AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: bluenoser on October 23, 2023, 04:55:54 PM
-
I had an opportunity to fondle an absolutely gorgeous early British fowler yesterday. It is a new acquisition and gave me a serious case of the I wants.
It is a signed piece by Thomas Fort and reported to be built in the 1690 to 1710 timeframe. As I recall, Fort passed away in 1713. Please excuse the poor quality photos. They were taken with a phone under less than ideal conditions. It was our first peek at the lock internals and a good cleaning is obviously in order.
(https://i.postimg.cc/sfM6RW02/Thomas-Fort-Right-Side-A.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/3JptkTh5/Thomas-Fort-Wrist-A.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/dDMZbpNG/Thomas-Fort-Lock-Back-Side-1-A.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/dVY4dxQ7/Thomas-Fort-Lock-Back-Side-6-A.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Half cock
(https://i.postimg.cc/KcC9cYdD/Thomas-Fort-Lock-Back-Side-3-A.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Full cock
(https://i.postimg.cc/Vv0bHmgY/Thomas-Fort-Lock-Back-Side-5-A.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Take a close look at the sear/tumbler engagement. The sear is a split affair with the half closest to the plate pivoting and apparently spring loaded. The section closest to the plate engages the half cock notch and the other fixed section engages the full cock notch. I have never seen a setup even remotely similar to this and am anxious to see more. Perhaps if the owner decides to have it disassembled for cleaning .....
The owner is not a member, but I believe he intends to join, and might join in the conversation - hopefully with additional pics,
Did I mention that it has a silver side plate?
-
Marvelous! Thanks for sharing.
I’ll take a guess regarding the sear and tumbler configuration. I’m guessing this serves the same function as a fly and insures the sear will ride over the half cock notch when firing. I’m going to guess that the noses of the sear were brazed on.
-
Your date is about a half-century too early for this gun.
Jim
-
Is there a signature on that somewhere? Because as Jim says, there is no way that this piece (beautiful as it is) is that early. Maybe there was a jr. or descendant with the same name?
-
Rich,
That is exactly what I was thinking.
Jim,
Kind of hard to believe if he died in 1713. The owner is a very knowledgeable collector of British fowling pieces and certainly seemed to have is facts nailed down. Hopefully, he will chime in.
-
Signature on the bbl. I have no idea regarding possibility of Jr. Has stamps on the left side of bbl at breech which would likely shed some light on the matter. I have an idea the owner is monitoring the conversation and perhaps he will send a photo and interpretation of their meaning to me.
-
Rich,
That is exactly what I was thinking.
Jim,
Kind of hard to believe if he died in 1713. The owner is a very knowledgeable collector of British fowling pieces and certainly seemed to have is facts nailed down. Hopefully, he will chime in.
Sorry, but the person who died in 1713 did not make this gun. Not debatable in any fashion.
-
Jim, you are obviously adamant in your position and I would like to the basis for it
I have spoken with the owner and he will provide more info when he gets a chance.
Here is what he told me:
The family line died out with Thomas and his wife.
Thomas died in 1713.
His signature is on the barrel.
His documented makers mark (Guild mark?) is on the barrel.
Information on Fort, including his maker's mark can be found in Blackmore's book and one other reference book that was mentioned.
I am out of my wheelhouse here and am just relaying information.
-
Some gun maker re-used an older barrel ?????
-
Rich,
That is exactly what I was thinking.
Jim,
Kind of hard to believe if he died in 1713. The owner is a very knowledgeable collector of British fowling pieces and certainly seemed to have is facts nailed down. Hopefully, he will chime in.
Sorry, but the person who died in 1713 did not make this gun. Not debatable in any fashion.
Ditto
-
Looks like a 1760-70 gun. Nice though.
-
I would also suspect a recycled barrel in the event there was only one man of that name. Just off the top, the decorative wirework is straight up mid-rococo which is not late 17th/early 18th century. Probably mid 1730s to 1740s at the earliest. I can't get the images to open larger for me but what I can see of the lockplate also tells me mid-18th century. Not to mention the stirrup spring/tumbler arrangement.
-
A british gun that early would have a round faced lock. This one has a flat lock with a step at the tail. 1770-ish. Pictures of the mounts would nail the date down.
-
Hi,
The split sear is called an intercepting sear. It is designed so the inner half of the sear tip is not connected to the sear bar. That way, if the trigger is pulled so hard at half cock that it breaks the tip off the primary sear, the separate secondary inner sear tip will hold the lock at half cock. When the lock is pulled back to full cock, the two sear tips line up and the lock fires normally. This was a feature seen in locks used by John Twigg during the 1770s. This gun may have an old barrel but the rest is from the late 1760s - 1770s. The photos are not clear but the barrel profile looks archaic suggesting an old one. I wonder if the lock has a different name on the plate.
dave
-
That three-stage barrel is certainly of a much earlier form and atypical of what you would see on a gun with this quality level from the 1760's-1770's. I'm with the others who suggested a re-used barrel.
As to the details that suggest a post-mid-18th century date, I would include everything but the barrel! After you study this stuff even a little bit there won't be any question.
-
Thanks,
Some good and thought-provoking information here. We will see see what the owner has to say and, hopefully, more pics.
Thanks to smart dog for the information on the intercepting sear. I do need to make one clarification. The two sear tips do not line up at full cock - ref the full cock photo. Each notch is approximately 1/2 the width of the tumbler face and, as I recall, the full cock notch is on a larger radius - but I might be mistaken there.
-
Looks like the tumbler and mainspring work together using a stirrup.
-
I should add - assuming that the owner is following the thread - that to pretty much any of us here, the barrel being recycled is not in any way considered a negative. Frankly, to me personally, it makes it more interesting. I'd second the request to see pics of the furnishings. The lock is clearly not recycled - it's of the era that the piece as it now stands was stocked, so if there is a name on the lock, THAT may conceivably be the name of the guy who stocked it. It would be interesting to see if any of the furniture was recycled from the earlier gun whence the barrel came.
