AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: rich pierce on October 07, 2020, 04:00:17 PM
-
The sort of early colonial gun mostly imagined previously. Thoughts?
http://auctions.morphyauctions.com/_a__early_newly_discovered_pre_revolutionary_war_a-lot492976.aspx
-
Groovy.
-
Not to be publicly vilified, but it looks typically German to me. At least the hardware is. I wonder if it has been restocked and if so at what point is it considered an American rifle?
-
Let the vilification begin! Just kidding.
It being a colonial restock of a European gun seems a very reasonable hypothesis to me. Alternatively, parts from several guns were used.
I noted the barrel with touchhole looks original, not reconverted.
-
Early this morning?
Robby
-
I think it's pretty cool. I think Rich is probably right on. I love these early rifles!
-
Regardless of possible European furniture, it's fascinating to see a very early carved American rifle. The artistic importance is in the stocking, providing us with a great example of an early American gunsmith's artistic abilities. Just to get the ball rolling, I think the butt and wrist carving is related to the early carving of George Schroyer... and it even has his little volutes on either end of the cheekpiece. Great study piece at an early date. I also think the lid might be a replacement due to its lesser quality incised carving. Shelby Gallien
-
Here's a question for some of you more learned gentlemen...with New World hardwoods having been a major export to the Old, it is beyond the realm of possibility that this is completely of European manufacture, just using an imported wood? If that's not likely, then specifically why not? Is the carving style a dead giveaway perhaps?
There are also some other very nice longrifles, muskets, and fowlers in the same Morphy's auction.
-
They state the patchbox lid is a replacement. I find the cheekpiece carving makes me think Schroyer at first then it was pointed out to me that there are similarities to RCA 21-23 carving.
The question of American hardwoods sent to Europe comes up a lot. I think there’s about a 0.10% chance or less based on thousands of “jaeger” rifles in European collections all stocked in Euro hardwoods. If it was at all common, seems we’d see some curly maple jaegers signed by Euro makers and in Euro collections. So, as we used to say in science, “It’s a formal possibility.”
-
I like that gun alot. To me it has nice lines.
I personally think it a restock. Mostly Germanic parts. Did anyone notice remnants of a two bladed sight.
Am I wrong that I am seeing some incised carvings? Quite a bit actually. Is that a European feature for the period?
The straight cheekpiece, is that common on European arms of that period?
And the maple stock.
The buttplate looks like it could have been an English styled something at one point.
Just some thoughts..
-
There are a few similarities in details to a number of early rifles. I looked at the RCA 21-23 rifles, and find the carving on the auction rifle is significanlty closer to the early Schroyers, as is the basic cheek style. It doesn't mean it was made by Schroyer, but he's sure in the running for stocking this one. Shelby Gallien
-
Interesting piece. As noted the "restock" title seems quite apt. Despite the heavy wear to the carving, it clearly displays the work of a very accomplished stocker as does the stock shaping. Some similarities in the carving here and there to other work but honestly I doubt it's going to be possible to put a name on this rifle unless one really does a lot of stretching.
I also don't necessarily think that it needs be super early in date. As a restock it may even be War-era work; nobody would discard usable components simply for being 'old fashioned!'
-
European gun parts were shipped to American. This could be an American-stocked rifle and not a re-stock. Just saying it's possible.
Regarding American wood being shipped to Europe... The things I've read indicate the wood was primarily for ship building and furniture making, depending of course on the kind of wood. Some South American wood was used for making dye.
I think if good American wood was commonly available for gunmaking in Europe we wouldn't see as many fine guns with wood patches. Some might think these patches were in-service repairs, but I think there is evidence that things like knots and other defects were removed and patched before the stocking.
-
Great gun, thanks for sharing the auction link!
Matt
-
Bob, you have a good point regarding patching of wood on Euro guns. I have a few German rifles that have wood patches. They are original work and not restoration. This early rifle by Johannes Wolf Peter has had the cheekpiece added to to get the width, probably about 1/2" or so.
