Maurice Taylor's proof and view stamps

[James Rogers]

I am trying to locate a set of British proof and view stamps. I heard that Mr. Taylor used to sell them. Does anyone have any idea where a set might be found?

James

[keweenaw]

James,

Much  as those of us who build British style firearms would love to have the appropriate proof marks on the barrels, we don't and it's not because it wouldn't be relatively easy to have a die maker build a set of stamps.  I suspect in the UK applying such marks to barrels would be a felony.  In my opinion it would be, at best, unethical for us to do it over here.  Collectors use those marks to verify the authenticity of pieces, to date them, to determine if they are safe to shoot, etc.  I only ask, do you really want to apply antique London or Birmingham proof to a contemporary American made piece?

Tom

[rich pierce]

Maybe something that sort of resembles a proof stamp from a specific period, but has an obvious difference, would be a good addition to a barrel. 

[Feltwad]

To stamp guns with copies of the English proof marks is an unsafe practise and against the Proof House laws .Guns that go through the proof house are proofed and if they pass proof are stamped accordingly.that is insure that the gun is safe to use
Feltwad

[Mike Brooks]

 It's off to jail I go! You all take yourselves way to seriously......

[James Rogers]

I don't view these stamps as unethical if the gun is marked, dated and numbered by the contemporary maker. No more than using a set of lock castings  from an original lock with the maker's name engraved on it or exact copies of hardware that is specific to an 18th century maker.
 
The unethical part that I seem to be accused of comes with the willful intent to defraud and the lack of dating, etc.  I have no intention of either.
Those who are intent on fraud will commit it with or without such markings. The ones who are duped are usually not the real collectors who know what they are doing but those who don't even know what a proof mark is.

Regards,

[Steve Bookout]

Mike the Jailbird, I'd be happy to send you some Moon Pies during your incarceration in the Tower of Fort Madison.  Cheers, Bookie

[smshea]

Im told that Track of the Wolf has, or is working on proof mark stamps....you might give them a call.

[Mike Brooks]

Im told that Track of the Wolf has, or is working on proof mark stamps....you might give them a call.

I believe they're doing the full set for the Bess, both for wood and metal. Lot of folks going to be doing hard time in the future..... ;)mmmmmm, moon pies.......

[Roy S.]

I'll see ya there.... 

[jerrywh]

 I don't believe in proof marking a gun. Basically it's forgery. If you do it I suggest that you at least go thru the process of proofing it accordingly.
  All the import replicas like pedersoli are legitimately proofed. If you make a half stock English sporter , are you going to forge the proof mark? not me. 
  Mike Brooks.  Is your name on that gun? 

[Mike Brooks]

Mike Brooks.  Is your name on that gun? 

Nah, ain't my name, must be Grandpa Cecil or Cousin Jack.

[Michael]

I recently bought a set of the English proofs from TOW for a 1730 pattern Kings musket I am completing. I don't feel I am "faking" the gun to fool anyone, they are just part of the proper "decoration" on the musket. The gentleman I am making the musket for is a former ATF agent ( I think) and he is OK with the markings. The barrel is stamped with MY makers mark, signed and dated on the bottom to avoid any future confusion.

Michael

[James Rogers]

Thanks for all the opinions  and the couple of suggestions. TOTW seems to only have the military marks.
If anyone knows how to get in touch with Maurice, you can also email me.
thanks
James

[cal.43]

in a country with strict prooflaws faking those marks is a go into the jail card. Here it will be called falsification of documents and you have the chance for 5 Years 

[Evil Monkey]

Jerry brings up a very good point. While I certainly understand the desire to add the proof marks, reality is that they are NOT just decorative. They MEAN something. Would forging 18th century proof marks be any different than putting an exact rendition of "J Dickert" on the barrel? (just for decoration puproses of course ). 

[ddeaton]

I will see you guys in jail also. Nobody here is trying to fake anything, we are trying to make the most accurate replica possible down to the proof marks. King George isnt around anymore anyway. If you are talking liability, anyone who builds and sells a blackpowder gun is liable for a lot more than just a fake proof stamp. Why dont we file TOWER off the face of our locks? A nice Brown Bess looks like $#@* without the proofs. Sorry, I will shut up now.