-
I agree Eric about the interest factor of a barrel from an earlier time. Ive seen guns that were made around an older barrel as well as guns re-stocked in a more modern form using barrel and hardware. The earlier buttplates lent some hint of the earlier style just due to its shape but the stocker definitely used lock panel and stock forming styles contemporary to his time. From the first picture I would say all of the hardware looks from the period of the lock if i squint but it would also be interesting to see those. This is a really neat piece.
-
For another example, this very mid 18th century American stocked fowler at the Va Hist Soc/MCH has a MUCH earlier (17th century) barrel and a lock by Collicott.
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhFvCcWuvVcxsCJyuAjzDiVNUMxcxri7O157kz33_YK-mXZEmnoJASgs75WYKO8J5pVmqJE5Uzs-f5aSjGs8LODfMYL_IPKgg0wianAkXMtPX1LN_mdoiH7CMQoBbrsBKhtu0KrLteQgEmGbIDknRAz5HUh7tYnsRMlUklzTvXiWi2zApDf_z2MoVCe3A/s3616/vhsarmingthecommonwealthblog_woodsonmusket-1929-8_cutout.jpg)
-
OK folks compared to many of our learned members (and I mean that as a compliment) I know very little. However, I am very good at doing research and believe I have a fair dose of good old common sense. I continue to maintain an open mind on this subject but, by nature, am following up with my own research. I am not offended when I get shot down, so have at it. I take such occurrences as just another learning opportunity.
The owner is quite busy at the moment, so it might be some time before we get more photos and information.
To Mikes comment regarding round vs flat faced locks: There are examples of English flat faced locks dating to the second half of the 17th century. The Henry Crips lock dated 1647 would be one example. Granted, it is a dog lock but, going from memory - which can be a perilous move at my age - the plate bears some similarity to the plate on this piece. What am I missing here?
Intercepting sear: Could someone post a photo of, or a link to, a lock mechanism (Twigg or otherwise) that has an intercepting sear? Although the concept might be the same, intercepting sears I have found on the net have significant mechanical differences compared to this lock. What is the documentation regarding the first use of such an arrangement?
Spring/stirrup/bridle: When did the stirrup first come into use and what is the supporting documentation?
Reused barrels: This is the suggestion I have the greatest difficulty reconciling. The reuse of barrels is well known and I have pieces with reused barrels. However, I cannot fathom a maker reusing a barrel on a piece of this quality and leaving the original name on the barrel. It just does not make sense to me when it would be so easy and advantageous to scrub the barrel and add the later builders signature. I would also question the practice of leaving the earlier builder's Guild mark on the piece. Please provide examples of high-end pieces where that has happened. Pieces such as that posted by backsplash75 are irrelevant because they are plain utilitarian arms.
We can get into architecture and fittings when we have more to go on.
-
Hi,
Plates 106-109 in Neal and Backs' "Great British Gunmakers 1740-1790" show all the parts of an intercepting sear used by Twigg. Page 49 has the written description. Flat faced locks mounted flush with the stock were common on British guns during the late 17th century but they were much more primitive mechanisms and did not have raised moldings on the edges or stirrups on the tumbler. Many had no internal bridles and almost all had no pan bridles. The lock on this gun was made during the late 1760s or early 1770s. Hopefully, the owner possesses the reference I mentioned.
dave
-
Thanks Dave, I will pass that along to the owner and inquire about the reference. For clarity, The 1647 Crips lock is not a flush-mounted lock and does appear to have a pan bridle. No pic of the internals.
-
I use to own a Durrs Egg ca. 1780s that had a 1750 dated Spanish barrel. Old barrels on new guns wasn't discouraged on British guns
-
It's also unrealistic to apply modern ways of thinking (i.e., 'nobody would simply leave and old signature on a restocked barrel') to 18th century tradesmen. Many pieces are entirely unsigned - did the makers not have any pride or personal satisfaction in the piece? I have no idea. I have seen a few pieces at KRA shows with signed or marked barrels that clearly were not the signatures of the dude who stocked the gun. There are many examples of pieces with two or three sets of owners initials on thumbpieces, sideplates etc. Previous initials were not removed. I can't pretend to understand the philosophical outlook of a man in 1760 but I have worked to try to set aside how *I* think and view things in 2023 and not apply that lens to the 18th century short of evidence - documented, period evidence - to the contrary.
Also, to be blunt - and there are folks here with more experience in English work than I - this doesn't appear to my eye (admittedly tiny photos) to be a "high end" or upper level piece. It's very nice and is attractive and looks to be well made with some nice decoration, but it's probably around average for a European piece of the era that it actually is. I may be wrong - Mike or Dave or Jim certainly would be more experienced in this. I'd listen to what they have to say. Trying to force this fowler into a pre-1713 straightjacket seems to me to be a level of absurdity comparable to finding a Hawken rifle with a recycled Dickert barrel and insisting that Dickert made it. I just went through a very comparable discussion with someone in regard to an extremely fine Neihart rifle with a completely unknown signature on the barrel; all the wishful or optimistic thinking in the world isn't going to make it something it's not.
-
Presumably, the Durs Egg would be a higher quality build. A 1750-dated Spanish barrel bearing the signature of an earlier builder?
-
Reused barrels: This is the suggestion I have the greatest difficulty reconciling. The reuse of barrels is well known and I have pieces with reused barrels. However, I cannot fathom a maker reusing a barrel on a piece of this quality and leaving the original name on the barrel. It just does not make sense to me when it would be so easy and advantageous to scrub the barrel and add the later builders signature. I would also question the practice of leaving the earlier builder's Guild mark on the piece. Please provide examples of high-end pieces where that has happened. Pieces such as that posted by backsplash75 are irrelevant because they are plain utilitarian arms.
It isn't that uncommon on high end European guns in the late 18th century. I was just looking at a Spanish gun later updated in France a few weeks ago. I've seen English guns with old Spanish or other Continental European barrels (possibly picked up while on a Grand Tour), English guns with barrels from earlier English makers, German flintlocks with reused barrels from older wheellocks etc.