(https://i.ibb.co/nj0qNWK/20201009-090854.jpg) (https://ibb.co/M7hyxXJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/ZSZJdLY/originalkiiu.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bFf31W2)
-
Hi,
Two things I find interesting. I wonder if the trigger guard is a replacement. It appears that a very similar but slightly larger one is outlined in the mortice for the front finial. The second feature is that I am pretty sure the butt plate is from a pattern 1757 British marine and militia musket on which the tang and bottom were reshaped. I am not sure what all that means but it is interesting.
dave
-
For your consideration, in particular Number 80 from "Official Catalogue of the Museum of Artillery in the Rotunda, Woolwich"
J. H. Lefroy, Jan 1864
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=X8o_AAAAcAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA56 (https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=X8o_AAAAcAAJ&hl=en&pg=GBS.PA56)
I'm not claiming this is generally applicable but it is limited documentation of a variety of woods, whose geographic origin is not specified, being used in early 19th century Europe.
Carl
-
Bob, you have a good point regarding patching of wood on Euro guns. I have a few German rifles that have wood patches. They are original work and not restoration. This early rifle by Johannes Wolf Peter has had the cheekpiece added to to get the width, probably about 1/2" or so.
(https://i.ibb.co/nj0qNWK/20201009-090854.jpg) (https://ibb.co/M7hyxXJ)
(https://i.ibb.co/ZSZJdLY/originalkiiu.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bFf31W2)
Very common practice on Brandenburg guns
-
There is a Moravian gun (I think) on the KRA disc by Wes White that has about a bazillion small patches on the check side of the butstock. If I recall the carving goes right through them. So it seems even here in the colonies if while shaping out the stock and some ugliness popped up it was patched and life went on.
-
Hi,
Doesn't anybody have opinions about the the comments I made concerning the trigger guard and butt plate?
dave
-
Hi,
Doesn't anybody have opinions about the the comments I made concerning the trigger guard and butt plate?
dave
Dave, regarding the guard front extension, that is something I noticed also. I wondered if maybe the front bit broke off and was restored. That apparently happened from time to time- the front of RCA 19 is a replacement. I looked at the rear bit of the guard on this gun and thought it seems narrow and right for the inlet, so I’m not sure.
I don’t know enough about British guns to say more than the buttplate sure looks like a British musket buttplate.
Altogether the parts suite suggest it is not a direct restock of an otherwise intact Germanic gun.
-
I'd agree also, if it is indeed a brit buttplate, it surely reinforces the idea of a "parts gun."
About the guard and guard inlet: this one is really a tough call just based upon internet photos. I've seen many old guns with guard inlets which after years of refinishing and years of brass polishing, look 'wallowed' larger than the finials. Also they sometimes shift, as this one has, toward one side or the other via driving the pin into place multiple times. If the guard is mispositioned when driving in the pin, it also can enlarge the mortise. However, this looks like a "clean" enlargement if that makes sense. I tried zooming in on the photos as much as I can without pixelating, it's possible there may be a joint in the front post of the guard just above the finial (looks visible on both sides, but I might be imagining it because now I'm looking for it!!!). A joint might be a repair, or it might be original work; some German guards were assembled and brazed together very neatly out of sheet pieces. I've seen it a number of times, and it was original work. More common on pistols, though.
The bottom line is, I would love to put on my detective hat and really take this one apart. It appears it already has been dismantled recently.
It is very common for auction companies to miss things done to these old guns over the years whether deliberate or not (separate issue). Many times things do not materialize until the piece is taken apart.
-
Hi,
Below is a photo of a pattern 1757 marine and militia musket. It is easy to see how it could be modified slightly to produce the one on the rifle. The screw position is an exact match.
(https://i.ibb.co/RNMDw4G/marine-musket-butt-plate.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
To me the significance of that is that few if any militia muskets were ever used in North America and there likely would not be many surplus or captured marine muskets available to American gun makers until 1775. There might have been a bunch available after Lexington and Concord. I don't think British ordnance would have surplused components until after the last production of the musket in 1776. I suppose some old militia muskets from the 1760s might be sold off and find their way to America. Likewise, a marine musket might get picked up during one of the campaigns in the West Indies before the AWI, in which American colonists participated. Anyway, some food for thought about the date of the rifle.
dave
-
A couple of points to add to this discussion...
