Restock of a Moll rifle

[DaveM]

Looking for some thoughts from Moll collectors on this one - though plain and obviously late (1850ish) kind of reminds me of a poor boy rifle.  It is obvious to me it is a restock of an earlier gun.  It appears to have been stocked in the Lehigh County area with the  buttstock's roman nose.  It appears to be signed in fancy script "Moll" though the signature is a bit different than those I've found in my books. Whomever made the gun made an effort to obscure the original signature by hammering at it, but it is still legible.  About a half inch ahead of Moll there appears to be an asterisk, which leads me to believe there was a first name or initial in front of the asterisk.  Unfortunately the gun was rebreeched and shortened at the breech and the first name or initial is long gone.  This gun also appears to reuse the original triggerguard and ramrod pipes. The triggerplate is missing but seemed to be small and did not extend all of the way around the trigger.  The barrel is full octagon and swamped, now about 52 cal smoothbore and was made as a full stock but the forestock was shortened 6 inches or so at some point probably when it was rebreached.  I was hoping some Moll rifle collectors could help me confirm if this is John Moll I, or a later Moll based on the signature and brass furniture?   Thanks

[Eric Kettenburg]

The first two Johns apparently signed their names in the same fashion, although it remains a very debatable point as to whether the earliest-appearing of the "John * Moll" (the star-shaped asterisk is typical) rifles is John I or John II.  Some would add John III to the mix as well, although I believe his signature stands out as being executed a bit differently. 

All I can say for certain is that, thus far, I know of two restocks which I feel clearly are John I barrels, as the signatures on those take the form of gigantic inlayed (gold) "JOHANNES MOLL."  I also believe during or post-War he signed as "John Moll" as per your barrel, but so did his son and his grandson.  So if I haven't confused things too badly, I'd say yours could be any of the three as I can't really tell given the damage to the signature.  Looks like the more open I or II, the John III signatures to my eye are bit more cramped and less flowing, less stylistically accomplished.

 

[DaveM]

Eric thanks - excellent input and just what I was hoping for from a Moll scholar!