This rifle appears to have been originally built in the first half of the 18th century and then been updated late in the flintlock era about a century later c. 1829-1835. It was reportedly owned by King George III and later presented by him:
https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/86/1261/johann-stockel-and-alden-and-smith-signed-flintlock-jaeger-rifle
German flintlock with older barrel:
https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/86/222/von-der-fecht-flintlock-jaeger-rifle
-
I am certainly not trying to force this fowler into a pre-1713 straightjacket and I think it unfair to suggest otherwise. I am trying to understand WHY it falls within whatever timeframe is appropriate, as well as why it would not fall into an earlier timeframe. Quite frankly, comments such as "your date is about a half-century too early for this gun", "Sorry, but the person who died in 1713 did not make this gun. Not debatable in any fashion", "Looks like a 1760-1770 gun" and "Looks like the mainspring and tumbler work together using a stirrup" without any explanation why, or what that means, do nothing to help myself, or anyone else with a similar level of knowledge, better understand those little nuances that make all the difference.
I have the greatest respect for the members of this board, their level of expertise and their willingness to help. However, one all too often sees pronouncements with no accompanying explanation or documentary reference that leave the less informed reader with those big unanswered questions - WHY, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN and HOW DO WE KNOW THAT. Dave's, and Seth's recent posts are, in my mind, good examples of posts that help the reader to better understand the subject or track down the information. I would have included Mike's recent comment, had he mentioned if the barrel was signed.
And, yes, I am guilty of looking at the 18th century through a 20th century (because I am an old @*rt) lens. End of rant. I sincerely hope it is taken in the spirit it was given. Not to criticize, but to help folks understand that, sometimes, a little more information can make all the difference.
-
It isn't our responsibility to educate you. Buy Great British Gunmakers. Do a thorough search on the web. Look at past auctions. Look at really good modern examples. Everything less the barrel appears to be solidly 1760-1770, so an explanation would require an extreme amount of effort.
For starters you can check out a couple on my website: https://www.jimkibler.net/john-harman-fowling.html
https://www.jimkibler.net/english-fowling-piece.html
Also, here is a modern example I made: https://www.jimkibler.net/fowling-piece-1.html
And here is a 1690-1710 example: https://www.jimkibler.net/john-cookson-fowling.html
I personally don't have time to explain every detail that puts this at 1760-1770. Others may vary. If all this really matters dig in!
-
Simply posting those three links would have accomplished so much.
-
Jim your 1690-1710 link goes right back to the later Harmon piece; looking forward to seeing the earlier work, I find it much more interesting personally.
-
Hi,
Post a picture of the Crips gun. I'd like to see it. Or at least provide the reference. According to Blackmore, Henry Crips was an apprentice in 1668 and did his proof piece in 1677.
dave
-
I'll come down on the side of a reused barrel and even posit that the barrel came from a well loved much earlier gun and it was the owner who had it restocked...and updated. Perhaps it was his father's gun or perhaps it was a gun with a long record of "shooting hard" (to use their term). In any case, it doesn't look anything like a late 17th / early 18th century gun.
I'm of the opining that dating artifacts strictly by style is not very precise...but this is a case where the style is so far off what was common in the period 1690/1715, and so similar to mid to late 18th century guns that I don't see how there can be any question.
Mike makes a good point regarding rounded lock surfaces...yes, there are early flat-faced locks but they tend to be either dog locks or relatively inexpensive guns...not wire inlaid fowlers.
-
Jim your 1690-1710 link goes right back to the later Harmon piece; looking forward to seeing the earlier work, I find it much more interesting personally.
How about this one...
https://www.jimkibler.net/john-cookson-fowling.html
And this one....
https://www.jimkibler.net/burl-stocked-fowling-piece.html
-
As JVP suspected, it is a dog lock and there is only one poor quality photo of the lock face. The date might be somewhat suspect.
William & Mary University
1990 Dissertation by Beverly Anne Straube
"Early English Firearms: A Re-examination of the Evidence"
Page 57, Figure 16
Ref: Jackson and Whitelaw, Plate XXVIII, Figure 49
Image of face of lock
https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd/1539625569/
As it turns out, there is a name on the fowler lock. It is mostly worn away and only the first name is visible - and not clearly at that. The owner is working on it.
-
Sorry for the bad link. James Rogers corrected it in his later post and I changed my original post.
As to quality level, I would call this a mid-range or upper-middle quality gun. Interestingly you see earlier barrel forms such as this three-stage version being used on lower-grade guns even during the period of this piece. They are very common on trade guns and export quality fowling pieces. One exception is that these generally have significantly smaller breeches than the earlier barrels.
Jim
-
In order to avoid once again being accused of "trying to force this fowler into a pre-1713 straightjacket" I wish to make something perfectly clear. What follows concerns only the lock.
I believe it is clear that raised (not flush mounted) flat-faced English flint locks were in existence in the last half of the 17th century. They might not have been common, but they did exist. I do not have Neal and Backs "Great British Gunmakers 1740-1790" and have no intention of paying several hundred dollars to purchase a copy. I do not know what the intercepting sear used by Twigg looks like. If someone were to post a pic of plates 106-109 in Great Gunmakrs, it would be most helpful.
The following quote is taken from page 34 in Blackmore's "Guns and Rifles of the World".
"Next comes a lock which from the outside appears to be no different, but has a sear with an additional prong inside which comes into operation in the half-cock position, blocking the movement of the tumbler. The gunmakers obviously did not trust this measure entirely and so for the most part retained the outside dog as well. In the 1640s, however, they took this idea one step farther and made both prongs of the sear act on the tumbler, there being no longer a projection through the lock-plate. A pair of pistols with this type of lock, by the London gunmaker William Watson in the Tower of London (XII-1495-6), can be dated to c. 1650."
On the surface, that description of the last iteration appears to be a pretty fair description of the mechanism in this lock. I have just received, and am attaching, additional pics of the lock. I have also attached a picture from another Blackmore book showing a 1685 fowler having a lock with a stepped tail.
