dates of British proof marks

[altankhan]

I'm wondering about the dates of proof marks stamped near the breech of a light  octagon to round barrel -- Neumann's Weapons of the American Revolution describes the marks as "Board of Ordnance 'private proof' " -- the marks are identical and about an inch apart -- eac is a crown above crossed swords (?)  Any idea of the dates these marks were used -- Neumann doesn't seem to say ...  thanks in advance

-- btw, the gun has a 41 inch .62 cal. barrel (nine inch octagon, no rings), restocked (1/2 stock) c. 1830, but with somewhat earlier converted 5 inch ketland lock and brass spiked finial/stepped and engraved buttplate (1 7/8 width) and remains of trigger guard that both seem latter half of 18th c.

[mr. no gold]

The member on this Forum who knows proof and barrel marks is JVPuleo. He is the expert on these and has written and been published on the subject. Hope that he comes in here and answers your questions. He is as knowledgable on locks, as well.
Dick

[Feltwad]

The proof marks you mention if only crossed scepters with a  crown above would be those of  Thomas Ketland of  St Catherine St, Weaman Row Birmingham 1766 to 1810.Later the Birmingham Proof House of 1813 adopted the same proof marks but were stamped BPC between the scepters and also crossed scepters with the letter V this was the view mark before the gun was proofed.
Feltwad

[JV Puleo]

Oh no... I'm not sure I can live up to that introduction!

What we really need are some pictures because these marks look very similar and are easily mistaken when going by a simple description. However, I have a Ketland proofed pistol on my desk at the moment. It has two marks, Identical, a crown over crossed scepters. The 1813 Birmingham proof marks have the same symbol but with "V" added for the viewing and "B P C" for the final proof. However, there are fake Birmingham proof marks too, seen on Belgian made barrels, and distinguishing them can be a problem if there is substantial wear involved.

The date of the establishment of Ketland's private proof house is problematical. Dates as early as the 1750s have been mentioned but I can find absolutely no proof to suggest it could be that early. I would say that Feltwad's dates of 1766-1813 are far more likely to be appropriate. Thomas Ketland Sr. married in 1761. I suspect he was about 22 or 23 at the time meaning he was born around 1737. (This date has appeared in print but again, I am still looking for the actual record of his birth) Although mentioned in der Neue Stockel and in the late Kit Ravenshear's article on the Ketlands, I have found absolutely no proof that his father (who hasn't yet been absolutely identified) was even involved in the gun trade. He certainly isn't mentioned in the first Birmingham City Directory of 1767. This is where the 1766 date comes from. It could be a little earlier but I doubt much earlier.

As to your gun, again pictures would be helpful but there is no reason to presume it wasn't originally a 1/2 stock. I own the only known Ketland wholesale price list (dating from the Summer of 1812) and it specifically offers "1/2 stock same as whole stock". If your gun is a Ketland product (as opposed to a gun with a Ketland lock) it is almost certainly much earlier than 1830. By then the family was all but gone from the trade. Of the two Ketland firms, the W. Ketland firm went into bankruptcy in 1825 and only one of the four sons of Thomas Ketland Sr. was still alive and he is listed as a wine & spirits merchant. He may have retained some involvement in the gun trade but 1830 is about the last gasp of the Ketlands.

You say its a Ketland lock but how exactly is it marked? Keep in mind that the Ketlands were "gunmakers" nearly in the sense that Sears Roebuck was in the 1920s. There are also period "fake" Ketland locks. This family controlled such a large portion of the American market that their name was widely copied. This was apparently not illegal or at least so difficult to prosecute that the only recourse was to publish advertisements in newspapers decrying the fakes. Both Ketland firms did this in American newspapers.
Other the the progenitor of the family, Thomas Sr., I doubt that any of of the Ketlands ever so much as handled a file although I believe that they throughly understood the complicated workings of the Birmingham Arms trade.

In any case, I have a lot of new information on them and am currently preparing an article for Man at Arms...in fact I'm in the office today struggling with the transcription of Thomas Ketland's will!

JV Puleo

Well, I realized I had a picture of these proofs but I don't see how to include it. I did know how to do this in the past but it must have changed when the format changed and how it is now done isn't obvious to me.

[altankhan]

Thank you very much for your lengthy replies: I am attempting to post several pictures of the fowler.  The front finial on the triggerguard was cut off in what I believe was the restocking process.  Also, there is only one lockbolt (rear), and no hole through the wood for the anterior one -- but the hole on the plate for the anterior bolt has been filled in.  The lock has only two discernible letters:  AN -- in the middle of the plate beneath the percussion drum.  The lock actually looks a great deal like the the plain grade I. Walker pictured on p. 240 of Indian Trade Guns (Hamilton, et al); no bridle on the tumbler.  The design on the rear of the lockplate (five leaves?) is very similar to that on the buttplate (which also has a large 2 stamped on the butt portion). Pictures:
; ;;

p.s. I will also post an image of the stock. Clear images of the whole gun should still be on TOW under anitique (p. 3).  Thanks again

[altankhan]

Here is an image of the halfstock (it has a poured tin/pewter nose cap):;;

 -- yes, that is a small rear sight!

[JV Puleo]

I'd say it is a restock, made from one of the least expensive of the Ketland export fowlers...the original gun, if all the parts came together (and I think they probably did) would have been a flintlock, half or full stock gun of about 1800-1812.