Under a law passed in 1757, it required a license from the Privy Council to export military stores of any kind, including all guns and gun parts as well as gunpowder from Britain. This extended to British colonies and to Ireland as well. The council embargoed shipments to America in 1774 and the embargo was not partially lifted until December of 1792 and, even then only for swords, pistols and fowling pieces which had to have a wooden ramrod and not be fitted with a bayonet. One need only read the plaintive advertisements in American newspapers for anyone who might be able to make a gun lock (clock makers, locksmiths etc...) to understand that this was a skill that was almost completely lacking in America as late as the Revolution (and, I would argue, for a long time afterward).
Thus, the sale of obsolete British arms in America just prior to the Revolution is effectively impossible. While the odd example may have reached these shores by some circuitous route, the Marine & Militia pattern musket must have been virtually unknown. Most were issued to the British militia - another subject altogether and one that is poor understood today - but one that largely precludes their coming to America.
Hardwoods were the single largest export from America from colonial times through the 1820s or 30s. In keeping with Britain's mercantilist trade laws, practically all of it went to England until after the Revolution. Wood that was suitable for furniture was often suitable for gun making. Unfortunately, the trade records rarely specify what kind of wood it was but soft woods were readily available from Russia and the Baltic (a much shorter journey) so virtually all the American exports were hardwoods. I do have one period reference to the export of maple gun stock wood to Liverpool, albeit at a much later date – 1817 – but I would not assume that was the first time it was done. Except for a short period around 1800-1805 when we see some used by top end London makers, maple was not a popular stock wood in England. But, even though shipments had to go to England, there was no barrier to trans shipping goods from England to the continent. That was commonly done and constituted a considerable portion of British trade and as long as the goods traveled in British bottoms, was encouraged.
Quite a lot of records exist concerning this trade but none are readily available via the internet. We've only begun to scratch the surface of what is available. If I had to guess, I'd say that collectors have grossly underestimated the sophistication of 18th century trade.
As far as this rifle is concerned, I'm inclined to think it's a high quality American restock of an earlier rifle, perhaps with a part or two replaced...if the butt stock was broken off, a new butt plate would have been needed and from 1774 to 1793 I greatly doubt that any older, usable gun parts were discarded because they were old fashioned.
-
Immigrants from Europe worked at lockmaking in America--hard to know how many. But William Henry II, master of the small Christian's Spring shop in 1779 and struggling with an ambitious contract that Oerter had arranged, tried to recruit the Englishman Joseph Perkin to Christian's Spring to "instruct him in the Gun Lock Making Trade."
Years later (1810), William Henry III was instructed in the same trade by "David Maston, a master lockfiler and English workman."
These are two examples that I've come across in my very narrow field of study. I can't imagine but that there were more...
(https://i.ibb.co/0ZjDmQ7/Perkin-Henry-1779.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HYDFBXS)
-
It would seem possible that Perkin may have been at Christians Spring, (CS) for awhile. The lock on the Oerter 'Griffin' Rifle is signed 'I. Perkin.' At this time there is no indication of further activity by him at that location, and thus it is always possible that he may have made the lock elsewhere. If more CS rifles surface with his locks we might make a better assumption on his participation in that particular school/gun industry.
Dick
-
Interesting that Perkin made English style locks. Surname sounds English.
-
Not too surprising Rich considering that he came from England. Somewhere I read what year, but that fact has escaped my imperfect memory.
Dick
-
Not too surprising Rich considering that he came from England. Somewhere I read what year, but that fact has escaped my imperfect memory.
Dick
I guess for me the curiosity or interesting bit is that there’s an A Albrecht lock (Germanic) but then they hire a lock maker who makes English style locks. Just shows what a mix the colonies were.
-
Just wanted to clarify that Joseph Perkin never did go to Christian's Spring to train William Henry. The letter indicates only that Henry tried to recruit him.
Perkin had worked as a gunsmith and lockmaker in the single brothers' house in the Moravian community at Bristol, England. He was a member of the single brothers' choir of the Bristol Moravian congregation as early as 1766. In April 1766 a boy named John Waters (also a Moravian) was apprenticed to Perkin "for seven years to learn the Gun Lock Smith Trade." When the single brothers rebuilt their house in July 1766, they included a shop for Perkin; they were later going to establish a "Ironmonger's Shop," with Perkin as "workman," but they abandoned this idea in January 1767--though Perkin was allowed to continue his "traffic in the Gunlock way." Perkin's "Gunlock Trade" was doing well: the pastor reported that "their Orders increase very much" by November 1766 and by March of the next year the single brothers agreed to "enlarge the shop" because Perkin didn't have "Room enough in his shop for himself and John Waters to work."