(https://i.postimg.cc/13Q2wBM7/Fort_Full_Lock_Face.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/bY4KNpnh/Fort_Lock_Name.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/h4XkBffs/Fort_Full_Lock_Back_Side.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/X7FtrmKy/1685__Fowler_in_Blackmore_book.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/GHLXNM5c)
-
There are some 17th-century flat-faced locks, but they are significantly different than the lock being discussed. Sort of like comparing a 1950 pick-up truck to one built today. In the 1690-1710 period being discussed round faced locks dominated in England. Anything else would be the exception.
Look at these locks as a whole and then drill down to the details when comparing.
Jim
-
Hi,
With respect to the Crips lock mentioned by the OP, the lock is nothing like the lock on the fowler with the Fort barrel. It does not have a pan bridle, and its date is most likely a forgery. It pays to read the text in any documents cited plus the description and discussion are included in Bly Straub's condensed version of her MA thesis published in the American Society of Arms Collectors volume 63, pages 32-56. It has been a while since I read it. The date was likely changed from 1679, which was in line with Crips biographical information. The earlier 1647 date was engraved sometime much later, maybe a few centuries later by someone desiring the gun to be from the English Civil War. We see this often with folks trying to "enhance" the provenances of their guns by adding important dates like our Rev and Civil Wars. No surprise, British collectors have done that as well.
dave
-
I did read the relevant section of the dissertation and clearly stated that the 1647 date is suspect. However, 1679 is still well within the last half of the 17th century, it is a flat-plate lock and it was not flush mounted. This lock was presented in rebuttal to the statement that a lock dating to the 1690-1710 time period would not have a flat face. Whether or not it has a bridle is irrelevant. And finally, both the owner and I are well aware of the practice of trying to enhance the provenance of a piece.
-
The stirrup linking tumbler and mainspring says something about when this lock was made.
-
Look at these locks as a whole and then drill down to the details when comparing.
Let me tell you a little bit about the owner of this piece.
He has been collecting British arms for probably in excess of 60 years.
He has toured the Tower of London at the unsolicited invitation of the Chief Curator.
His one-on-one tour of the pattern room and other unseen collections was conducted by none other than Howard Blackmore - who also presented him with an autographed copy of one of his books.
I do believe he has at least a passing knowledge of the history and development of locks on British firearms.
I also believe we could have stood to learn a fair amount from him - had we not been quite so condescending.
-
The stirrup linking tumbler and mainspring says something about when this lock was made.
That is a very good point and the second time it has been mentioned. It, in itself, could be a defining feature. However, without a solid verifiable date for the introduction of the stirrup, one cannot be certain what it has to say about how early the lock could have been made. Just a little more information in a post can make a significant difference
-
There’s always a mix of personalities and communication styles on any forum and nothing here has crossed the line. Many responses have been very even-toned and you’ve gained a lot of perspectives. I’d sum them up, noting the yeahs and nays for the earliest dates proposed. Also, typically we don’t estimate dates by the earliest feature present on a gun, but the latest. In this case, for me the most obvious later feature is the lock stirrup connecting tumbler and mainspring, and I’m not expert but don’t recall this pre-dating 1760.
People have been trying to help but not good enough I guess.
-
It has been more to do with certain condescending attitudes and unsubstantiated statements. I had made this individual aware of the group, praised the collective level of knowledge and members willingness to engage in discussion. He had intended to join prior to viewing some of the unsubstantiated condescending and, quite frankly, rude comments that were posted. There is no need to repeat how he now views of some of our members. Suffice it to say - I am embarrassed.
-
Bluenoser,
I have helped you at my own expense of time. Appreciation??? Seems you are pretty sore about being wrong. Also, I couldn't care less about the credentials of your collector friend. Bottom line is that if he thinks or thought the gun was 1690-1710 he knows next to nothing about English guns of the 17th to 18th century.
Further, if you don't like my communication style, I could care less.
Jim
-
Thanks,
That speaks volumes.
-
Bluenoser,
I have helped you at my own expense of time. Appreciation??? Seems you are pretty sore about being wrong. Also, I couldn't care less about the credentials of your collector friend. Bottom line is that if he thinks or thought the gun was 1690-1710 he knows next to nothing about English guns of the 17th to 18th century.
Further, if you don't like my communication style, I could care less.
Jim
What a sad comment.....
-
Hi,
This thread is ridiculous. If the owner of the gun is so knowledgeable, why is he not communicating directly rather than going through you, bluenoser, who admittedly doesn't know much about English guns. You ask questions, we answer them and then you challenge them with absolutely no reasonable evidence. The Crips gun is irrelevant and in no way supports any contention that the gun you posted was made around 1700. You have shown no evidence that makes a compelling argument for that case and you are not a knowledgeable judge. You admit that yourself. So have the owner post so we can have an informed conversation. I have not been condescending in the least and support my statements. So if you want to continue, have your friend communicate to me by PM.
dave
-
The dual "prongs" you mention a number of posts back re: a 17th century doglock are not the intercepting sear arrangement that your lock displays; it's referencing sear developments which transpired in the 17th century into the very early 18th century during the transition from a lateral sear to a vertical sear. I don't have a photo available at the moment but I've seen them and worked with them and there were a couple of different funky ways they were designed. It was a very experimental period.
The black and white fowler photo does not look to be a 17th century gun. It's another that very clearly looks to be mid-18th century, a little earlier probably than the piece you posted. It looks to have a sliding safety behind the cock (the external piece is a thumb slide and passes through the plate to lock internal components in place). I'm not sure of the exact date of that development but I'm pretty positive it's another mid-century characteristic at earliest. Again, I'd defer to Jim or Dave or Mike.
One big issue with many of the older books of the mid 20th century through the 1960 and into the 1970s was that the dating of most pieces was extremely 'off' and the authors tended to early-date everything. Some of this was due to fraud (not on the authors' part, but fraudulent markings being used as a basis for comparison) and some due to the authors not having much easier access to pieces such as we do now via many many more books, CDs/DVDs, collecting shows and organizations etc.
-
Guys where would you date that fowler in the black/white image? I tried to zoom in on it for a better look at the lock and it does look like a sliding safety but I'm not positive. I would not guess 1685, but again, brit stuff isn't my passion.
