B- Buss needing some TLC.

[Pukka Bundook]

Morning Gents.

This old chap needs someTLC;
He's a rather early one I believe, but would appreciate your thoughts  on it.
Unsigned lock, but barrel has what appears to be a badly stamped IH under a diamond, for John Hall 3. (Blackmore, Gunmaker's of London......Apprenticed to Godfrey Taylor, turned ove rto Geo. Fisher 1694, Free of Gunmaker's company 1702.
Proof piece1705.
Elected assistant 1722; Master 1726.  Gunmaker at the Coffin, Budge Row 1720; At the Rose  & Crown, Budge Row, 1724, Continued in Budge Row until 1740.
Died 1740.
Although it has been through the mill and altered, I am rather fond of it.
The original sideplate has been removed and a thin iron one fitted. In one photo, you can see the outlines of the original sideplate.

I have been told this 'buss is from the 1720's.  If so, this is very interesting, as the buttplate tang and the escutcheon on the wrist  with the caricature, are of a type we normally see in the 1690's and not normally  later.
You can see the rubbish sideplate now fitted. Thoughts on this anyone?   also the welding bodge  on the cock. 

Your thoughts on this one will be most appreciated!!  (Good bad or indifferent :-) )

Best regards,
Richard.

[JV Puleo]

I like it. It's a lot better than the William Turvey pistol I recently bought, missing it's original trigger guard and converted to percussion.
I'm not sure what I'd do with the side plate. That one is really awful. It would be nice to find one that is of the right type and then think about how it could be incorporated... generally I'm not much of a "restorer" but I'm also reminded of something my mom used to say about antiques... "if it was junk new, it's junk now." I'd put it 1702–1710 based on the mark and the early style fittings.

[Mike Brooks]

I'll  guess just before 1700 more or less. I'd leave it alone, it's just for lookin' at not for shootin'.

[Pukka Bundook]

Thank you for your thoughts on this, Joe.

The older I get, the more I think and don't act.    Maybe that is as well.
A cock of the right period (thanks for your thoughts on this as well....it is more in line with what I thought.) would be a start.
Re. the tin sideplate I do not know what to do.  The history of this old warrior mustn't be lost, and yet I'd like to see a 'right ' sideplate fitted.
The trouble is, that this would mean adding wood in the sideplate area, to fit the plate to.
It could be done, but we are meddling with the history. 
Must admit, on something like this I'm a  a bit perturbed. 

Preserving is becoming more and more important to me.   I used to get any old iron shooting again, but tend to think more now, and feel guilty if I use it!

Thank you again Joe, and I'd love to see the pistol, even  by email. 


Mike,

Yes, I can't see me firing this one really.

[n stephenson]

Richard, I like your little B Buss , I have always liked them. The trigger is a nice little jewel. I am by no means knowledgeable about this gun . I`m sure that you already know from the maker it was made in England  but, the furniture gives me a very Dutch vibe. Did the English use Dutch style furniture sometimes , or am I just seeing something that`s not what I think? It is a cool piece !!!     Nate

[JV Puleo]

Thank you again Joe, and I'd love to see the pistol, even  by email. 

I haven't seen the pistol yet myself except in a bad auction picture. It was one of those "I'll bid low and take a chance" situations. I had it mailed to a friend's house in the UK along with the fuzee I bought and won't see either of them until February when I make my annual pilgrimage. I'll send you a photo from there.

[Steve Collward]

Pukka:
   Thanks for sharing the photos of your early 'Buss. Overall, a nice looking piece.
 With regards to the side plate, do you (or others) have any thoughts, speculation, etc. as to why the original side plate was removed and the current one used?
   Steve
   

[Mike Brooks]

Pukka:
   Thanks for sharing the photos of your early 'Buss. Overall, a nice looking piece.
 With regards to the side plate, do you (or others) have any thoughts, speculation, etc. as to why the original side plate was removed and the current one used?
   Steve
 

Probably lost.

[Pukka Bundook]

Pukka:
   Thanks for sharing the photos of your early 'Buss. Overall, a nice looking piece.
 With regards to the side plate, do you (or others) have any thoughts, speculation, etc. as to why the original side plate was removed and the current one used?
   Steve
 

Good evening Steve,

Lostvas Mike says, or some other mystery.
For some reason of which I am ignorant, nice old guns turn up in the UK fairly often, brass mounted, with the sideplates removed and a terrible piece of junk fitted.  It's a mystery why this should be. 
Now, If the sideplate had been heavy iron I could have maybe given you an answer!
Heavier iron plates were sometimes substituted, complete  with a butterfly swivel for fitting a sling, for when carried on horseback.
This piece is not thicker than tin, so could not (One would think) support such a swivel, although there is a hole in the tail of the plate,  so Could  be that such a swivel Was fitted.

