Anyone seen this Crown over GR? - odd lock for 1718 Musket

[BradBrownBess]

Has anyone ever seen this cipher / engraving anywhere - British/Dutch etc - its  Crown over GR - but the pattern I have never seen.

Lock is on a very early pre Bess 1718 musket - so far the expert opinions are the lock is a replacement and is Dutch (which I agree).

I am really most curious about this design? Ideas? - Really need some input.

[BradBrownBess]

I cannot find any English locks with a frizzen screw going from the back of the lock into the Frizzen Spring and hidden from the outside of the lock. The Only locks I can find with that feature are Dutch and they also have the lobed frizzen spring finial. Also no English locks I can find have raised areas on back of the lock where the lock bolts thread in - again only Dutch locks I see. The Crown over GR is of course eluding to King George (II or maybe III) - but the lock and its sear, bridle, tumbler, etc are unlike any British gun I can find going back to Queen Anne muskets. They are similar to a 1730 pattern Bess but not close enough to swap out or be confused by any known examples.

I was hoping someone would have seen that Crown pattern of the GR pattern - maybe on a lock, a Gorget, or flag etc to help me date when it might have been applied. The Musket is iron trimmed 1730 pattern Land Musket basically - with just minor differences.

[backsplash75]

Welcome fellow firearms enthusiast. Aside from the lock, how does that gun compare with Neumann's 7.MM p57 Battle Weapons of the American Revolution (Pocock's with Wilson marked lock)?

Usually the non British guns with that Hanoverian cypher on the lock tail are Hanovarian   
 (see Moller v2).
Early iron mounted very Dutch looking jobby



Hanoverian M1766






Hanoverian M1767

[BradBrownBess]

Ahhhhh that is quite interesting - Hanoverian Cypher!!. Actually i spoke to the past curator and flintlock master craftsman of the West Point Museum that knows the Pocock musket intimately. All aspects of the musket appear to be identical - with the exception of the lock. In looking at the lock itself - my guess is a period or slightly later Dutch replacement. The Cock could swing either way - it looks almost identical to Neumans Pocock with a very slight exception to the jaw screw. The mortise was certainly butchered up at some point either to make this lock fit or even perhaps another - only time can tell. BUT - The extremely close fit of this lock with Hanoverian Cypher could easily have lead to a soldier, a person who captured or somehow acquired the gun, or a museum at some point just fitting it in. This musket being so close to the 1730 pattern in all respects its very possible the lock broke - according to Bill Ahearns book Muskets of the Revolution (he has several Pocock pictures from 3 examples) and other sources I have read - these early Land Pattern muskets could be iffy in the quality department - although the colonel's muskets should be the exception according to the surviving examples.

the two other Pocock Muskets have locks by Richard Wilson and are so marked R*W on their Barrels and WILSON on their locks. William Predden is another lock maker for an early pre 1730 Land Pattern musket. All those locks are pretty standard 1730 pattern locks with exposed frizzen spring and maker name on tail - no Hanoverian Cypher.

But the cypher, its age, etc makes some sense as a working replacement. Not sure the Royal Armory would have put that lock on but who am I to say!

@!*% cool musket in many respects. Thanks for the pictures of the other pieces with the Hanoverian Cypher - I knew it looked familiar but could not place it.

[smart dog]

Hi Brad,
I am not convinced the lock is a replacement.  Think about it from a gunsmith's perspective.  Those bosses on the back of the plate would have to line up perfectly with the side nail holes and the side plate.  I am skeptical that a lock would easily be found that fits the mortice and has those bosses line up.  The holes on the bosses are well centered so it looks to me like the holes in the stock were made for that lock.  Also there is a stamp on the inside of the lock plate. Can you read it?  Are there proof marks on the barrel?  I've never seen one of the famous "pattern of 10,000" muskets.  I wonder if there are any similarities with yours.  My suspicion however, is the gun was made in Hanover, Germany after George I became King of England and he had some made in Germany following the design evolving in England.  I don't think at that time there was any standard pattern used in the German principalities nor was there in England.  I think musket patterns varied a lot then and designs may have flowed between countries and principalities.

dave

[backsplash75]

Hi Brad,
I am not convinced the lock is a replacement.  Think about it from a gunsmith's perspective.  Those bosses on the back of the plate would have to line up perfectly with the side nail holes and the side plate.  I am skeptical that a lock would easily be found that fits the mortice and has those bosses line up.  The holes on the bosses are well centered so it looks to me like the holes in the stock were made for that lock.  Also there is a stamp on the inside of the lock plate. Can you read it?  Are there proof marks on the barrel?  I've never seen one of the famous "pattern of 10,000" muskets.  I wonder if there are any similarities with yours.  My suspicion however, is the gun was made in Hanover, Germany after George I became King of England and he had some made in Germany following the design evolving in England.  I don't think at that time there was any standard pattern used in the German principalities nor was there in England.  I think musket patterns varied a lot then and designs may have flowed between countries and principalities.