-
In order to avoid once again being accused of "trying to force this fowler into a pre-1713 straightjacket" I wish to make something perfectly clear. What follows concerns only the lock.
I believe it is clear that raised (not flush mounted) flat-faced English flint locks were in existence in the last half of the 17th century. They might not have been common, but they did exist. I do not have Neal and Backs "Great British Gunmakers 1740-1790" and have no intention of paying several hundred dollars to purchase a copy. I do not know what the intercepting sear used by Twigg looks like. If someone were to post a pic of plates 106-109 in Great Gunmakrs, it would be most helpful.
The following quote is taken from page 34 in Blackmore's "Guns and Rifles of the World".
"Next comes a lock which from the outside appears to be no different, but has a sear with an additional prong inside which comes into operation in the half-cock position, blocking the movement of the tumbler. The gunmakers obviously did not trust this measure entirely and so for the most part retained the outside dog as well. In the 1640s, however, they took this idea one step farther and made both prongs of the sear act on the tumbler, there being no longer a projection through the lock-plate. A pair of pistols with this type of lock, by the London gunmaker William Watson in the Tower of London (XII-1495-6), can be dated to c. 1650."
On the surface, that description of the last iteration appears to be a pretty fair description of the mechanism in this lock. I have just received, and am attaching, additional pics of the lock. I have also attached a picture from another Blackmore book showing a 1685 fowler having a lock with a stepped tail.
(https://i.postimg.cc/13Q2wBM7/Fort_Full_Lock_Face.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/bY4KNpnh/Fort_Lock_Name.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/h4XkBffs/Fort_Full_Lock_Back_Side.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/X7FtrmKy/1685__Fowler_in_Blackmore_book.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/GHLXNM5c)
I don't give a hoot about the lock internals, completely irrelevant for the simple task of dating this gun. The larger picture of the Fort gun lock easily confirms it's a 1770's lock. The black and white picture features a slightly easrlier gun, probably 1760-70. Flat faced with a sliding lock, fairly typical styling for the period. The decoration is outstanding but is found at that time period as well. You really need to look at a copy of GREAT BRITISH GUNMAKERS. You'll see at a glance what everybody is trying to tell you. A far as Bonafide's go, the guys you have answering your questions are probably the best sources of information on British guns of the period.
I used to own a late 1670's english gun. I'll see if I can find some pictures. Radically different features.
-
Guys where would you date that fowler in the black/white image? I tried to zoom in on it for a better look at the lock and it does look like a sliding safety but I'm not positive. I would not guess 1685, but again, brit stuff isn't my passion.
1765 or so.
-
Guys where would you date that fowler in the black/white image? I tried to zoom in on it for a better look at the lock and it does look like a sliding safety but I'm not positive. I would not guess 1685, but again, brit stuff isn't my passion.
1685 guns are rather plump. The stock architecture says 1760's at a glance. Decoration comes from that era as well.
-
Guys where would you date that fowler in the black/white image? I tried to zoom in on it for a better look at the lock and it does look like a sliding safety but I'm not positive. I would not guess 1685, but again, brit stuff isn't my passion.
1685 guns are rather plump. The stock architecture says 1760's at a glance. Decoration comes from that era as well.
an extreme example as it is an 8 bore but...
https://www.bonhams.com/auction/29210/lot/88/a-rare-8-bore-flintlock-wildfowling-gun/ (https://www.bonhams.com/auction/29210/lot/88/a-rare-8-bore-flintlock-wildfowling-gun/)
(https://images1.bonhams.com/image?src=Images/live/2023-10/20/60153305-81-2.jpg)
-
Thanks for posting, that looks about perfect for the late 17th/early 18th century period.
-
This is that Bonhams 8 bore gun sideplate, that is a very nice piece. The other gun being discussed is also nice and very obviously not from the same period.
(https://i.ibb.co/CQqSGHW/20231028-093159.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5LdJHR2)
-
Johan,
I love your sideplate. Sure do enjoy this period of work. Seeing it makes me want to do more.
-
Here are some pics of the lock internals.
It would be appreciated if someone could post pics of the Twigg intercepting sear arrangement. Not having pics, I have to go with smart dog's description - which might not entirely fit this mechanism.
Smart dog states "It is designed so the inner half of the sear tip is not connected to the sear bar" On this lock, the spring-loaded inner tip of the sear is connected to the sear at the pivot point, but is not directly connected to the outer full-cock tip. Depending how one interprets smart dog's description, it could fit this lock.
Smartdog also states "When the lock is pulled back to full cock, the two sear tips line up and the lock fires normally" On this lock, the two sear tips do not line up at full cock and only the full-cock tip engages the tumbler.
On this lock, the spring-loaded inner portion of the sear engages the half-width half cock notch on the tumbler at half cock and the fixed portion of the sear engages the also half-width full cock notch at full cock. It should also be noted that the full-cock lobe on the tumbler appears to be at a slightly larger radius than does the half-cock lobe. The off-center pivot hole in the sear is also interesting. Considering how far it is off center, I believe it to be deliberate. The effect, if any, would appear to be slightly raising the full-cock nose as the spring is compressed and lowering it when relaxed. Relevance?
While not suggesting this lock dates that early, it appears the mechanism in this lock might fit the description on page 34 in Blackmore's "Guns and Rifles of the World".
"Next comes a lock which from the outside appears to be no different, but has a sear with an additional prong inside which comes into operation in the half-cock position, blocking the movement of the tumbler. The gunmakers obviously did not trust this measure entirely and so for the most part retained the outside dog as well. In the 1640s, however, they took this idea one step farther and made both prongs of the sear act on the tumbler, there being no longer a projection through the lock-plate. A pair of pistols with this type of lock, by the London gunmaker William Watson in the Tower of London (XII-1495-6), can be dated to c. 1650."
I am not sure I have a proper understanding of " made both prongs of the sear act on the tumbler" but the description would appear to fit this lock.
All in all, this is an interesting mechanism and I look forward to what others have to say about it. As rich pointed out, the inclusion of the stirrup might well establish the earliest possible date of manufacture. Still looking for hard evidence regarding introduction of the stirrup.
