Really neat Barrel markings

[Acer Saccharum]

Here is a barrel off a fowler that a friend brought in. Barrel looks to be very close to original length (I have yet to get the dims) Approx 12 ga.

It is swamped with a slight flare at the muzzle. Oct to round. Converted to perc, and the most recent restock seems to be mid-19th Cent. It sports a half stock pewter nosecap, a new underrib, and a mix of hardware. Very nicely done, but not the original.

Is this a french bbl? This gun came out of NH, looks to be a New England restock.

The striking thing about this barrel is the decorative stampings. I hesitate to call them proofmarks, because they look more symbolic to me.









Here is the coolest wedding band I ever saw!

[TPH]

Beautiful. Could be French but my guess would be Spanish.

[James Rogers]

Looks like a Spanish barrel to me.

[Stophel]

I'd say Spanish....or done in imitation of a Spanish barrel.

[Majorjoel]

Spanish most likely but those Italians in the northern areas are easily over-looked.

[keweenaw]

Typical Spanish barrel. The more worn crests at just ahead of the breech would identify the gun builder.

[Robby]

On page 35 of the book "accouterments" there is a .75 Cal. fowler, with very similar proofs, the author describers as, Ca. 1730, "The barrel is probably Spanish, as were so many of the fowlers of this period".

[mr. no gold]

My vote goes to the barrel being Spanish. The marks have their origins in the Moorrish arts except for the cross, of course. Compare these with the marks on miquelet gun barrels and they are about the same. Too bad the castle tower (very Moorish) has been rubbed out. As has already been pointed out, that is where the maker's cypher would have appeared, usually in a recess, or intaglio, setting. It isn't unusual to see them gold or silver filled.
It's a really nice barrel, and it's fun to see things like this. Thank you for showing it off.
Dick

[JV Puleo]

I'd guess that its a "mock" Spanish barrel, probably from a good quality English gun. The most likely place it may have come from is what were called "the low countries", Belgium and the area that once comprised the Spanish Netherlands. I have a Laborde (French) flint side-by-side gun with what I believe to be Belgian-made "Spanish" barrels. The marks are clear and sharp and easily recognized as belonging to a known maker who died in 1721 although I believe that in its French configuration it probably dates from the 1750s or 1760s. Its also been restocked in England, I would guess about 1780...perhaps as late as 1800 and has an escutcheon with the crest of a minor member of the peerage so its a good quality job. The barrels are clearly marked on their underside "canon tordu", roughly "twisted barrel" in French, hardly a marking you'd expect on a genuine Spanish-made barrel.

The barrel under consideration could also be an entirely English-made example with Spanish-style markings. If it were such it should have British proofs but I'm not certain this always took place. These aren't common but aren't all that rare either albeit not often seen here because they are more in keeping with guns made for the portion of society that had little or no reason to emigrate. A good picture of the markings might be able to tell us either who made it or whose mark was being copied. John Twigg, for instance, sometimes used a Spanish-style, gold foil stamp and decorative stampings like that barrel displays. I had a pair of Twigg duelers with those marks at one time.

This is pure opinion on my part but I think that most of the "Spanish Barrels" used on non-Spanish guns in the middle to late 18th century came from Belgium.

Joe Puleo

[Mike Brooks]

All the english guns from the 18th century that I've seen that have Spanish barrels all have english proofs. I don't believe the english gunmakers could sell a gun with out it being proofed at the proof house.
 The spanish barrels that I have personally seen on english guns are very high quality and very light in weight, even compared to top notch english barrels. They are big at the breech, rapidly tapering in the first 5 or six inches. Generally they have a fairly long octagon section, the wedding band always highly sculpted like the one pictured above, not just on top, but all the way around! They are always quite light at the muzzle. I had a Egg gun for a while that was built probably in the late 1780's. The barrel was Spanish and boldly dated on top "1752". 14 bore with micro groove straight rifling for shot.

[Dave B]

The cross and three  marks just ahead of it are very close to those of Luis Santos of Madrid C. 1700-1720 according to Keith Neal's Spanish Guns and pistols pg. 100
the area that is where you would see the name had a crown over the stacked letters   SAN/TOS

[R. Hare]

I too would say Spanish, or at least Spanish style.

Why I say Spanish style, is because the proof mark on the upper left flat looks somehow a bit like overlapping Birmingham proof and view marks.
This may be my imagination,  as I don't think the Birmingham proof house was running before 1813, and this barrel is of mid 18th C style.

I must say how impressed I am with this forum!....so many folks with very sound and learned responces!

Richard.

