Maybe, or maybe not. For the purposes of the discussion let's take the date at face value and also that the engraving was executed when the gun was constructed. So we'll say 1785. Now compared to #42, there is (1) a box of the same general artistic design but assumed to be a second stage, designed as a more 'contained' unit. (This of course assumes that #42 is the original box, which if I may be honest I am not convinced that it is but that's a separate discussion that can probably never be answered). (2) The guard here to my eye looks a bit 'less than' #42, i.e. it looks like a guard like #42 was used as the casting pattern, rather than the same master for both. Of course the photos are less than complete here but it's my first impression. (3) Sideplate - assuming the front bolt portion was removed when restocked, it looks like basically the same thing but obviously would have to have side by side to compare. (4) The buttplate. It's obviously a later style. But what was CS for example putting out at the time that Loesch was master, before he went back to NC? No idea. but look at the surrounding area. Peter Neihart was already using smaller buttplates in the 1780s and so was John Moll (if I have Moll's chronology correct, not guaranteed but I think that I do). Casting a slighter wider net out into Berks, we already see smaller buttplates with curvature. The buttplate on this gun almost - *almost* - looks kind of like a variation on the Northampton sheath type. It has a fairly flat and tapered upper portion, in other words not designed to completely span over and frame a well rounded comb. And it does not have a dramatic rear curvature, just some curve with most at the heel.
I really don't know. On one hand I can see it all working together, especially if you consider the restocker likely removed at least *some* material. Probably not very much but something at the least. On the other hand it's possible that the buttplate was made later, just don't know.