N Stephenson,
Dutch and English shared a lot of features, and  at this period, we will see many of the same  ..T /guard style, heavy and stocky stocking up.   
One thing I really like, (well 2 things!)  The buttplate finial, says late 17th century to me, and the odd little caricature on the wrist!
According to W. Keith Niel, this was only used from 1675 to 1690.....although I'd maybe stretch that out to 1700 or a tad later... Not that I know more than he did!!

Thanks again for the thoughts.

One thing  has crossed my mind whilst writing; Would it be possible/permissable to fit a heavier and Maybe a little better shaped sideplate, complete with the butterfly swivel?

Gents??

[JV Puleo]

I think you've hit on something there. If the round depression under the plate is where the hole is looks as it it was intended for a nut... or maybe just a stud with a washer upset on the back to hold it in. Perhaps a swivel but it's so crude that I'd guess a simple stud of some sort with a ring in it. That would make it convenient to carry the gun on horseback with a sling. If you haven't seen them, the carbine sings from Littlecote House are astonishingly similar to the identical items more than 200 years later... a wide sling with a spring hook and swivel on the end.

I think a lot of Americans aren't aware that the very early 18th century was the "golden age" of the highwayman in England... No one traveled unarmed or without armed attendants. Actually, it was still true more than 100 years later. In the early 19th century the ads for the twice-weekly coach from B'ham to London included the line "armed guard aboard". Why the plate is so light is another question but perhaps its actually a crude replacement for the real one which, in turn, replaced the original.

[Pukka Bundook]

Thank you for that, Joe, re the swivel arrangements. 
Highwaymen Yes!

Where I grew up, there was still in Normanby village, the iron gates to a house that Dick Turpin jumped Black Bess over  when making his escape one time.  Also "Galler's hill"  (Gallows Hill) was still on many Ordnance survey maps . (still is)
Gt Grandfather,  when carrying his butcher products back home from Whitby always carried an old .455" revolver under the dog -cart seat, as on lonely patches of the moor there was still a strong chance of being ambushed.  He Was attacked one time, and never thought about the revolver !
He hit one across the face with the buggy whip, and knocked another down with the heavy butt of the whip as the bloke tried to take his reins, then  whipped  the horse into gear, running over  the miscreant he'd just knocked down.  He got home to Ormesby, with "both him and the horse all hot and sweaty....both puffing and blowing!" as granddad put it!

Is this OT or what!?!

Mysteries with this little arm continue.
The hole in the 'tin' sideplate is only about 3/32"  so I would think too light for a ring or swivel, But, there is a  depression in the stock below this area, as though a rivet -head or whatnot was once fitted. However!  ..
There is a pin in the bottom of this crater, which serves no purpose I can see and I wondered if someone had been trying to dig it out.  (?)
It appears this old gun has had a long working life, and maybe many alterations or was made up of parts in the beginning.
Long working life, as the frizzen has worn through the hard surface in one place.  Lots of wear there.
Trigger guard;
All is covered with a heavy varnish, and the trigger guard, once some of this is removed,  has been spliced together with dovetails and brazed together.
It is a neat job, but one wonder why and when. the guard actually being made of four pieces !
On  the rear t/guard finial, the engraving, though very worn, has the same style  as that on the buttplate finial, so it is not like the guard is altogether new to the gun.  (Will take photos.)
The inletting for the trigger-guard shows no evidence of being altered, yet the screw holes have been filled with wood and new screws fitted. Wrong type and new screws that is.  New holes are in the original positions.
The guard being screwed on, also says late 17th C, as pinned guards appear at the beginning of the 18th C. (No sign of pins at all)
Removed buttplate last night, as it also has 'new' screws.
The old holes had maybe rotted, as the screw holes are also plugged and re-drilled, but all is old and musty, and must have been done decades ago at least.
Buttplate finial is a new type to me;
The finial is Much deeper than wide, and has a wedge -point that goes under the butt wood, to hold it down.   No pins to hold it at all as one would expect,   Just the 2 normal butt -screws.

Pictures as and when.

Thanks again for the interest!
Richard.

[Mike Brooks]

Trigger pin hole? Also, I'm really surprised the tumbler has a bridle.

[WKevinD]

I have nothing of substance to add to this discussion but this is what I love about these old, repaired, reworked relics.
The mystery and the educated guesses that give possible answers to the "why was this done" or "how did that break"
For example:
 "trigger guard,... has been spliced together with dovetails and brazed together."
The idea of fixing a broken or building a new trigger guard with dovetailed and brazed joints is fascinating especially looking at it thru my spoiled lost wax casting reality.
The working life of it is now just supposition but I love the story of it.
Thanks,
Kevin
 

[JV Puleo]

I am inclined to think the gun is 1st decade of the 18th century despite the earlier features. Given his long working life, it could be even later. I'm very skeptical of hard dating rules... there are many possible reasons why a gun might be a little archaic when new, not the least of which is the taste of the maker, the seller or simply using up slightly older parts or even restocking an earlier gun with a new lock though I don't think that is what is going on here. As to the bridle, this isn't at all uncommon in better quality guns. I suspect they were appearing regularly by 1700 on better quality guns. If the maker became free of the gunmakers company in 1702, that is when he would have been granted a mark so if the identification is right it pretty much has to be an 18th century gun.