dave

Dave,
It appears to be a Hanoverian lock shoved into a Wilson musket.  Linky here:

https://www.poulinauctions.com/exceedingly-rare-and-historically-important-british-pattern-1718-iron-mounted-musket-pre-first-model-brown-bess-regimentally-marked-for-pocock-company-3-kings-regiment-of-foot-w-bayonet/

 Others of the pattern are known and retain the original Wilson marked locks. Instead of thinking about it from the gunsmith's perspective try looking at it from an antique dealer's. 

CAVEAT EMPTOR

[BradBrownBess]

Yep its a mystery that expect will never have a true answer. I agree with all comments above - the other Pococks have Wilson lock - there is a known William Predden lock (not a Col Pocock gun) but they all three have close to identical locks in design. Now - after a lot of digging last night I found several British locks of very early 1700s that indeed have a frizzen spreen going back to front and into a blind hole - there were several Queen Anne guns that fit that lock design and one used a Queen Anne cypher on the tail of the lock big/bold just like this gun (though its a GR cypher). Also I found a pistol with blind frizzen hole and a BO proof on the inside - circa 1710 - lock mechanism looked almost identical to this Pocock musket - but angle of photo was slightly different so not positive.

Boy I sure appreciate all the comments and help on this old gun. I would approach the gun as mostly original with a "probable lock replacement". The scary part is - if the gun was restored (it has been bright cleaned and the stock has filler, etc) and the lock mortise chiseled out and a lock fit, were other parts reproduced or made to fit? Is the Pocock engraving real? - could this be a gun made to look like a Pocock gun 100% to fake?

One version of this gun is 3K - 5K in my book. A 100% version original - add a 0 to the end. Thats a big 0 with no returns allowed if the latter if true. An to be honest - there may only be a handful of people in the world who have taken apart an early Pre 1730 Brown Bess and examined it. One man who actually has - Paul Ackermann - said he felt the lock made him uncomfortable - meaning its not the same lock on the West Point gun - and had some major differences seen generally on Dutch locks.

Great observations by all.

[smart dog]

Hi Backsplash75,
I think looking at it from the perspective of a gun maker is very useful because replacing that lock in the way it was done, if it was done would not be easy and way beyond any antiques dealer.  That person must have hired a skilled artisan.  Maybe this was a Kimball Arms creation?

dave

[backsplash75]

Hi Backsplash75,
I think looking at it from the perspective of a gun maker is very useful because replacing that lock in the way it was done, if it was done would not be easy and way beyond any antiques dealer.  That person must have hired a skilled artisan.  Maybe this was a Kimball Arms creation?

dave

Understood and yes, whoever replaced the lock was certainly skilled. I just suspect the lock went in much more recently than some others might. Lots of skilled artisans are still at work helping improve antiques for higher sales, and that has been going on for a LOOONG time. What we do know is that this is not the OEM lock, and the lock that now sits in the mortise is likely from Hanover, not Britain.

[smart dog]

Hi,
Yes, I agree completely that the lock is likely German.  I did not see the barrel markings before thinking the whole gun was possibly German.  Of course, even those might be spurious.

dave

[WESTbury]

Pages 21-23 in Bill Ahearn's Muskets of the Revolution, covers a POCOCK Regiment musket, in the Willamsburg Foundation Collection, with photos. It is marked "POCOCK  C 3  No 22"  The West Point Collection has another marked "POCOCK  C3 No  22. the barrel proofs of the one from Williamsburg look to match those of the musket in this thread.

[BradBrownBess]

Yep - this gun is a mystery. It came out of a collection from a Numismatist - a coin collector and dealer. He accumulated over 1000 guns. He died this past year.

Here is the rub - many of his guns were stunners - but many more were dogs and parts guns. He just liked guns - he knew NOTHING about them really. So - this is a mystery and will remain such. Its NOT a 100% original gun - its not - That lock was put in later - look at the mortise and the fitting of the lock. Now - at this time King George was using German parts and German guns - so yeah - a lot of the parts on the gun could be German - but it goes against the known Col Pocock guns - which have been called "colonels guns" - specially made for connected military men with rank - as general infantry muskets were sloppily made - just what I read from Ahearn - not my opinion.