(https://i.postimg.cc/PrncH7h6/Fort-Lock-Parts-1-A.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/MXttbdnR)
(https://i.postimg.cc/PxB7P3D5/Fort-Bridle-and-Tumbler-2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/R6LdYTGk)
(https://i.postimg.cc/5yLRvB5q/Fort-Tumbler-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/v8VjpyRg/Fort-Tumbler-3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kv7W858m/Fort-Tumbler-and-Sear-2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/hfjsCTmY)
(https://i.postimg.cc/R0pyzVVf/Fort-Sear-B5.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/zLW0CNhX)
(https://i.postimg.cc/yY0MSHv4/Fort-Sear-B1-A.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/P5hBWRRL/Fort-Sear-B3.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/wvtPx87r/Fort-Sear-B4.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/zfG6MR58/Fort-Mainspring-1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/68FM4qym)
The signature on the plate appears to be "Thoma?". Any ideas?
(https://i.postimg.cc/JzqSP5fp/Fort-Signature-2.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Some pics of furniture and architecture will follow shortly.
-
The bridle looks a lot like the one on a Chambers Colonial Virginia lock I have.
-
I just re-read smart dogs description of the intercepting sear for the umpteenth time and noticed something that I had previously overlooked.
Smartdog states "That way, if the trigger is pulled so hard at half cock that it breaks the tip off the primary sear, the separate secondary inner sear tip will hold the lock at half cock."
That does not appear to be the case with this lock. When at half cock, only the secondary sear tip is engaged (in the half cock notch on the tumbler), there being nothing for the primary sear tip to engage. When at full cock, only the primary sear tip is engaged, there being nothing for the secondary sear tip to engage. One would think that clearly establishes this to be something other than an intercepting sear arrangement - at least not an intercepting sear as described.
Rebuttal, clarification and thoughts regarding what else this mechanism might be are invited.
-
The lock on this fowler has a split sear.
According to Brian Godwin in his April 30th, 2018 Blog on the Contemporarymakers blogspot, the split sear dates to the early to mid 1600s on French firearms and John Twigg did use a version of the split sear in the 1770s. The advantage of the split sear is that a strong pull on the trigger can not force the lock off half cock. The intercepting sear, as described by Smart Dog, is a different mechanism.
With regard to first appearance of the stirrup - which this fowler also has:
According to Nigel George in his book "English Guns & Rifles", The invention of the stirrup "may be dated with some confidence between the years 1770 and 1775...." (ref: pg. 116). That date may or may not still be considered accurate.
Here are some pics of the architecture and fittings.
The broken off piece of the sideplate is not missing.
(https://i.postimg.cc/fbmnQ3wC/Thomas-Fort-Right-Side-A.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/J7Pw8CWf/Fort-Lock-Panel-and-Plate-1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/9zRgPS0b)
(https://i.postimg.cc/3RhM8KNT/Fort-Butt-Profile-1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/HJ6v31bZ)
(https://i.postimg.cc/JzyCK6v9/Fort-Buttplate-1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/VJchkRYR)
(https://i.postimg.cc/8ckqvtLX/Fort-Buttplate-2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/0M3WRGW7)
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XtyS97z/Thomas-Fort-Side-Plate.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/phgwYtHN)
(https://i.postimg.cc/hPZqLWyL/Fort-Trigger-Guard-1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/cr3jWjNC)
(https://i.postimg.cc/j28B4PXx/Fort-Trigger-Guard-2.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/MfQsWcNN)
(https://i.postimg.cc/Kv823vNc/Fort-Trigger-Double-Curl-1.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/TwJzhZ5W/Thomas-Fort-Wrist-A.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/dVzPfRKD/Fort-Entry-Thimble-1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/gxqTXZjP)
(https://i.postimg.cc/nVkxLQqw/Fort-Ramrod-1.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
(https://i.postimg.cc/1XJ17L9Z/Fort-Barrel-Stamps-1.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/5QYr6KYP)
-
I may have missed the picture of a Thomas Fort signature on the barrel but the stock, along with all the hardware and the lock as well as the provincial proofs put this gun in a solid 1770-80 period for me. I have not seen these types of proofs on earlier pieces.. Anyone know who had the Crown over HT maker's mark? Certainly not Thomas Fort?
-
Hi James,
The barrel may be a red herring because it looks archaic compared with the rest of the gun. The marks on the barrel are unlike any I've ever seen but indicate the barrel was not made by any London gunmaker's guild member. Everything else is from the late 1760s and 1770s. The acorn trigger guard, the stirrup fitted lock, the style of the lock, the style of the silver wire inlay, the style of the ramrod pipes, the style of the stock, the style of the engraving, etc. etc. etc. The Op needs to buy Neal and Back's "Great British Gunmaker's" series of books that will plainly date everything except the barrel and not expect any of us to violate copyright laws posting pictures from those books.
dave
-
Everything other than the barrel does indeed point to the 1770-1780 period. The owner is pretty solid on his attribution of the barrel to Thomas Fort. I do not have a photo of the signature, but will request one. I would think the two attached pics from the book " Small Arms Makers, Gardiner, 1977" should be sufficient to support the attribution.
(https://i.postimg.cc/gjcSgXPh/Fort-Makers-Mark-Verification.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/DJDPZz0f)
(https://i.postimg.cc/yxfft1Vb/Fort-Makers-Mark.jpg) (https://postimg.cc/tnxtVHn3)
-
The Op needs to buy Neal and Back's "Great British Gunmaker's" series of books that will plainly date everything except the barrel and not expect any of us to violate copyright laws posting pictures from those books.
dave
Actually Dave, I do not believe you would be violating copyright laws by posting pics since it would be for educational/scholarly purposes, but stick with what makes you comfortable
-
Brian Godwiyn shows a G. Farmer sporting gun dated c1770-80 that has those elongated "pro""ved" provincial proofs marks in his published work of provincial English proof marks. https://silo.tips/download/english-provincial-makers-marks-new-thoughts-on-gun-barrel-markings-of-18-th-and
Here's another
http://contemporarymakers.blogspot.com/2014/04/revolutionary-war-period-american-made.html?m=1
Another https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/breech-loading-flintlock.39805/
I think these types of proofs were also replicated and used by a couple of gunmakers working in America
I'm also not convinced the maker's mark Bluenoser posted showing the HT stamp as Fort's is the same as on the barrel. The barrel mark is made to imprint the letters as in relief with a tombstone and the one in the book is imprinted as intaglio(maybe I have reversed those terms? ). If the barrel, which i agree is older in design is in fact much older than the rest of the gun I believe the proofs and most likely the makers mark coule be contemporary to the rest of the gun.