[Acer Saccharum]

Mike, got any of those striped shirts? Horizontal black and white, w/ matching pants?

You will soon, by the sounds of things.

I am working on making some stamps. The kind you lick.

I have also been in the wine, which may explain my extreme lack of something. More wine?

Acer

[ddeaton]

Mike, got any of those striped shirts? Horizontal black and white, w/ matching pants?

You will soon, by the sounds of things.

I am working on making some stamps. The kind you lick.

I have also been in the wine, which may explain my extreme lack of something. More wine?

Acer

Make sure they are period correct! LOL

[B Shipman]

Mike, I figure you're OK as long as you stay out of Britain.

[culpeperlt]

Since the 18th century proofs are quite different from the modern, I can't see where any implication that they had been tested to a modern proof standard.  Likewise, I doubt there is any case of forgery in using a outdated and obsolete proofmark.  Using a 200 year old proof mark on a modern gun is not meant to "fool" anyone.  That otherwise perfect London Pistol looks quite naked without it though.  And, if this were in fact a crime in the UK, I doubt there would be huge quantities of India-manufactured LLP Bess entering with all the correct proofs.

[Dphariss]

Since the 18th century proofs are quite different from the modern, I can't see where any implication that they had been tested to a modern proof standard.  Likewise, I doubt there is any case of forgery in using a outdated and obsolete proofmark.  Using a 200 year old proof mark on a modern gun is not meant to "fool" anyone.  That otherwise perfect London Pistol looks quite naked without it though.  And, if this were in fact a crime in the UK, I doubt there would be huge quantities of India-manufactured LLP Bess entering with all the correct proofs.

You know what a JP Beck just is not "right" with MY name on it so if I make a Beck or a Dickert why not sign it as such??? So its "correct"? Would not want it too look "naked". Is this OK too?? Dating the thing would not be correct either so I'll write the date under the patchbox finial in pencil. After all have you ever seen an original Beck dated 2008??
How about I forge the barrel from and old wagon tire, I have one leaning on shop wall right now, and bore it 52 smooth with a long bit and stock it with wood from beam or joist from an old barn in PA? Some checks and rot here and there. I can make most of the lock from the same wagon tire using shop made taps and dies. Then shoot it some and let the fouling do some damage, rust and age every thing, rub the carving thin along the forend etc.

When does it become a fake??? When I signed it JP Beck? I don't think its illegal to sign a gun anyway I like, Beck will not complain. Making it from old components is not illegal either nor is letting it rust. Where is the line drawn?
Does time make a difference? If 30 years from now the guns third owner decides its worth a lot more with a little creative date removal than with the 2008 date on it?? Am I responsible for making the "perfect" JP Beck?? After all I told everyone I showed it to that I had made it. So I am faultless right?


Dan

[culpeperlt]

I certainly respect your opposing viewpoint.  I think you should note that no one is talking about trying to make a "fake" here, just a copy that is as accurate as reasonably possible.  If any collector mistakes an item that I build as an original, they have not done any homework at all, and there is no help for that person!  If we are talking about unscrupulous people getting ahold of one of these pieces somewhere down the road and intentionally altering finish and details to convert it into a fake, I serious doubt the presence or not of proof marks is going to have much impact on the result of their work.  For that matter, if an individual is so bent to dishonesty, they could take that unsigned Beck or Dickert and alter it to look like an original.  Personally, I sign everything with my name or mark, just as if I were a craftsman working 200 years ago.  Anyone taking the time to check should easily be able to tell when it was built.  I think we can agree that it would be wrong to sign a gun with a name other than your own.

[Daryl]

As long as the gun is marked for the maker and dated as Taylor does/used to do to all his guns, I don't see a problem with proof marks. The muskets comign out of India and sold in the US and Canada all have British or French proof marks but have never been fired as they still don't have vents.  Those guns I would worry about, not something coming from the makers here.