So my best guess is that its a parts gun - when and what parts were put on - don't know and neither does the auction house - I have had many discussions with them as well as 10 other people.
Auction House advise to me was "Bid based on photos and your knowledge - no returns period on this. We have given all the info we know".
Cavat Emptor - and on this old a gun - unless you can get it in hand and take it apart down to every part - probably better to assume the worst.
Just my 2 cents. Still a cool old gun and fun to discuss.

Now they do have a Fowler thats original and about 87 inches long if I am correct - that will get anyone's attention as a wall hanger!!!!!
 

[WESTbury]

The structure of the buttstock looks to be Land Pattern and later than the period, certainly not Pre-Land Pattern.

Poulin's sounds really mushy on this musket. The problem with this musket would be that the purchaser is going to have to explain to others why it has characteristics that are different from the other known muskets of the period.

[smart dog]

Hi,
This stuff is fascinating.  Bill Ahearn writes that the musket from Colonial Williamsburg marked "Pocock" is identified as belonging to the 8th regiment of foot, which Pocock commanded between 1721 and 1732.  However, that regiment at that time was called the "King's Regiment", not the 8th and not Pocock's.  Nor do any of the photos I've seen of the gun show markings indicating the 8th.  All I've seen is engraving "Pocock" on the barrel.  The only regiment I can find called "Pocock" existed for 1 year, 1720-1721 and it was not the 8th.  Moreover, it is interesting that all three muskets marked "Pocock" come from company 3. 

dave   

[BradBrownBess]

The more I dig and info I get the stranger it becomes.
This is 100% Hanoverian lock - no doubt. It was modified to fit the stock which was also modified. The musket has a checkered past with a lot of conflicting opinions as to what is original and not original. My guess is that the stock is early 1700's (circa 1715 to 1740) and made in close approximation to the British Land Pattern but probably not British but German - as is the barrel perhaps even though it has British Proofs. The Butt stock plate is Iron - and 100% 1730 Land pattern shape - but ill fitting - maybe just wood shrinkage. The trigger guard is 100% 1730 pattern - iron - but again not very well fitted. The engravings are questioned by many as well - especially the Col Pocock barrel engraving. So the general consensus is this musket is a "bastard" of sorts - a mutt if you will - with additions, subtractions, mods, cleaning, resto, etc throughout most of its life. Shame as it may have began life as a rare Brit musket - but from my findings  is that its an "ENIGMA" for sure - a unique bitzer. It has been listed in the past and appears to not have sold at one auction with a pretty low estimate - but that was over 10 years ago (3 - 4k) and Lot passed. So there is all I could find and know. Thanks for all the input!!!

[Seth Isaacson]

Hi,
This stuff is fascinating.  Bill Ahearn writes that the musket from Colonial Williamsburg marked "Pocock" is identified as belonging to the 8th regiment of foot, which Pocock commanded between 1721 and 1732.  However, that regiment at that time was called the "King's Regiment", not the 8th and not Pocock's.  Nor do any of the photos I've seen of the gun show markings indicating the 8th.  All I've seen is engraving "Pocock" on the barrel.  The only regiment I can find called "Pocock" existed for 1 year, 1720-1721 and it was not the 8th.  Moreover, it is interesting that all three muskets marked "Pocock" come from company 3. 

dave

If my understanding is correct on this, the King's Regiment of Foot would not have been known as the 8th (King's) Regiment of Foot until the various regiments were numbered in the 1750s. Though officially the King's Regiment of Foot, it was still likely casually known as Pocock's Regiment since most regiments in that period were named after the colonels, and, as colonel, Pocock would have still been responsible for arming the men, so his name was marked on the barrel.

*Edited some repetitive phrasing. Oops! and wanted to add this to the mix: the 8th (King's) Regiment of Foot was used to augmented the Hanoverian Army in 1760 during the Seven Years' War. Perhaps the original lock was damaged and needed replacement at that time? Keeping old muskets going was certainly not unheard of, but I would think they would have been rearmed in the 1740s like most of the army.*

[JV Puleo]

The attribution of this lock to Hannover is more complicated than it appears. The cypher "GR" means George Rex...i.e. King George. George I was not the King of Hannover - he was the Prince-Elector and the Hannover heraldic device was a prancing horse as seen on many Revolutionary War items used by Hannover troops in British Service. Hannover did not become a Kingdom until 1814. It separated from the British Crown when Victoria came to the throne because Hannover followed the Salic Law making it impossible for a woman to succeed. The Kingdom passed to the next male member of the British royal family (I think it was Victoria's uncle).

Could the lock have been made in Germany (or, more likely what we now know as Belgium)? I think so. The low countries were still, and would be for a long time, a major source for the British Ordnance Office.  The marking itself is unusual and I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen that cypher, on the tail o the lock plate, before. I don't think so. My first thought was a continental musket that has been "improved" with a British cypher - perhaps a long time ago.