If Brian Godwin is still around he should be able to shed some light on these barrel proofs which I think are contemporary with the rest of the gun. I lost my contact information for him.
-
Quite agree with your thoughts on the maker's mark James.
Its not in Blackmore or suplemenent, but does not look like the mark above.
very best,
R.
-
I have seen those barrel stamps before but I don't know anything about them. It seems Fort would use a stamp with the letters HT. Maybe the barrel makers stamp and not Fort's.
-
Quite common to have a barrel makers mark different to the gunmaker's name, as Mike says.
-
It is, as Brian Godwin has noted, a provincial proof, almost certainly Birmingham. It isn't extremely common but I've seen it a few times.
-
JV Puleo,
Have you seen those "proofs" on a gun that was older than last (third at most) quarter of the 18th century? I have not.
-
The study of this fowler has taken many twists and turns as the owner and I gain knowledge and learn more about it. I had understood the barrel to be signed, but recently learned it is not. The owner relied on the HT maker's mark (assuming it is a maker's mark) in his attribution to Thomas Fort. Knowing the barrel is not signed appears to open multiple new possibilities. To my untrained eye, the HT mark appears right as rain for Thomas Fort's mark. James and Pukka are both seeing something in the mark that brings it into question. They have the knowledge and know what to look for. I did think it odd that a member of the London Guild would have his barrels proved somewhere other than London, but that might have been a common practice.
The signature on the lock appears to be "Thoma(s)" in script. The mark on the barrel is "HT". Could it be the mark of a provincial builder named H. Thomas?
With regard to the barrel and the makers and proof marks:
Others have opined that the barrel appears considerably older than the gun.
- Could the barrel be contemporary with the gun?
- If an older and previously unproved barrel were reused, could it have been proved and the gunmaker's mark applied at the time this fowler was built?
- If it is an older and previously unproved barrel that was proved at a later date, is it reasonable to think HT might be the barrel maker's mark?
Back to the lock
Having now read Neal and Backs description of the Twigg intercepting sear, I see the functional similarity between the Twigg intercepting sear, the earlier French split sear and what we see on this lock. All three serve the same purpose. However, the construction of the sear in this lock is significantly different than that of both the Twigg lock and the French lock. There is a possibility the inner half of the full cock notch on the tumbler has broken off and, that being the case, this and the Twigg mechanism would function in the same manner. I believe it has broken off. It should be noted that, in neither mechanism, does the primary sear nose engage in the half-cock position. Has anyone seen an 18th century British mechanism that closely resembles this one and, if so, what is known about the lock maker and the gun maker?
-
The maker's mark on the barrel has the crown and initials raised. The stamp was made in a tombstone shape and the features were engraved into the surface of the stamp so as to make them raised when stamped on the barrel. The Fort mark in the book is exactly the opposite. The crown and initials were raised above the surface of the stamp so as to impress them into and below the barrel's surface.
It is possible an unproven, unused old stock barrel was used or an older barrel was used and the breech cut and re-threaded for the standing hook breech system. Many of these older barrels had huge breeches.
There was a maker in Birmingham named Henry Thomas who was active for sure 1773-1811
I'm still of the opinion the barrel mark and the name on the lock are the same person. Those proofs are of the period of the gun.
It is a very nice piece to own IMHO
-
Thank you James.
That is solid information and we appreciate the explanation regarding what looked off with the Fort mark.
We have seen two Thomas marked pieces and the name on the lock was in a different (later?) format than on this piece. The proof marks we could see on one of the pieces are a double-struck London private proof.
-
You'll find those "Pro" (proofed) and "Ved" (viewed?) markings on a "provincial" English guns in the late 18th century and early 19th century before the Birmingham proofhouse was established. They are often misrepresented in older publications, including some claims that they were American proofs imitating the British. I've seen them on pistols by several British makers, mainly on pistols but also on at least one blunderbuss. Some of the confusion relates to John Waters of Birmingham vs the American Waters family making U.S. contract pistols and muskets.
-
A question about signatures
The signature on the lock plate of this fowler appears to be "Thomas" and is engraved in script. To date, we have seen three other Thomas-marked pieces that might possibly date to about the same period, if not a little later. The signatures on all three are in block letters and appear to have been applied with a stamp. Would the difference in signature preclude the possibility of them being by the same hand? Or, could it be that the maker changed his signature over time, or engraved his signature on higher quality pieces while stamping it on those of average quality? Although further investigation is required, it appears there might be similarities in the style of engraving on the locks, and possibly other decorative features. At least one has a London private proof.
-
JV Puleo,
Have you seen those "proofs" on a gun that was older than last (third at most) quarter of the 18th century? I have not.
I( wold say last third of the 18th century but I can't say I've made an extensive study of it. I've more to say about pre-1813 B'ham proofs but I'm grouting a countertop right now and will have to get back to this later.
-
A question about signatures
The signature on the lock plate of this fowler appears to be "Thomas" and is engraved in script. To date, we have seen three other Thomas-marked pieces that might possibly date to about the same period, if not a little later. The signatures on all three are in block letters and appear to have been applied with a stamp. Would the difference in signature preclude the possibility of them being by the same hand? Or, could it be that the maker changed his signature over time, or engraved his signature on higher quality pieces while stamping it on those of average quality? Although further investigation is required, it appears there might be similarities in the style of engraving on the locks, and possibly other decorative features. At least one has a London private proof.
