Author Topic: A real Officers' Fuzee  (Read 2941 times)

Offline JV Puleo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 897
A real Officers' Fuzee
« on: March 14, 2018, 04:21:22 AM »
This subject comes up endlessly... it seems that every commercial light musket is an "officers' fuzee". In fact, real officers' muskets are quite rare. They enjoyed a reasonably brief popularity in the British army, from the Seven Years War through the American Revolution and, to a lesser extent, perhaps into the 1790s. They were a reaction to fighting in North America where the traditional spontoon was particularly ineffective and, in wooded terrain, positively a menace. They were never regulation arms but were tolerated because they were a practical arm for use in the field. One of the great ironies of collecting is the miss-identification of so many commercial arms as officers' muskets has created the impression they were more common than they really are.

In British service, all of them were privately purchased. Their quality reflects the social standing of an officer who was someone who had to have a private income. This was true of militia officers as well where there were income qualifications to assure that the commissioned ranks would be filled with "gentlemen."

The fuzee was the field arm of company grade officers of infantry. Above the rank of Captain, all officers served mounted, a situation where a musket was useless. I have been collecting copies of portraits of British officers with fuzees for a good 30 years... virtually all date between 1755 and 1795. I've yet to find one as late as 1800 but don't rule out that possibility. I'm attaching some photos of my most recent acquisition. This one is by David Blair, a Birmingham maker who died in 1815. I have not run down his actual working dates but I suspect it dates from about 1780. Notice that it has a bayonet lug, was fitted for a sling and has steel mounts. Steel mounts were often as expensive as silver mounts and would be appropriate for an officer of a regiment that wore silver buttons. Brass mounts are also seen. Despite several publish attributions, I am skeptical of silver mounts unless all of the other salient features are present - the sling and the bayonet lug. Silver just isn't a good choice for field use but it may be the sort of thing a militia officer who was aping the style of the field army (but had little reason to expect field service) might purchase.

Well, I tried uploading the images. No luck... and I'm not wasting my evening trying to figure out how yet another system works.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2018, 06:56:16 PM by JV Puleo »

Offline Carl Young

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 575
Re: A real Officers' Fuzee
« Reply #1 on: March 14, 2018, 05:18:56 AM »
Joe thanks for taking the time to write this up. An interesting and informative summation. Some of the auction websites who like to attribute guns like this seem to indicate there were vast hordes of officers so armed roaming the battlefields  ::)

Carl
Already long ago, from when we sold our vote to no man, the People have abdicated our duties; for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses. -Juvenal

Offline JV Puleo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 897
Re: A real Officers' Fuzee
« Reply #2 on: March 14, 2018, 04:03:25 PM »
Exactly... the I think the ratio would work out to maybe 3 fuzees per company if all officers carried them - and since they were a private purchase item we can't assume that. With about 60 privates in a company, muskets should outnumber fuzees by 20 to 1 but to read the advertisements, the ratio runs in the other direction!

Offline OldSouthRelics

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 85
Re: A real Officers' Fuzee
« Reply #3 on: March 14, 2018, 06:08:33 PM »
Joe,

Thank you for this write up. It was short, concise, and very informative. If you would like me to load up the pictures for you, and you have a free moment, you can email them to me OldSouthRelics@gmail.com. I would like to see them personally for education purposes, and I believe if we post them here, it may serve to educate others in the future.

Regards,

Bob

Offline JV Puleo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 897
Re: A real Officers' Fuzee
« Reply #4 on: March 14, 2018, 06:36:14 PM »
I think I've figured it out...









Needless to say, the flat surface lock is not a necessity although most of the examples from the last quarter of the 18th century seem to have them. I've probably only handled about 6 or 7 real fuzees, 4 of which I own or owned. They are much scarcer than the contemporaneous Land Pattern muskets.
« Last Edit: March 14, 2018, 06:48:35 PM by JV Puleo »

Treebeard

  • Guest
Re: A real Officers' Fuzee
« Reply #5 on: March 14, 2018, 07:20:25 PM »
Joe— Thank you for both the information and the picture. This is an area that is new to me and I appreciate the education.

Offline OldSouthRelics

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 85
Re: A real Officers' Fuzee
« Reply #6 on: March 15, 2018, 01:26:19 AM »
Thank you as well Joe. The pictures detail exactly what you wrote. I think it is a gorgeous looking piece with the steel mounts..... The silver buttons and steel mounts would have made for quite a spectacle.

Bob


Offline JV Puleo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 897
Re: A real Officers' Fuzee
« Reply #7 on: March 15, 2018, 03:40:56 AM »
When new, those mounts would have been polished to look like silver. The Joseph Brazier fuzee I had - it now belongs to a good friend so I can visit it any time I want - has a black lacquered stock. With its polished brass mounts and steel barrel it must have been almost dazzling.

jp

Offline 120RIR

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 371
Re: A real Officers' Fuzee
« Reply #8 on: March 15, 2018, 04:15:12 AM »
I have no skin in the game but JV Puleo...you stated earlier that real officer's Fuzees should have an accommodation for a sling and a bayonet lug.  Well, the piece that started these threads clearly has a bayonet lug.  Maybe it is later than the apparent peak period of Fuzees but isn't that feature somewhat suggestive of intended military use?

Offline JV Puleo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 897
Re: A real Officers' Fuzee
« Reply #9 on: March 15, 2018, 06:00:14 AM »
It certainly does, but so does every other commercial musket. That is the essential problem with this attribution. The deciding factor, where all the other points are met, is the quality of the workmanship. The musket in question is a very average commercial product. However, this can be a difficult call to make. To a great extent, you have to have handled a lot of these guns to be in a position to assess quality. Comparison with American made arms of the same period is pointless... the better grade of English-made arms were far ahead of any contemporary American product in fit and finish.

