AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: Tanselman on October 16, 2024, 04:38:11 AM
-
I have a "William Kelsay" signed rifle made in southern Kentucky's Wayne County on the Tennessee border, that is a flintlock. The gun was definitely made in the flintlock period, and the lock is probably a reconversion, but I'd like to get your opinions on it, and what details might indicate a reconversion.
Shelby Gallien
(https://i.ibb.co/TbXFrFX/Kelsay-lock.jpg) (https://ibb.co/0FNdQdN)
(https://i.ibb.co/mS5Cszj/CM-9-1a-Kelsay-front-xjpg.jpg) (https://ibb.co/QXvFBmg)
(https://i.ibb.co/1ZX5r1R/CM-9-1b-Kelsay-back-3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/LSgWxm9)
-
Shelby, that is an awesome rifle you have there. Neat piece with folk art carving.
Maybe ask Brian LaMaster regarding its condition?
-
Cock and cock screw look newer than the lock plate, frizzen spring bolt looks new. Frizzen looks like a modified Siler. Somewhere around 80-90% of guns originally flintlock got percussed during use then re-converted to flint by collectors. It looks good, so if any of what looks to me like new work is new work, I’d be happy with the work. I could be 100% wrong on this one. What does the inside bolster look like? Touch hole area?
-
What Rich said above. Especially the inside of the lock plate.
Also, look at the 'teeth' on the cock and top jaw that hold the flint. Are the cast in lines still there, or are there raised teeth from upsetting with a hammer and pointed chisel? If there are teeth, are they old looking,,, or new?
Look at the touch hole. If as usual a plug has been screwed in and then welded around, the welding is hard to hide; both texture and color. If that looks good, for a for sure determination, run a side looking bore scope down the barrel. And that will tell the tale for sure. I don't know of anyone, including me, that will try to disguise/blend in the interior of the barrel where the drum screwed in..
Either way, it's a very nice rifle!
John
-
From what I can see in the pictures, the cock, frizzen, frizzen spring, and pan all look "fresher" than the plate itself, and there appears to be the tell-tale erosion on the breech end of the barrel from the use of corrosive percussion caps.
-
I think these are Siler parts. Also the lock looks like one of the big import "bell flower" (or whatever they're called) locks. Not the place for Germanic parts...
-
I thought it might be a version of the 'bell flower' trade locks too but when I zoom in on it, it's definitely not ordinary and is different. The slash mark at the rear of the plate is not ordinary for one of those locks, and the stamped/engraved designs are not the same. The flower under the pan almost looks like a sunburst, not a bell flower or tulip, and I can't quite make out what's at the tail but it doesn't look usual.
The parts are modified Siler parts, I have no doubt of that. I feel like I've seen a lock somewhere with a similar plate and similar stamped design but I can't remember where. Fantastic rifle - REALLY great piece and with a good early look. I'd reconvert it again, that rifle deserves a reconversion with better-looking and more 'antique' looking lock parts.
What is known of the maker who signed it?
-
Did you notice that the upper finial of the patchbox was placed over some of the existing carving? To me, that usually indicates that the box was a later addition.
-
Did you notice that the upper finial of the patchbox was placed over some of the existing carving? To me, that usually indicates that the box was a later addition.
I'm not positive of that. I can see how it might be possible, but I can also see how the maker might have tried to tie the incised lines into the box finial. The lines of incise work do seem to flow out of the junction of the forward petal of the flower with the side petals, and they seem to run from the petal base corners fairly evenly on each side. Could just be the way it was made and designed - a bit of awkwardness to our eye here in 2024 may have been just fine and dandy in 1784! Or whenever this was made. I'd want to see more under the box and box lid to decide whether or not it might be a later add-on. The lower petal interrupts the lower butt incised line/molding too, but that is fairly common and generally not considered evidence of an add-on; just the way it was made.
-
Did you notice that the upper finial of the patchbox was placed over some of the existing carving? To me, that usually indicates that the box was a later addition.
I'm not positive of that. I can see how it might be possible, but I can also see how the maker might have tried to tie the incised lines into the box finial. The lines of incise work do seem to flow out of the junction of the forward petal of the flower with the side petals, and they seem to run from the petal base corners fairly evenly on each side. Could just be the way it was made and designed - a bit of awkwardness to our eye here in 2024 may have been just fine and dandy in 1784! Or whenever this was made. I'd want to see more under the box and box lid to decide whether or not it might be a later add-on. The lower petal interrupts the lower butt incised line/molding too, but that is fairly common and generally not considered evidence of an add-on; just the way it was made.
I see your point Eric, and yes, Peter Berry tended to set his patchboxes so they interrupted the butt molding, but I don’t recall seeing many patchboxes that interrupted carving like this one has. At any rate, it deserves a closer look.
-
I'm in the camp that thinks the box is first work. I see the box simply overlapping the incised carved pattern as a purposeful design choice.
Jim
-
I'd really like to know more about this maker and when the assumption is that the rifle was made; the more southerly rifles aren't my thing but this is some very interesting work and my first impression is that it's fairly early for the area.
-
Eric,
You can find my impressions of the rifle and Kelsay's background in my blog article on the "Kentucky Gunmakers" site at https://www.kentuckygunmakers.com/blog/kentucky-gunsmith-william-kelsay-and-the-william-kelsay-rifle. I've wondered about the dating, talked with others interested in southern rifles, etc., so I thought it would be interesting to post the gun here to get comments. I realized the lock was a converted flintlock, but I wanted to find out what factors I might not be aware of when inspecting well-done conversions, so I don't miss them in the future. The feedback from everyone has been helpful.
Shelby Gallien
-
Shelby, good research and writing about a fine gun and makers' family.
-
Guys,
In my opinion this is a re-conversion using typical Siler parts. One thing to check is to remove any screws that appear to be new. Then check the thread form and size. if they correspond to a commonly used thread that we use today, like a 6-32 thread, then they are new and part of a reconversion.
Jim