Can you post a picture of the "London private proofs"
-
Proof marks on Thomas-marked pistol. I might have been more correct to refer to it as a Tower Private Proof mark.
(https://i.postimg.cc/KzpQkyGt/Thomas-Pistol-Proof-Marks.jpg) (https://postimages.org/)
Sorry, not the best quality photo.
-
Thanks for the clarification. I thought you were talking about those stamps from the tower wharf but wanted to make sure I was on the same page.
-
Ray, the owner of the fowler, has requested that I post this for him.
Hello to all of you contributors to the Forum in response to the Fort Fowler, now Thomas Fowler. I’m Ray, the long absent owner of this lovely and very interesting mid-eighteenth century gun. I’m a convert to your collective opinions as to the gun’s age! I want to thank you all for your contributions to the discussion, it has helped immensely in our efforts to learn more about the fowler. Jim K, you commented that the owner “knows nothing about 17th and 18th century fowlers”. It doesn’t upset me because you’re 90% correct. Brief background: I am the son of a gun collector who had started collecting before WW II and bought me my first gun when I was 10, a little 20 ga.. So I have been collecting for 70 yrs. At first, with Dad, a very eclectic approach, then a growing focus on British Military Weapons, that fascination lasted for 50 years, until finally I decided to change focus. I gradually divested myself of all the British military stuff and began to collect double barrel, flint and percussion shotguns. I now have a modest collection of doubles with a number of fowlers to boot. None of these match the age or quality of the Thomas fowler. You can see that, although I’ve been around guns for, literally all my 80 yrs, my fowling gun experience is very limited, so again thank you all and a special thanks to my friend, Bluenoser, who encouraged me to let him put the gun on the American Long Rifle Forum because he considers it an interesting piece worthy of discussion. I agreed. We began with some assumptions as you know and he took some tough remarks, but stuck to the objective. We have been rewarded with some excellent info and theories.
Here’s what I believe we now know:
The gun is mid 18th century by all evidence, except the barrel.
The barrel is likely some 50 yrs earlier and was either a reused or unused barrel that came into that later maker’s hands. It was probably altered at the breech to accommodate a hooked breech and proved at that time with the maker’s mark: crown over HT
The gun is of mid to high quality, based on its silver side plate, the silver spider foresight, its silver wire inletting around the breech tang and its silver escutcheon which contains the initials in script “R W” and above that a lion wearing a crown. This has long been a symbol of nobility. Illustration, #196 in Neal & Back’s book( yes, I bought it! Ouch!), shows an elaborate escutcheon with a crown and what looks like a lion above it. Also #344 & 445 with the crown above the lion. #348, I can’t tell what is on the oval of it but the eagle on top pretty much matches the on on the Thomas. These guns were all owned by members of the aristocracy. Were it still flint and in better condition, it wouldn’t look out of place beside these guns in my opinion. I would certainly love to know who R W was!
What is unknown or theorized about the gun:
There is a pin securing the bottom of the standing breech, I suppose to add further strength. I know that John Manton used a much stronger system where the lock bolt actually went through the standing breech, but I’m wondering if this earlier feature was a common feature and when it might have been introduced. I have not seen it in later period fowlers
Is it unusual to see an iron ramrod? I believe it is original to the gun for a few reasons: it shows the same amount of wear, excluding the silver furniture, the rest of the furniture is iron, the ramrod pipes are all damaged around the ends and I doubt a brass-tipped wooden rammer would have caused that much damage, also the pipes seem too small to accommodate a wooden rammer. The ramrod has a forged screw at the end, although the tip is broken off, and it is the correct length for the barrel. We know the barrel is very close to original 1770s length because of the spider foresight.
It looks like it may have had a nose cap originally and the stock does not go right to the muzzle. The barrel may have been shortened, perhaps at the time of the conversion of the barrel to accommodate the hooked breech. When the new stock was built around the older barrel, the maker may have decided to drop the stock back a bit from the muzzle and add a nose cap.
Does this seem like a normal procedure for the mid 18th century? There is no hole to indicate a small retention screw or rivet. Could it have been a wrapped sheet metal, iron or silver, as I have seen on some muskets around that same period?
The lock is quite unique with the split sear mechanism. The stirruped main spring is also an innovation of the period. Do you agree that the lock is original to the gun? The name on the lock appears to be “Thomas” in script. The initials on the barrel are HT. We have found 3 guns so far from the mid to late 18th century with Thomas on the lock, one ascribed to a Henry Thomas, there are several features on the lock plates that line up with our Thomas lock, however, all 3 have the signature in block letters rather than in script. The “PRO”, “VED” marks on the barrel would indicate a Birmingham proved barrel. Blackmore, in “Gunmakers of London”, lists quite a few Thomas’s, but the info on Provincial makers is far less thorough. Can anyone shed further light on Thomas’s of provincial origin? Show further examples of Thomas labelled guns?
I have rattled on far too long and hope I haven’t bored you to death. I should probably join the Forum but will have to wait until the New Year as I am very busy right now. Please let us know if I have mis-stated anything or if you have anything further to add to the conversation.
Again many thanks to you all!
Ray
-
The pin through the standing breech is common. At this point since we got past the "Fort" business I'm not at all sure the barrel is any older than the rest of the gun. That gun didn't have a nose cap when it was made. Very "un English". English fowling gun ramrods were very slender. They were often made of baleen. Wood rods that small were common as well. They loaded these gun entirely different than we do today, no massive force was needed with their loose loading methods. The steel rammer was probably with the gun for a long time, but not original equipment. The lock is original to the gun. All of the nifty stuff inside was a bunch of un-needed nonsense that gunmakers would promote to neatly part money from rich customers. "Gimmick" comes to mind.
I'd also like to emphasize it's not a "mid century" gun, but a product of the 1770's , probably better called a 4th quarter of the 18th century gun.
It's actually a very nice gun.
-
The French used baleen as well. Still wish I could get pieces to make rammers with! Unfortunately not gonna happen. It's like 18th century fiberglass.
-
Twenty five years ago I was offered, but turned down, a full length piece of baleen about 6" wide at the root.