Author Topic: Thomas Earll Fowler  (Read 15347 times)

Offline louieparker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 831
Re: Thomas Earll Fowler
« Reply #25 on: March 07, 2015, 02:32:34 AM »
Eric
I do not have the article digitally stored. Where did you find it ? It can be obtained from Man at Arms magazine for $4.50  .  It was in the Nov Dec 1997 issue.   I was off a bit.
I was aware of the Earll spelling. I had heard of a gun that was signed that way. But had never seen one. Thomas had three brothers that spelled their name Earll.
During the revolutionary war Earle made a fusil for Col. Henshaw..( pictured in the article)  When it was completed he hand carried it to Henshaw's encampment where it was inspected by General Washington...Washington was quite taken with the workmanship and ask Earl to make one for him..But because of Washington's size the gun was to be made bigger. If this gun has ever surfaced I have never heard about it...A few years back a silver mounted Fowler was found.. There was some speculation that it might be the Washington gun.. But it was a fowler and had no family crest.. I believe the Washington gun will be a fusil and have the Washington crest..
Earl did a lot more than make guns, He made clocks and instruments to mention a couple...A few years after the article, Faye was contacted by a fellow who had a set of instruments by Thomas Earle and so signed,,  As I recall they were surveyors instruments. They were really  outstanding workmanship...
We got an 8x10 colored transparency of the Earl painting.. Had it enlarged to about 24 x ? and applied to canvas then brush strokes added to make it look like an oil painting, It looked great and was used to display with the gun...In the panting background you can see three buildings. Two are the Earl family dwellings and the smaller building to the left front is thought to be his shop.
Al mentioned where the rifle is pictured. That is a very poor image of that rifle. You need to see in color. Believe me it don't do the rifle justice,,Also a bit of restoration was done after that photo.
I hope you are able to get the magazine. Someone on this site might have an extra copy....Louie
   

4th La.

  • Guest
Re: Thomas Earll Fowler
« Reply #26 on: March 11, 2015, 02:35:10 AM »
Louie
       In Merrill Lindsay's  " The New England Gun the first two hundred Years " on page 38 Lindsay states that General George Washington
suggested that Earl spell his name with an E, ( Earle ).  He stated Earl without an e was a title of nobility, and not a name, and therefore offensive in a democracy.  Great gun Eric has acquired !!!!

4Th La.

Offline louieparker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 831
Re: Thomas Earll Fowler
« Reply #27 on: March 11, 2015, 03:23:37 AM »
4th La

Yes that's correct. It's in my wife's article.    LP

Offline JV Puleo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 935
Re: Thomas Earll Fowler
« Reply #28 on: March 12, 2015, 07:56:12 PM »
Since Washington habitually addressed General William Alexander, who claimed to be the rightful Earl of Stirling, as "Your Lordship" I think its very unlikely he would have made an issue about the spelling of Thomas Earl's name. The fact is, orthography (i.e. uniform spelling) was not an issue in the 18th century and while many people always spelled their name the same way, members of the same family often spelled it differently.

I think this fowler is absolutely correct... but based on the quality of the workmanship rather than the signature (having handled two or three of them). Thomas Earl was a name known to Kimball & Teft who were responsible for a number of falsely signed original guns in the 30s and 40s. As to the Lindsey book, just about everything in it has to be taken with a large grain of salt. Personally, I regard it as a disaster because it spoiled the market for a really good book on the subject for a good 25 years. Where Earl is concerned, it was purposely vague regarding the signature because several of the collectors who were advising ML (who probably wouldn't have been able to tell an Earl fowler from a doorpost) didn't want the spelling/spellings that Earl consistently used to be more widely known. They were protecting their little knowledge niche.
« Last Edit: March 13, 2015, 08:57:21 PM by JV Puleo »

Offline rich pierce

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 19534
Re: Thomas Earll Fowler
« Reply #29 on: March 12, 2015, 08:31:10 PM »
This is where provenance can be helpful. If a chain of ownership can be established it can mitigate such concerns. I like that it is largely unrestored. That to me argues against much funny business.
Andover, Vermont

Offline E.vonAschwege

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3118
    • von Aschwege Flintlocks
Re: Thomas Earll Fowler
« Reply #30 on: March 16, 2015, 07:55:03 PM »
Rich had asked me for some dimensions on the piece, so here are some of the basics: 

Some quick dimensions:
Barrel:  54" long, 20gauge, with about 1/32" barrel wall at the muzzle.  1 3/16" breech. 
Lock:  5 1/2" long x 1 1/32" tall.  The hammer screw is 5/8" diameter. 
Sideplate:  5 1/2" long x 7/8" tall, 3 1/32" screw spacing
Triggerguard:  10 7/8" long.  Bow inside dimensions are 2" x 7/8".  About 7/8" wide bow.
Buttplate:  about 5" tall x 4 9/16" finial, 2 1/16" wide. 
LOP:  14"
Ramrod pipes:  1 13/16" x slightly less than 5/16" inside diameter (1/4" ramrod).  About .35" thick material, sheet brass. 
Rear pipe:  2 5/8" long total, 1 1/4" round section. 
Width at tail of lock panel: 1 3/4"
Wrist:  1 5/16" wide at the narrowist, by 1 1/2" tall at narrowest (including triggerguard). 

If you want any other dimensions or specific photos I'd be happy to take them.  Back to work! 
-Eric

Former Gunsmith, Colonial Williamsburg www.vonaschwegeflintlocks.com