[altankhan]

Thanks very much for sharing your expertise.  I appreciate it.

[Steve Collward]

Thanks for starting this thread and to Mr. Puleo for the information provided.  In 1994 Kit Ravenshear wrote/published a booklet which offers some history of the Ketland family and business.  Perhaps Mr. Puleo could help again with a question regarding the fowlers and pistols seen with the Ketland marked locks.  Were these guns being made by the Ketland Co., or were the Ketlands making locks for the Birmingham gun makers who were then producing the fowlers and pistols?   If so, I assume this was the same situation when the Ketlands opened shop in Philadelphia?
  I look forward to Mr. Puleo's "Man at Arms" article.

[JV Puleo]

The Ketlands were "gunmakers" in the sense that they had a through understanding of the huge and extremely specialized Birmingham arms trade. All of the parts; locks, stocks & barrels were made by specialists and assembled for the Ketlands in Birmingham with the Ketland name on them. The Ketlands then marketed them, as wholesalers, in America. So...most of the fowlers and nearly all of the pistols that are commonly seen are Birmingham-made products designed for and supplied to America. There simply was no domestic English market for low priced firearms of the types exported to America.


Also...the Ketlands exported/imported huge quantities of locks. These are commonly found on all sorts of American-assembled rifles, fowlers, muskets and even a few pistols. Other than flints I have no proof that they brought in any other gun parts but I think it is very likely they, or others in the Birmingham trade, did. I would say that as a very very general rule of thumb that if a gun has a Birmingham proved barrel and a Ketland lock, it or its metal parts at least, came in as a complete arm. Certainly when you see a Ketland lock on a New England or Pennsylvania rifle or on a musket with a Federal or Massachusetts prooved barrel, it was the lock that was imported.

But, its a lot more complicated than just this. There were five Ketlands in the trade along with an assortment of in-laws and likely cousins distributed over two distinctly different companies which, nevertheless, worked together on occasion. They offered arms in a wide variety of quality from the cheapest 17s (less than $2.00) fowler to silver mounted side-by-side doubles. The W. Ketland price list offers 19 varieties of fowler that could simply be ordered by the product number!

There were also "fake" Ketland locks sold in America. The family controlled such a large part of the market that it was worthwhile to mis-represent some product as being theirs. These were (as far as I can tell) of the cheapest quality. Since all of the locks were made in the same four or five Black Country* towns the fakes were probably made by the same people that made the "real" ones. I also know that the Ketland's imported the lowest grade of lock but it may be that they didn't have their name on them.


*The countryside around Brimingham was known as the "Black Country" because of the blanket of soot from thousands of small forges that covered everything for miles. The 18th century description of the countryside was "Black by day, Red by night".

[Mike Brooks]

Aren't those post 1813 proofs?

[JV Puleo]

The picture's pretty fuzzy but I don't see the "V" and "BPC" that should be in the intersections of the crossed scepters if they are post-1813.

But here's another question that I'm still bothered by. The so-called Birmingham "private proofs" that are associated with the Ketlands are virtually identical to the Board of Ordnance private proofs as done in London. (A private gunmaker could have a barrel proved by the Ordnance for a fee but the marking was different than that of a Kings musket).
Blackmore says that the crossed scepters are always the Ordnance private proof. Other sources associate them with the Ketlands as well as the Ordnance (I don't have all the books here or I'd cite them) I have never seen any figures as to how many private proofs the Ordnance did in a given year although they must exist if only because money was changing hands. I simply can't imagine that the barrel makers in Birmingham were shipping tens of thousands of barrels to London to be proofed and back again to be set up into export guns. I suspect that Blackmore was unaware of how many relatively low grade guns with the crossed scepter markings were sold in America. He didn't collect here and probably didn't have much interest in cheap export fowlers, muskets and pistols so I'm only suggesting that the sheer quantity of them was an observation he may not have made.

Birmingham doesn't get its own "official" proof house until 1813... and, I haven't been able to find a single 18th or early 19th century reference to the Ketland's private proof house.

[Mike Brooks]

That whole crossed scepter thing has always been confusing to me. It seems I've read several sources over the years that are at odds with each other.

[JV Puleo]

I'm sure you have. So have I and I'm still trying to get to the bottom of it.

One of the problems is that proof marks are poorly understood and the laws regarding them changed so many times between the 17th and 20th centuries. The proof houses also aren't what we would think of a government facilities. They are (or were) privately owned by the gunmaking guilds with quasi-legal authority to regulate the trade supposedly to protect the buying public but just as much to keep competition out of the market. Originally the requirement for "London" proof only extended ten miles from the city and regulated only guns that were made in London or elsewhere and brought to London for sale. So...there wasn't really a legal requirement that Birmingham barrels be proved prior to 1813 but since proof marks were well recognized, it behooved the makers to proof their barrels if only to make their guns more saleable. A law providing for a fine for anyone selling an un-prooved barrel didn't come about until 1855. As late as the end of the 19th century British proof was only legally required in England and Wales with Scotland and Ireland being exempt.

[altankhan]

There are no letters -- only the crossed sceptres and crown -- I am uploading another image of the marks (hopefully clearer) and an image of the rear of the buttplate (marked with a large "2" ansd 1 7/8 wide) -- to give an idea of the profile:
;


thanks for everyone's input