Moravian records indicate that Perkins emigrated to America in 1771.
-
Hi Joe,
Several of the British units at Lexington, Concord, and Breed's Hill were Royal Marines armed with marine muskets, which were in production until 1776. Moreover, detachments of marines were with Carleton in Canada and involved in defending Quebec during the siege in 1775-76 by Arnold and Montgomery. There also were earlier actions in the West Indies in which colonists participated and could have accessed marine muskets. Certainly, there was an opportunity to acquire marine muskets from wounded or dead marines during Lexington and Concord.
dave
-
Hi Joe,
Several of the British units at Lexington, Concord, and Breed's Hill were Royal Marines armed with marine muskets, which were in production until 1776.
dave
Dave---Great observation about the British Marines. There is one known British Marine musket which is a Pattern 1759 Marine Musket. It is very deeply engraved on the rear strap of the triggerguard;"PLYMo Dn". It is also deeply engraved on the buttplate tang "15/19". Plymouth 15th Division weapon number 19. My photograph of the triggerguard appears on page 203 of De Witt Bailey's Small Arms of the British Forces in America . Again, these markings were very deeply engraved. That's not to say that all British Marine weapons had their division and weapon number as deeply engraved. It would have taken quite a bit of work to remove the engravings.
Goldstein and Mowbray's book The Brown Bess covers the Pattern 1757 and 1759 Marine muskets very thoroughly.
A small point, I do not believe that the British Marines were designated "Royal Marines" until 1802, well after the Rev War.
Kent
-
Hi Kent,
I think it is important to note that the first British shots at Lexington and Concord were by light "Bobs" from the 4th and 10th regiments Both likely were armed with pattern 1760 light infantry fusils until 1777 or so when they were issued the standard short land muskets. The Royal Marines with their marine muskets were the brave souls who held the British retreat from Concord together and prevented a total rout until Percy's units came to the rescue. It also was the light units on the flanks of the retreating British column that did the most damage to the colonists. The light infantry units played a major role at Breed's Hill, particularly those attacking John Stark's command at the stone wall near the shore. They were armed with light infantry fusils. The marines were also a decisive force finally over running the redoubt. My point in all this is that during the most critical events during the first year of the war, British firearms other than the Brown Bess played crucial roles.
dave
-
Hi Kent,
My point in all this is that during the most critical events during the first year of the war, British firearms other than the Brown Bess played crucial roles.
dave
Dave---You are 100% correct. Both sides of the equation were using British arms. I would imagine that many members of the New England militias employed muskets used in the Louisbourg campaign and in particular, the Seven years War.
I have additional photos somewhere of the Plymouth Division musket somewhere in this house. The picture card that has those photos on it is one of those items that disappeared during our move to warmer climes.
Kent
-
SOOOOOOOOO....... I gather then that the *most likely* accepted train of thought here is, that if this buttplate is indeed a repurposed marine musket buttplate, it would be highly unlikely that it would have been available to a gun stocker prior to the War when battlefield captures/pickups may have been available?
If so this would tend to reinforce my notion that it's probably a War-era rifle.
I don't see the excessive arc stamping (in the carving as infill) as a particularly early characteristic, though I'm sure that notion can't be taken as a hard and fast rule. Just MHO.
-
Here is a Marine/Militia musket that to me reeks of American ownership. The sling swivels have been removed and about an inch of barrel has been bobbed. I have no idea what the history is of this musket, but it did originally come out of Canada. The ramrod should be wood. The metal rod came with the musket, but doesn't even come close to fitting. Any idea of the markings? At first I thought it was Independent Company, but after a closer examination it is INNEP' Com'y.