During the French invasion scare (in Britain) of 1800-1804 quite a few volunteer units were raised. Some of these were very spiffy... like the Inns of Court Volunteers where all of the privates were Solicitors, Law Clerks and Barristers - all "gentlemen." They could – and often did purchase muskets that were every bit as well made as officers' fuzees since they came from the same social strata as the officers. It is only because the volunteers came into being just as the fuzee was going out of style that we can make any judgement at all regarding them. Nevertheless, even this is sometimes a guess.

Offline vtbuck223

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 154
Re: A real Officers' Fuzee
« Reply #10 on: March 15, 2018, 04:16:22 PM »
JVP what you have shared seems to specifically address the term "officers fuzee" concerning the British...but what about other nations and militias? Wouldn't the term basically apply to any mounted officers musket that was created  and used as such during that period? If the term only applies to the British then the standard might be more clear....but if it applies to American, French, and their respective militias as well...then it seems what they carried would be much more variable? I guess one of my questions is about the term "officers fuzee" itself and is it so narrowly defined so as to include only this small group of arms that you reference?

Offline JV Puleo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 897
Re: A real Officers' Fuzee
« Reply #11 on: March 15, 2018, 05:01:42 PM »
In this case, because the original post was about a British musket, I was addressing the officers' fuzee in the British context. The French context is quite different. In an American context I do not see how any substantive distinction can be made between any light musket and a specifically officers' arm. We must also consider that Washington did not approve of them and, in as much as he could, forbid their use in the Continental Army. Did some militia officers carry muskets? Probably... but how would you identify them? There was no fundamental class difference between officers and enlisted men in the American militia... they often came from the same class although the officers were invariably older. The concept of an officer with several younger relatives in the ranks was completely alien in the British context, both for the regular army and the militia. This was something that confused British regulars, for whom class differences were readily apparent. French officers felt much the same way. One of the French sources I have for my (as yet unstarted) book on the French Army in Rhode Island is a comment by an officer who was bemused by meeting a tavern keeper who was also a Major in the militia. This was something he simply couldn't comprehend.

I'm off to the Baltimore show but I'll post something on French fuzees when I get back.

jp

« Last Edit: March 15, 2018, 07:45:03 PM by JV Puleo »

Offline DaveM

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 461
Re: A real Officers' Fuzee
« Reply #12 on: March 16, 2018, 12:44:44 AM »
Joe - assuming I am understanding correctly that the pictured gun is 1780 or so - do you have images of 1780ish dated examples with this style lock and triggerguard finial?  That would be most interesting because I would have guessed 1810ish

Offline JV Puleo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 897
Re: A real Officers' Fuzee
« Reply #13 on: March 16, 2018, 03:50:08 AM »
The gun has Ordnance private proofs so it has to pre-date 1805. That aside, I think we place too much - or perhaps better put, too rigid emphasis on details like the trigger guard finial. It also has a gold touch hole, a feature that was in use by 1760 and disappeared as soon as it was discovered that platinum (which was nowhere near as expensive as gold) would work. I believe that was around 1801. By the 1790s the "hand rail" stock was going out of style on better quality guns... my Grierson fuzee, made after he succeeded John Tow and before he became gunmaker to the Prince of Wales, dates from (if I remember correctly) 1797... it also has a pineapple finial albeit quite different but has no hand rail and very little comb. I'll try to get some photos next week...

The steel mounts are quite distinctive. They might have been made in Birmingham but there was another town, the name of which escapes me at the moment, that specialized in very high grade steel work, especially gun mounts and sword hilts.

Offline Mike Brooks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 13263
    • Mike Brooks Gunmaker
Re: A real Officers' Fuzee
« Reply #14 on: March 16, 2018, 04:53:05 PM »
That gun has to be about as close to 1805 as you can get.
NEW WEBSITE! www.mikebrooksflintlocks.com
Say, any of you boys smithies? Or, if not smithies per se, were you otherwise trained in the metallurgic arts before straitened circumstances forced you into a life of aimless wanderin'?

Offline Pukka Bundook

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3364
Re: A real Officers' Fuzee
« Reply #15 on: March 16, 2018, 05:02:01 PM »
Mike, Dave,

Joe's fuzee has  a lock and furniture, including the trigger-guard pineapple finial, Very near exactly the same as on Jno Twigg's guns of the 1780 -85 period.
One hallmarked for 1784 has near spitting image lock style and furniture.
By 1805  we are seeing flint locks getting into their final form.


All the best,

Richard.

Offline JV Puleo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 897
Re: A real Officers' Fuzee
« Reply #16 on: March 19, 2018, 10:22:06 PM »
Twigg died in 1790. I also notice that his successor, John Bass, used trigger guards with a similar finial. But, the interesting thing to me is the material. High quality steel items were extremely time consuming to make, hence there were very expensive cut steel small swords and beautifully made steel saber hilts. It was the preferred material for items that were likely to see real use. They could not be cast, like brass or silver. (Steel casting is a very modern development.. realistically only applied to small parts since WWII). The necessary hand work was such that there were only a few makers and it is very likely that all of these mounts came from a small number of specialist suppliers. High grade steel mounts are much less common than silver mounts.

Despite the fact that this is a provincial gun, it is extremely likely David Blair purchased the mounts from the same tradesmen that supplied the London market. In Birmingham, the most likely source would have been Mathew Bolton who's firm was well known as a "toy" manufacturer... the word toy denoting small metal parts. Bolton did make steel watch and fob chains and sword hilts but, if I remember correctly, his pattern books do not include gun mountings.