Author Topic: Hodgepodge conglomeration musket (Read 14959 times)

Shreckmeister · « **on:** July 23, 2015, 06:44:35 PM »

I saw this not sure what to call it in a gun shop a year ago. They thought it was some kind of collectors
item and wanted a lot more money than it's worth, but I kept after it because it has a great old lock on it.
Finally they saw the light and I was able to pick up the gun at a price that I felt the lock was worth.
Thought I would share it.

debnal · « **Reply #1 on:** July 23, 2015, 07:03:31 PM »

Nice lock. Is it revolutionary war era or post? For me it's tough to date.
Al

grouchy · « **Reply #2 on:** July 23, 2015, 07:37:32 PM »

Nice pick up! Looks like the lock was changed at a late date, too big for the lock panel. Please post more pics if possible thanks, ned

Paul E. Wog · « **Reply #3 on:** July 23, 2015, 09:04:49 PM »

Mr. Meister,
Your sir, are indeed one persistent rascal

Could you bring your prize to my house to play sometime

Beverages will be provided

Nice find....Shreck, ( NOT Meister )

David R. Pennington · « **Reply #4 on:** July 23, 2015, 09:09:39 PM »

Stocked with pocket knife? Nice lock.

Shreckmeister · « **Reply #5 on:** July 23, 2015, 10:16:12 PM »

Quote from: Waldmaus on July 23, 2015, 09:04:49 PM

Mr. Meister,
Your sir, are indeed one persistent rascal
Could you bring your prize to my house to play sometime Beverages will be provided
Nice find....Shreck, ( NOT Meister )

Hawk came through for me. It only took 9 months. Like waiting for a baby. I'll bring her for show
and tell soon.

Shreckmeister · « **Reply #6 on:** July 23, 2015, 10:17:40 PM »

The barrel from this ugly beast is a 39 1/4 inch 75 caliber flintlock musket barrel with small rectangular
front sight mounted in shotgun fashion. Single undecipherable proof mark. Does that ring any bells?

WElliott · « **Reply #7 on:** July 24, 2015, 05:16:00 AM »

I think of "T Ketland" locks as generally later than this style lock. Interesting.

Shreckmeister · « **Reply #8 on:** July 24, 2015, 05:36:32 AM »

You're thinking of T Ketland & Co. who operated into the 1800s. J V Puleo puts this lock in the 1760-1778 period. This lock would have been made by Thomas Ketland Sr. prior to his partnership that began in 1779.

WElliott · « **Reply #9 on:** July 24, 2015, 06:14:44 AM »

Thanks for the clarification on the name b

JV Puleo · « **Reply #10 on:** July 24, 2015, 03:49:19 PM »

Here is my take on the name... Thomas Ketland Sr. set up as a gunsmith in Lichfield St., Birmingham late in 1759 or early in 1760. He as able to get something of a "running start" in business because his father had just died and he'd inherited a modest sum of money. He apparently flourished in the "better than average" trade and some of his guns from this period are extremely nice. However, he wasn't making inexpensive guns for export and it is extremely unlikely that any found their way here other than as the personal property of someone traveling to America.

Some time around 1776 to 1778 he entered into a partnership with William Walker, a merchant who never advertised himself as a gunmaker. He then moves to what will eventually be thought of as the gun quarter but then was an upscale property development aimed at successful merchants and tradesmen. In the the 1780s K&W open a London outlet and, with the advent of the Jay treaty and the Privy council allowing the export of military stores to America, they enter the American overseas trade. This is about 1792. So... my feeling is that this lock likely pre-dates the partnership with W. Walker and probably came from a reasonably good grade fowler that ended up here, not as a bulk export item but as someone's personal property. But, please understand that this is 90% conjecture. The whole exercise revolves around digging out facts and creating a plausible narrative that fits them. The more facts we have, the more limited the conjecture becomes.

debnal · « **Reply #11 on:** July 24, 2015, 09:14:05 PM »

"But, please understand that this is 90% conjecture. The whole exercise revolves around digging out facts and creating a plausible narrative that fits them. The more facts we have, the more limited the conjecture becomes."

I think that is the nutshell of why I love collecting from this era. The average guy can still dig and find information that can change our narrative on these items. The internet has been very positive in this regard.