[JV Puleo]

The question of British guns without conventional London or Birmingham marks comes up occasionally and is usually the result of the changes in the proof laws over time. Most of us have a reasonably good grasp of what the law has been since around the turn of the century but it underwent two major overhauls in the 19th century, precisely because it didn't cover everything. The proof law itself had a strange status that is unknown here in the US...it wasn't "law of the realm" but it assigned quasi-police powers of enforcement to a private organization, the Company of Gunmakers.* But, as this was a London corporation (i.e. guild), at least until the end of the 19th century their rules could only be strictly applied in England and Wales. Scotland and Ireland were exempt but most makers were in England and most buyers interpreted the proof marks as a sign of  quality and expected to see them. Its likely it wasn't understood by the general population well at the time so I suspect that very few makers failed to have their guns proved even if they were using foreign made barrels (regardless of where they originated). The problem comes up because "Spanish" barrels (or barrels that appeared to be Spanish) already had a high reputation so if the proof law could be circumvented there wasn't much reason to have it done. I don't believe that there was any requirement saying that complete guns brought into Britain had to be proofed (as they would today) so if Lord So-and-So had his gun restocked or it was broken up for parts and made into a less expensive gun for a servant its status was gray at best.
Barrels made for export were never subject to proof and only were proofed when they were going to a country (like the US) where the value of British proof was appreciated. Barrels made in Belgium and intended for export anywhere but Britain could carry completely fake British marks and not be in violation of any law.

I'll try to get a good picture of the marks I consider "fake Spanish" Oddly, I believe its the mark of Juan Santos who died in 1721 and if they were real, this is the oldest pair of dateable side-by-side barrels known. W. Keith Neal gave 1723 as his oldest date although that was many years ago and I don't know if older sets have been identified.

Joe Puleo

*It would be as if the Plumbers Union had the power to arrest and fine you for fixing your neighbors kitchen sink. The proof house was not a government facility. It belonged to the Gunmakers Company and was supported by the fees paid for proof and by fines paid by non-members. If you were in the gun business the company had the right to search your premises and seize your property and to get it back you had to appear in their private court and pay a fine. John Twigg, for instance, never belonged and his barrels sometimes have a big "F" (for "foreigner" stamped on them) although this meant they were proved for a non-member rather than someone from a foreign country.  They are also known with conventional London proofs and with no proofs at all. He may not have made any of them. The trade was highly specialized and if the barrel maker was a member of the company he could use their facilities. There was nothing to stop the "gunmaker" putting his name on the finished barrel.

[Feltwad]

This barrel I would say is Spanish or a  Spanish copy and with the Madrid Cross the place of manufacture,the three stamps good be the Fleurs-de-lys that was put on most Spanish barrels.If the barrel had come from an English gun it would have had a view stamp and a Proof house stamp.See image

Feltwad

[Mike Brooks]

They are also known with conventional London proofs and with no proofs at all. He may not have made any of them. The trade was highly specialized and if the barrel maker was a member of the company he could use their facilities. There was nothing to stop the "gunmaker" putting his name on the finished barrel.

I seriously doubt if any English gunmakers where making their own barrels. These were all contacted out to specialized laborers.  You'll usually see the actual barrel makes mark on one of the bottom flats.
 Locks, and most other hardware was contracted out too. So was engraving and wire work.  All of the skills in English gun making where highly specialized. Much of it was a cottage industry.

[JV Puleo]

I agree. Wasn't Fullard one  of the famous London barrel makers? Still, the odd Twigg gun with the Foreigners mark suggests that at some point he may have had a barrel maker working for him or perhaps a using a barrel maker that was also not a member of the Company. Its much the same with other prominent London makers depending on how large an operation they were running. I've done a bit of digging in the records of the Old Bailey for cases involving gunmakers and there are often references to their employees as well as regular outworkers.

In any case, the original question involved a barrel in the Spanish style. I think we all agree with that. I just wanted to point out that not all "Spanish" barrels came from Spain and that it was possible (though infrequent) for a gun to be English and not have the proof marks we'd ordinarily expect to see.

[490roundball]

the October issue of the British Shooting Gazzette just got here, on page 72 the is a photo of what they call the "Crisp" sporting gun. 

According to the description it is the earliest known English silver mounted fllintlock long gun.  The silver mountings are hallmarked 1688, and used an "earlier" Turkish barrel - the gun is inscribed "the Barrell made by Moore or Turk/Crisp made ye Rest All English Work"

Spain (Moor) or Turk - its an import used by one of the best English makers of the day.

[R. Hare]

Regarding English guns with foreign barrels, It appears that sometimes a barrel could be purchased privately whilst abroad, and given to a favourite gunsmith to stock up.
W Keith Neal mentions this in Gt British Gunmakers, and has quite a few examples of guns with older foreign barrels.
At one time, the light Spanish barrels were all the rage, and no doubt attracted a fair amount of  forgeries,....of similar quality maybe, just not strictly 'Spanish'!

[PGosnell]

similar markings on German (Joseph Frey, Munchen) pistols with Spanish barrels.

http://www.littlegun.be/arme%20allemande/artisan%20e%20f/a%20frey%20joseph%20gb.htm