Old Fowler 1/2 stock

[Trkdriver99]

This is a fowler that I bought in an antique store this week. I do not have the knowledge to say what it is. It is 55" in length and 39 1/4" barrel. I think a .62 (can't find the caliper). The lock says London and under that Warrented. The lock seems to work well and the single trigger also. It ha an iron ramrod with a bulge in it where the 1st thimble is. It has only one lock screw but looks as if it had 2 at one time. (see side plates) Has engraving on butplate, Trigger guard (Really long) and entry thimble. Has 3 stamped marks on the barrel at the breech. It is a hooked breech. Barrel is octagon for 14" then round. Any body have any Ideas on my find?

[JV Puleo]

A medium quality, English (Birmingham) made export fowler. It was probably a full stock originally. I say that because of the lack of an under rib and the front ramrod pipe mounting. Half stocks were common but they always, to my knowledge, had a metal under rib. The top and bottom marks on the barrel are probably B'ham private proofs (Are they a "P" and  "V" in an oval?) - the mark in the middle might actually be the gunmaker or barrel maker. What are the initials in the little rectangle? In any case, "gunmaker" does not mean that person made the gun but rather the person he organized the production, all of which was probably done by specialist outworkers. It is pre-1813 since those proof marks went out when the B'ham proof house opened. I'd guess around 1810 - but that is just a guess and readily subject to change.

[Trkdriver99]

The middle initials are T B.  The first toward muzzle is P with something over it and I believe the back one is a V. Thanks for your reply. I was hoping it was original so that I did not pay too much for it.

Ronnie

[JV Puleo]

The mark over the letters is a crown. TB could be any number of people, they aren't unusual initials. In looking at it, the ramrod is from a much later gun, one that was made for conical bullets. But, it certainly is a genuine flintlock fowler of the type very popular here.

[Trkdriver99]

Here is a good clear photo of the proof marks.

Ronnie

[Feltwad]

This is a London Export gun with a warrented lock originally full stocked with a wood ramrod .The proof marks are for London prior 1813 the V below the crown is the viewers make of the London proof house CP interwoven below the crown is for definite proof,the barrel is iron with TB for the barrel maker which could be foreign.The trigger guard and the lock are from different periods the trigger guard with the Husk finial is more associated to the  1760 and the lock with its roller frizzen is later  1790 -  1800 period ,the silver blade front sight is also early from the 1760 period. enclosed is an image of a foreign gun barrel with London Proof Marks prior to 1813
Feltwad

[James Rogers]

This is a London Export gun with a warrented lock originally full stocked with a wood ramrod .The proof marks are for London prior 1813 the V below the crown is the viewers make of the London proof house CP interwoven below the crown is for definite proof,the barrel is iron with TB for the barrel maker which could be foreign.The trigger guard and the lock are from different periods the trigger guard with the Husk finial is more associated to the  1760 and the lock with its roller frizzen is later  1790 -  1800 period ,the silver blade front sight is also early from the 1760 period.
Feltwad

Feltwad,

Are you sure those are London proof and view marks? The proof mark only has a "P" under a crown and not "GP".
It sure looks like a Birmingham piece to me.
It's kind of funny seeing that old 1st pattern acorn TG on that gun but i have recently seen another fairly plain gun of the same later era by Ketland using that old TG. I think they must have used up what they had on hand for cheaper export inventory.

[JV Puleo]

I agree with Feltwad that the trigger guard is of an older pattern, but I don't see that this is terribly important. I don't even feel that it must represent "old stock" but more that the export market was not as style driven as the British domestic market, or that the styles in vogue with American buyers were often out of date by British domestic standards. Remember, these guns were imported in large quantities - usually several hundred at a time and shipments of more than 2,000 guns are known.

I wonder how important a trigger guard finial was to the ultimate buyer - probably nowhere near as important as having a "roller lock." In American advertisements for loose gun locks, the presence of a "roller" is the only physical feature that is consistently mentioned. Ads will say "locks with and without rollers." It was a measure of better quality. Roller locks always have external bridles and probably always have internal ones as well, at least I've never seen one that had the external bridle but lacked the internal one. Export locks without rollers often lack both although I can say with certainty (from a primary document in my possession) that a large variety of locks were offered, including with waterproof pans and sliding safeties. How many were sold is another question - one I can't answer.

As for the TB mark, I suspect that someone with the patience to check all Birmingham gun barrel makers in the right time frame would likely come up with one, maybe even more than one, with those initials. For my own part, I have reservations about it being the barrel maker's mark. Where these are readily recognized they are usually on the underside of the barrel - the mark on the top of the barrel is usually that of the "gunmaker." In an earlier time frame, in London around and before 1750, this was often the only place the maker identified himself. Actually engraving the makers name on the barrel or lock is a later convention. I see no reason to presume some makers didn't keep doing things the old way, especially when making guns for export where the customer (the American dealer) may not have even wanted the name of the maker displayed prominently. "London Warranted" only says its an English lock. Almost all locks were English so this wouldn't compromise an American dealer who wanted to imply he was the maker.

[James Rogers]

I don't see the old style trigger guard as important either. It is however very glaring to someone who is familiar with the styles of certain time frames in England for English customers.  The export market for ready mades went to those who would most likely be unfamiliar of trigger guard trends and probably would not care anyway.  There was somewhat of a lag in all types of fashion across the waters on everything even for the wealthy. The wealthy Englishman would have the firearms in England and they would have been more trendy. I would also suspect the competition of the gunmakers to that crowd had as much or more an effect on trends than the customer.

English gunmakers did sign locks and barrels 1750 and way earlier.  There are WAY to many examples of them signed in both places. A quick look in the 475 page Great British Gunmakers 1540-1740 will show a bunch. There are also plenty of examples of guns that have the barrel and/or lock signed by the gunmaker that have a different barrel maker's mark (contemporary of the gunmaker) on them.
I don't know much about how the later 18th century guns were done.

[JV Puleo]

I didn't mean to imply that they didn't sign barrels and locks... just that they didn't always sign barrels and.or locks and the earlier the gun is, the more likely this is to be the case, though I confess I haven't looked at Neal & Back lately. I certainly had a very nice Joseph Brazier fuzee that had only the barrel mark although it was engraved "London" on the top of the barrel. Were this not the case, all the effort that has gone into identifying maker's marks would be pointless.

[Trkdriver99]

Thank y'all for your help in identifying this musket. I feel better about my purchase now. I have another question. Y'all say that it was probably a full stock when it was made. Would it be worth having someone to make it such again?

Thanks for your help.

Ronnie

[JV Puleo]

Probably not... but I should explain that I live in New England where guns like this, if not exactly stacked behind every kitchen door, are not uncommon. The situation is much different in other parts of the country. I've no idea what you have in it... but given a reasonable price (again, by my strictly local standards) it would cost as much or even more to have it done well as the gun cost in the first place and it would still be a "restoration." It might make sense if you could do it yourself but I doubt it would add much in value - though it might make it easier to sell. If you wanted to use the gun as a shooter, and you felt it was worthwhile for esthetic reasons, then the cost may not matter. But, as a strictly financial decision predicated on employing someone with the necessary skill, I doubt its worthwhile.