Al

mr. no gold · « **Reply #12 on:** July 24, 2015, 09:24:54 PM »

A question that perhaps Joe will respond to: The lock in question here has Roman letters for the signature which many do. I have also seen the same signature engraved in cursive hand. What differentiates the two? Is one style older than the other? Or, does it relate to the comparative value of the guns: fancy-cursive; plainer-Roman? I don't recall ever having seen a round faced lock with the cursive
signature, however. Flat face locks seem to run both ways. Any comments?

debnal · « **Reply #13 on:** July 24, 2015, 09:31:49 PM »

Dick,
I had a round faced lock with a cursive Ketland marking. I will try to dig up a picture of it.
Regards,
Al

JV Puleo · « **Reply #14 on:** July 24, 2015, 10:02:32 PM »

Strictly from observation...
All of the guns I have seen that are signed "T. Ketland" or simply "Ketland" that do not have the "& Co." suffix are signed in Roman letters. I have seen the cursive engraved signature on a convex lockplate but it also had the suffix.
That said, I do not think it has any significance in this until later. Again, strictly from observation, most of the better quality locks have the name engraved in a cursive script while the "trade quality" locks have the name stamped on them in Roman letters. However, there are high quality locks with the name engraved in Roman letters. My feeling is that TK Sr. was a talented gunsmith and that, with his partner William Walker, moved from being someone that actually had a hand in putting good quality guns together, into a "gunmaker" in the traditional British sense of the word — someone that oversaw the making of guns and sold them both on the domestic and the export market. I do not think he had a "factory" in the modern sense. He did have a warehouse which was likely the lower floor of what had been his Birmingham house although he actually had two locations in the Gun Quarter from 1778. It is telling that, while he kept at least one of these properties (it was leased), he moved out of the city as he became more prosperous and the house was occupied by his brother-in-law and junior partner in the business, John Adams.

So, to answer the question, the real difference is in whether the name is engraved or stamped, not the style of the lettering.

On a totally different topic... I may have figured out who was behind importing the Belgian-made "fake" Ketlands c.1816 and later.

Collector · « **Reply #15 on:** July 24, 2015, 11:19:49 PM »

Just for comparison purposes.

Shreckmeister · « **Reply #16 on:** July 24, 2015, 11:43:05 PM »

What's the history of the gun your lock is on? Does that say C Lord? I'm wondering if upon closer exam there could be a date on my lock as well. I will report back.

Collector · « **Reply #17 on:** July 26, 2015, 01:16:18 AM »

Quote from: Shreckmeister on July 24, 2015, 11:43:05 PM

What's the history of the gun your lock is on? Does that say C Lord? I'm wondering if upon closer exam there could be a date on my lock as well. I will report back.

I believe it's - T. LORD 1763 - . It's on a colonial parts gun (.75 cal. smoothbore pictured above,) that used a mix of English and French sporting and military parts of that period.

It was found, together with a Continental Army Pick and Wisk set, in a wall during a restoration in a home in downtown Savannah, GA. The piece of black flint, seen in the photo was still in it's jaws. (the piece of leather, is mine) The frizzen is not original to the lock, but is fully functional.

Savannah was settled in 1733, so lock dates just 30 years after. A worker had taken steel wool to rear of lock (older is worth more) before it was brought to me.

She was definitely a well used working girl and great lengths were undertaken to keep her in working order, as evidenced by the brazed patches in various portions of the barrel.

I've posted photos of it, here, before.

longrifle · « **Reply #18 on:** July 26, 2015, 02:05:10 AM »

I like that one. I would love to have one like that, but you just don't see them here.

Shreckmeister · « **Reply #19 on:** August 02, 2015, 07:06:37 AM »

After close examination, I find that the name is cut/engraved into the lock rather than stamped.

Shreckmeister · « **Reply #20 on:** August 12, 2015, 05:10:46 AM »

I put the lock in a bath of auto tranny fluid and acetone today. Leaving it soak until the end of august then will clean up with a toothbrush and post detailed photos of the results.

Shreckmeister · « **Reply #21 on:** September 04, 2015, 04:42:59 PM »

Collector · « **Reply #22 on:** September 04, 2015, 09:11:29 PM »

Shreckmeister,

What's going on in the 'panel' behind the cock?

Without a more detailed look, it looks to be a remnant of a HBC marking, or just a simple meandering 'vine' or 'line' engraving.

Regardless, there something going on there.

Any legible markings on the interior surface, e.g., broad arrow stamp, intials, numbers?

Shreckmeister · « **Reply #23 on:** September 04, 2015, 11:11:54 PM »

Behind the cock is simple vine engraving unless I am missing something. I need to sit down and examine the interior
closely, but nothing jumped out at me.

Collector · « **Reply #24 on:** September 05, 2015, 04:12:11 AM »

These two (2) locks share a basic design and architecture and a few obvious/minor differences; a frizzen operating on and held against the plate with a single bolt and a frizzen spring retained, from the back, with a blind bolt.

Not at all sure what that means, or if it is even helpful in dating a lock of this type.

News:

Author Topic: Hodgepodge conglomeration musket (Read 14959 times)

grouchy

Paul E. Wog

longrifle