(https://i.ibb.co/mbHH5R1/20201013-115045.jpg) (https://ibb.co/pb33j1G)
(https://i.ibb.co/pKnmpkx/20201013-115113.jpg) (https://ibb.co/2M5bBpy)
(https://i.ibb.co/sy1rfrb/20201013-115923.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jgwFNFb)
-
Taking a second (actually 4th or 5th) look at the buttplate tang on the Morphy rifle, leads me to speculate that if it is from a British musket, it is from a Land Pattern rather than a Marine pattern musket, with a c'sunk added for the screw. I realize cameras distort photos, but I think that the buttplate tang of the Marine Pattern is not long enough in comparison to the buttplate tang on the Morphy rifle.
-
Taking a second (actually 4th or 5th) look at the buttplate tang on the Morphy rifle, leads me to speculate that if it is from a British musket, it is from a Land Pattern rather than a Marine pattern musket, with a c'sunk added for the screw. I realize cameras distort photos, but I think that the buttplate tang of the Marine Pattern is not long enough in comparison to the buttplate tang on the Morphy rifle.
That had crossed my mind as well. I think a person would have to actually measure the buttplate on the Morphy rifle. I measured the buttplate on my Marine musket. I think it looks pretty close, and it might look a little off if it was slightly narrowed on the sides. Another thing to consider is if it was cut off to make the flat on the bottom of the buttplate the max. amount I think you could get would be around 5 inches in height.
-
Hi,
I agree. Without a scale it is hard to tell.
dave
-
Been following this. Never watched it much, but there was a tv show a few years back called CSI.. :)
Hope you guys get it figured out before I bid on it, ( just kidding)...
-
Here is a Marine/Militia musket that to me reeks of American ownership. At first I thought it was Independent Company, but after a closer examination it is INNEP' Com'y.
Lexington,
I found information in Bailey's Small Arms of the British Forces in America for arms issued to Independent Companies. As far as I can tell, these companies did not have number designations. They are identified by their commanders last name.
Appendix VIII, page 327 under arms issued to Militias: for Crudens Ind Co.:
29 Sept 1781 20 muskets & bayonets
3 Jan 1782 92 muskets & bayonets
6 March 1782 100 muskets & bayonets
17 May 50 muskets & bayonets
Appendix XVII, page 357 Issue of Arms: 9 Feb 1778 101 muskets & bayonets each to Independent Companies commanded by Lord, R. Edwards, Campbell, Adams, Lloyd, Fielding, Vaughan, Herbert, J. Edwards
Cannot find any info on where these Independent Companies operated.
Kent
-
Thanks Kent. I have been racking my brain trying to figure out why it would only have Independent Company engraved on the barrel. It also has a number (54) on the buttplate tang.
-
Lexington--I have to amend my info concerning the muskets and bayonets issued to Cruden's Independent Company. Those arms were issued from Charleston (S. Carolina) ordnance stores.
-
“Short Musquets of the new Pattern for Marines or Militia”
At least 2,000 Marine/Militia muskets are here in New York Ordnance stores by 1760 (flat sideplates do show up at Ligonier). That being said, as far as I know there are not typically interior Ordnance markings for M/M buttplates on those, so it would be difficult to tell if this buttplate started on a marine/militia gun vs say a commercial product in a similar style- not to mention even if it is a recycled military buttplate it may have been filed down/reprofiled to better fit the stock so identification through measurements would be problematic.
-
I believe that BACKSPLASH has gotten to the heart of the matter.
-
I believe that BACKSPLASH has gotten to the heart of the matter.
I believe you are right! Still it is pretty interesting to see this type of buttplate on a rifle made of mostly German parts. Pretty cool.
-
I apologize profusely for the quality of the three photos appearing below. The photos are of the buttplate tang, triggerguard, and lock of, according to DeWitt Bailey, the only known identified British Marine musket of the Rev War period. This musket was found in a New Jersey gunshop in 2008 along side a Pattern 1777 Short Land marked to the 79th Regiment.
The photo of the triggerguard appears on page 203 of Bailey's Small Arms of the British Forces in America.
(https://i.ibb.co/FXrZpjt/Screenshot-346.jpg) (https://ibb.co/NrvDRHz)
(https://i.ibb.co/0Kz7VPt/Screenshot-344.jpg) (https://ibb.co/1M4gJH6)
(https://i.ibb.co/fG0VdcB/Screenshot-345.jpg) (https://ibb.co/x85Kq4P)