flared muzzle it would have made for easier loading with the movement I ihave seen some barrels like this when I was at parris island working in the museum. Aritfacts that have been recovered from around there..
It's far too lightly and elegantly built to be a military piece. This gun was made by someone with a firm grasp of what the requirements for a sporting gun were--and still should be for that matter.
-
I agree it sure is a nice a sleek piece. The hardware has that bold appearance like other early 18th century pieces but the streamlined stock is ahead of it's time.
For those who have handled many originals....have you ever come across an English piece with the barrel lug mortises cut all the way through?
-
I'm curious about the barrel tennon mortices as well, anybody know?
-
Given the thinness of the web, and the amount of use the fowler has had, even if the mortises were blind when the piece was new, perhaps wear from the wiping stick has opened them up? At least one of them seems less than uniform to me. Dan
-
I like how well the engraving on the tail of the lockplate matches the style and engraving of the sideplate. Very cool gun, thanks for posting!
-Rob
-
The hardware has that bold appearance like other early 18th century pieces but the streamlined stock is ahead of it's time.
I agree, that's part of what is so cool about this gun. It reflects the strong influence of the Huguenots that had such an impact on English gunmaking. The English were making some real clunkers before the influx of Huguenot gunmakers.
-
Mr. Elgan, As the barrel profile goes, it is .903 at the face of the muzzle. It then tapers down 14 inches to the narrow waist of .766. This diameter continues for 7 inches, then flares to the breech which is 1.275 at the barrels rear..Hope that helps..Carl
-
Mike Brooks...my mind is in the same channel as yours. I can't dismiss French influence. Not that this as anything to do with this neat firearm, but examine the work of George Fainot, early Lancaster builder, par excellence. Fainot was a French Huguenot immigrant to America. There's the result of French training and frontier necessity seen in one man's work. I once owned a fowler that was quite similar to yours, though not as nice. It had a chicken proofmark on the barrel. If I am not mistaken, this suggests French origin. I'm no authority on these, but isn't that right barrel proof...the "crown V" an early verified proofmark from Tower of London? Wayne
-
It's hard to dismiss French influence in any English gunmaking after 1700. Most of the best "English " gunmakers by the early 1700's were French Hugenouts or some with Dutch influence to their backgrounds. The French brought with them the continental style and their innovations. They just toned it down a bit for the more reserved English. The crown/V is the English view mark of the Gunmakers Company.
-
Charles II was raised in France and brought a lot of French influence (including the popularity of bird shooting) to England with the restoration in the 1660s.
This is a nice piece - I agree with Mike - pre-1740, most likely 1720s or 30s - still retains the continental influence in the guard but the rest of Georgian architercture and mounts are getting pretty evolved. After 1740 - the hardware loses most of the French or Continental look and pretty much screams "Rule Brittania"....
Nice gun
Guy
-
Robert Harvey ,
Apprenticed to Henry Anthonison and turned over to John Dafte in 1691. Freedom in the Gunmakers Company in 1702. Master in 1725, Worked for Ordnance 1703-06, Made fine silver mounted pistols. , died 1734
(The Queen Anne Pistol 1660-1780, Burgoyne)
-
I've always wondered about Henry Anthonison - the name sounds like it has French origins - interestingly, John Harman apprenticed with him as well, if I recall correctly.
All the other observations - the slim lines etc - this is the way a Georgian period fowler should be - everything tapers from the area right behind the cock - forward and back, and everything is visually balanced. Simple sophistication in the architecture and decoration.
The muzzle bore is often greater than the barrel OD at the waist. You see really no wood on the forend when viewed from above - the stock and barrel form almost a figure 8 in cross section. No true large flat surfaces anywhere to break up the flow.
From what I've read and seen, don't assume the military officer's pieces were always bulkier. The military pieces made as officer's fusils were often made along the same lines as the sporting guns by the finest shops, but often had the wood cut back at the muzzle and a lug fitted for a bayonet. In England at the time amongst the better off, first born son inherited the land and title, second son often received a purchased commission in the military, third often went to the clergy. After the warrant (I think it was in the 1740s) officers were supposed to provide their own firearms, built to certain general guidelines, but still a lot of latitude, in lieu of the earlier halberd. So the best London makers made up sporting guns and officer's fusils along the same patterns.
Guy
-
Having read the last few postings, I now look at the gun in a little different light. The 37 inch barrel might argue for an officer's fusil. I collect fowlers and the ones I have seen from that period have LONG barrels. I have had some early English pieces and they have all had long barrels. I had a Wilson fowler that had a 58 inch barrel. My American fowlers have long barrels. But I am not very familiar with early English fowlers. Is the 37 inch barrel compatible with fowling pieces of that period?
Al
-
37 inch barrel is very common range for Georgian period bird guns as well. They made them longer too.
Guy
-
Having read the last few postings, I now look at the gun in a little different light. The 37 inch barrel might argue for an officer's fusil. I collect fowlers and the ones I have seen from that period have LONG barrels. I have had some early English pieces and they have all had long barrels. I had a Wilson fowler that had a 58 inch barrel. My American fowlers have long barrels. But I am not very familiar with early English fowlers. Is the 37 inch barrel compatible with fowling pieces of that period?
Al
The long barreled guns lent themselves more to waterfowling while the shorter barreled guns in the length range of this piece were in use for general sport shooting of partridge and the like.
-
Just noticed the closeups of the back of the lock. It looks like at one point in its life, the "ledge" on the back of the cock was built above its original level to realign the stopping position against the plate. This is often associated with early lock repairs where the cock was replaced with a piece from another lock - see Hamilton's "Colonial Frontier Guns" - there is a whole series of photos showing these types of repairs. Even on fine guns, the goose neck of the cock was a weak point prone to breakage. It could also just indicate that the mainspring (or tumbler for that matter) was replaced and the toe that rides against the tumbler now sat in a different position, necessitating building up the ledge to allow it to stop in the right place.
In either case, these types of early repairs usually indicate a period repair rather than a reconversion, so in my mind it detracts nothing from the appeal of the piece - instead, it sort of enhances it a bit as it shows more history. If the cock was replaced we are lucky the mainspring did not bust out through the bottom of the lock mortice - we would not have this fine piece to study today if that had happened.
Guy
-
Has anyone commented on the front sight.To me, it looks like it was installed backwards?
Alex....
-
Has anyone commented on the front sight.To me, it looks like it was installed backwards?
Alex....
It's more of a bead on a base than a blade. Looks like the standing part tapers both off the front and back about the same.
-
The front sight looks to me like it has been altered some time after it was installed with it being more of a blade type of sight from the maker then filed to more of bead some time later. Hugh
-
Pretty standard early front sight for an English fowling gun.