Author Topic: date opinions on an early English half stock  (Read 2537 times)

Offline Justin Urbantas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
date opinions on an early English half stock
« on: September 20, 2017, 02:23:16 AM »
Came across this beauty for sale on a British antique arms and armour site. On the website they date it to ca. 1770. What do you guys think? Is a 1770 date accurate?
https://www.garthvincent.com/an-early-flintlock-sporting-gun-by-daykin-of-nottingham%2c-circa-1770.--2077/









« Last Edit: September 20, 2017, 02:23:43 AM by Justin Urbantas »

Offline James Rogers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3161
  • James Rogers
    • Fowling Piece
Re: date opinions on an early English half stock
« Reply #1 on: September 20, 2017, 02:27:51 AM »
That stock style is later. It is a re-stocked gun. Probably around 1790s or so. The gun was probably originally built about 1760ish.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2017, 02:31:48 AM by James Rogers »

Offline Justin Urbantas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
Re: date opinions on an early English half stock
« Reply #2 on: September 20, 2017, 02:36:38 AM »
That stock style is later. It is a re-stocked gun. Probably around 1790s or so. The gun was probably originally built about 1760ish.
So you think they took the lock and barrel off the original full stock, then soldered on a rib and re stocked it as a half stock? Was that common?

Offline smart dog

  • Global Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 6980
Re: date opinions on an early English half stock
« Reply #3 on: September 20, 2017, 02:45:57 AM »
The only listing I have for Daykin is 1797 in Nottingham.  That gun is much later then 1770.  The stock and checkering are not from the 1770s.  The lock could be but it would have to have had the frizzen and roller frizzen spring added later. 

dave
"The main accomplishment of modern economics is to make astrology look good."

Offline Justin Urbantas

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1379
Re: date opinions on an early English half stock
« Reply #4 on: September 20, 2017, 02:55:27 AM »
The only listing I have for Daykin is 1797 in Nottingham.  That gun is much later then 1770.  The stock and checkering are not from the 1770s.  The lock could be but it would have to have had the frizzen and roller frizzen spring added later. 

dave
I thought the roller frizzen on an early  round faced lock was odd.  Do you think a standard round face Queen Anne lock and a stock without checkering could bring the date closer to 1770?

Offline James Rogers

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3161
  • James Rogers
    • Fowling Piece
Re: date opinions on an early English half stock
« Reply #5 on: September 20, 2017, 03:39:45 AM »
That stock style is later. It is a re-stocked gun. Probably around 1790s or so. The gun was probably originally built about 1760ish.
So you think they took the lock and barrel off the original full stock, then soldered on a rib and re stocked it as a half stock? Was that common?

Yes.
As far as rollers on the hammer, I used to have a 1745-55 gun with a round face lock and a roller by Thomas Richards.
I'd say lock, barrel, and all hardware is to the original build. 
You will need to look at earlier stocks for correct architecture.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2017, 04:04:20 AM by James Rogers »

Joe S

  • Guest
Re: date opinions on an early English half stock
« Reply #6 on: September 21, 2017, 04:49:15 AM »
Quote
....stock without checkering could bring the date closer to 1770?

Per Neal and Back, stocks were checkered in 1770's.  The early checkering style has much larger checkers than on the gun you posted.  The fine checkering came into vogue in the 1780's and 90's. Almost all of the high end guns were checkered after 1770, but prior to that, most seem to have been without checkering.

Neal and Back list 32 fowlers built between 1760 and 1794.  28 have flat locks, only 4 have a round faced lock.  One of the round faced locks is from 1764. the others are from 1776-1778.

Great British Gun Makers 1740-1790 would help you out a lot.  It's fairly expensive, but it's cheaper than a barrel.  Considering the time and money you will put into your gun, it's a bargain.