William Henry of Lancaster rifle -- Morphy's does it again

[spgordon]

Check out this new listing from Morphy's:

https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/_A__WILLIAM_HENRY_MARKED_KENTUCKY_RIFLE_-LOT481509.aspx

Here's the problem. Morphy's is relying on research from 1910. We now know that William Henry stopped working as a gunsmith by 1760. And, as a high-level procurement officer for flour, shoes, guns, hats, swords, etc., during the Revolutionary War, he was legally prohibited from supplying products he himself had made. So anything that dates this rifle to the Revolutionary War (itself a far-fetched claim) would rule William Henry of Lancaster out. Ooops.

Also: were this barrel itself to be authentic, it would be the earliest signed barrel that we know of (1750s). Any takers?

[DaveM]

Hi Scott - I myself find that barrel extremely interesting (I have no affiliation with the item or auction).  The mass of the barrel, large caliber (still with rifling), and what appears to be an apparently huge amount of swamp at the muzzle may be an indication of a very early barrel.  The gun looks like circa 1840?  but the barrel and inscription look like they could be genuine to me.  Rather fresh looking, but then again the barrel itself looks almost pristine.  thanks for posting.  It is believable to me that a very early barrel could have been out to use in the 1800's if in great condition.

Another possibility - rev war guns that Henry may have marked if he was the seller of contract weapons, even if he was not the maker?

[Eric Kettenburg]

Thanks for the laugh on a Friday night!  I doubt the gun predates the 1790s, let alone the 19th century.  And that is one mighty crisp, clean, "fresh" barrel marking.

Whatever 'paperwork' the owner has would be better repurposed toward a useful endeavor, i.e. lining a bird cage or perhaps as ignition material for kindling etc.

[smart dog]

Hi Scott,
The brass side plate and patch box are late golden age Lancaster.  Similar to Melchior Fordney.  The lock has a roller on the frizzen spring similar to English locks from the 1790s.

dave

[spgordon]

If it is a William Henry of Lancaster barrel, it is 1750-1760.

He was not a seller of contract weapons. He was a government procurement offer--orchestrating the purchase and disbursement of a very wide range of products (as I said, from hats to flour). There is no reason for him to stamp his name on the barrel of a rifle; if anything, the name of the maker would have been stamped on it to ensure that bad products could be traced back to the source (and the maker held responsible).

[WESTbury]

That rifle was/is in Bob Sadler's collection. It appears in ASAC Bulletin #93 Spring 2006 article by Sadler, The Henrys and Arms Manufacturing. Nowhere in that article does Sadler state it is a Rev War rifle.

[spgordon]

I guess what I should say about Bob Sadler's article and the one it was paired with, by Ron Gabel, who I consider a friend, is that we have learned a lot more since the earlier sources on which those paired articles were based. We know that William Henry was not a "Captain" in the French & Indian War (indeed, he never had a military commission); we know that William Henry did not meet James Watt let alone Matthew Boulton in England; we know that the Lancaster structure described there as Henry's Revolutionary War factory wasn't anything of the sort; we know that William Henry made arms at most for a decade and had left the trade by 1760, when he left for England to establish a hardware business; we know exactly what he did (and did not do) during the Revolutionary War. William Henry II didn't build a gun factory at Jacobsburg in 1792 and he didn't close his Nazareth shop in 1798. Etc.

Please feel free to read this (and comments/corrections would be very welcome):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t4xfljhzdksulh6/Ambitions%20of%20William%20Henry.pdf?dl=0

A lot of claims have been made based on the mistaken belief that William Henry of Lancaster was making arms during the Revolution--a belief that arose because of notes from Washington (and others) asking him for arms. They also wrote him asking for flour, hats, swords. He was no more making guns than he was milling flour or producing hats. The records survive documenting exactly from whom he purchased the guns (and shoes, etc.) that he then redistributed.

[WESTbury]

Scott--Appreciate you sharing the current research info you have on the Henrys.

I was lucky enough to own one of Bob Sadler's US 1815 Contract Muskets, by the Henrys, at one time. When I had to downsize after retirement and before moving to warmer climes, it went to, hopefully, a better home. Naturally, I have a bad case of seller's remorse.

[WESTbury]

The thing about books and magazine articles, by any author, is that the information contained there in, is old and out of date, the day after being published. Sad but true.

[spgordon]

That is a beautiful lock! Is the "Jr." after William Henry (William Henry III, 1794-1878) always on the locks for these contract rifles? Fantastic. I hope it is in good hands!

[WESTbury]

Scott--The lock of the Henry 1815 Contract Musket I owned was marked; "J.J&W.JR HENRY".
Lot #1082 1815 Contract Musket is marked the same. Close-up of the musket I owned is below.
Kent



Morphy Lot #1082 Henry 1815 Contract has been heavily cleaned and is a mess, ruined really.

[spgordon]

Yes, I realized the photo of the lock that you'd posted was yours--didn't see the Morphy's one but now have. (Very shiny!) I guess the "Jr." was on all the locks produced for this contract. I did not realize (or had forgotten) that William Henry III signed these locks "Jr." Thanks.

There's a fantastic pair of pistols at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania made by William Henry II (1757-1821), perhaps for his father, and they are signed "Jr." as well--so must date from 1780-1786. Bob Lienemann pictured them in the second Moravian Gumaking book.

[WESTbury]

We are fortunate to have a historian and researcher of Scott's caliber on this forum.

[WESTbury]

I guess what I should say about Bob Sadler's article and the one it was paired with, by Ron Gabel, who I consider a friend, is that we have learned a lot more since the earlier sources on which those paired articles were based. We know that William Henry was not a "Captain" in the French & Indian War (indeed, he never had a military commission); we know that William Henry did not meet James Watt let alone Matthew Boulton in England; we know that the Lancaster structure described there as Henry's Revolutionary War factory wasn't anything of the sort; we know that William Henry made arms at most for a decade and had left the trade by 1760, when he left for England to establish a hardware business; we know exactly what he did (and did not do) during the Revolutionary War. William Henry II didn't build a gun factory at Jacobsburg in 1792 and he didn't close his Nazareth shop in 1798. Etc.

Please feel free to read this (and comments/corrections would be very welcome):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/t4xfljhzdksulh6/Ambitions%20of%20William%20Henry.pdf?dl=0

Scott--I read your paper on William Henry. I found the piece to be a great deal more than just informative. You very certainly, and clearly, demonstrated how having a very limited "snapshot" of someone's life can distort the real historical picture of the life accomplishments of an individual.

Thankyou for providing the link to your paper on William Henry.

Kent Johns

[spgordon]

Hi Kent -- Thank you for reading! It is not a short piece and so I'm always grateful when folks get through it. He was an interesting man, even if not a career gunsmith! -- Scott

[WESTbury]

Scott--It was an easy read and well worth the time invested.   Kent