[Pukka Bundook]

You are quite right Joe,  We have the maker's mark on the barrel pretty certain, so after 1702 for sure, and before he died in 1740.

Also how common was it for a gun to be made up out of parts from  under the bench so to speak?...a bit out of date, but will do for a plain working gun.
We even see Twigg livery pistols with unbridled locks. Basic pistols for retainers and such.
You are quite correct to be a bit sceptical re. hard dating.  Hard dates may apply more to best London arms, but for simple defense, the styles did not change at the same pace.

Mike,
No, the pin for the trigger is mounted lower. That was my first thought as well.

Will try and get pics soon.

Thanks to all on this,

Richard.

[JV Puleo]

I think it's tough to say how often it happened but we do know that even the best makers provided "plain" arms for retainers. I've handled Twigg and Griffin guns that fit that description and would be very surprised if this was not the rule rather than the exception.

The problem with hard dating is that, even where the maker is known, it is still based on our guesses as to when he made something. Sure, if we know when he started and when he died we have a hard bracket but inside that, we are still guessing most of the time. We're also dealing with a very small sample... the surviving arms and, most often the surviving arms by makers we can identify, all to many of which were in London. It is probably wrong to assume that just because a maker was in London he was always up to the latest in current fashion... what he really was doing was satisfying his customer and I really doubt all of those were slaves to fashion.

[rich pierce]

How common is it to see the rear lock nail located behind the bolster?

[JV Puleo]

I've handled quite a few guns of this period but haven't had many of them apart. Not too surprisingly, if it isn't yours, you hesitate to take the lock out. I've even known collectors who were horrified at the thought of taking anything apart... they tend to be the ones with absolutely no mechanical aptitude. That said, I doubt it was common, if only because running the threads into the bolster makes a lot more sense given the tenuous quality of the swedged threads on the lock bolt and the slightly tapered threads of the hole.

[Pukka Bundook]

 

How common is it to see the rear lock nail located behind the bolster?

Rich,

A lot more common then than it is now!  :-)
I have  a few like this.   If We did it now, we 'd be wrong wouldn't we?

Joe,
What you say about hard dating and fashion is very true. 
I recall supplies listed as on hand when some of the famous makers died, and there are invariably a great lot of "Locks of the old style"  ....barrels and lots of other parts.  These would in due course likely be used up on plain working guns or defense types,....servants arms and such.  Not merely thrown out.

There is also that particular duck gun made apparently for the Fourth earl of Aylesford by Twigg.   Supposedly dated the same as the other arms, (1779)  yet it has the old rounded -faced lock and long scear spring, and would normally be dated prior to 1765 by a good margin.

I do not think that we now, 200 + odd years later, were their primary concern!

Will try and take photos tonight. Not ideal but we will see.

Richard.

Joe, I see your answer to Rich, but will let my answer stand a swell. as I have a few locks with nails missing the bolster. Quite agreed it is not so good though!

[Pukka Bundook]

Picturs of the repaired parts;

Forgot to say the tang had been mended with a dovetail as well.




























First photos are the trigger-guard repairs or whatever.
Dovetail at front of guard, and two dovetails at rear of guard.
Next photo showing off-set trigger. Quite common on earlier arms.
Butt-stock and butt-plate showing deep mortise for the finial and then the finial showin  how deep it is, with chisel -tip to hold it down in the stock.
I have not seen this type before.
On the lastvphoto of the trigger-guard, you can just make out the engraving, which matches the buttplate.   
Also see the brazed and dovetailed barrel tang.
The last one is just a pic. of Ichabod as I call him!

Indoor so apologies for the quality.  My camera has a flash I can't turn off. (it seems).

NO Clue why the blue line around the caricature!! It is not there on the gun. I took 2 pictures and they both shown this!

Richard.

[James Rogers]

Just glancing at the pics on a small smartphone but I agree with the time frame of the hardware. I do think this piece may have been re-stocked at a later period. The stock styling is similar to many guns I have seen where the hardware somewhat dictates the early architecture just by its shape but the overall stock shape hints at a later styling.

[Pukka Bundook]

James,

You could well be right on the re-stock at some point.  Who is to say?  Maybe the woodworm ate the first stock and made inroads into no 2 as well.
I wonder why the surface runs of worm damage?  Cannot really think why, but have seen this before but cannot think where.

[JTR]

I wonder why the surface runs of worm damage? 

The only reason I know for worm eaten wood to look like that, is because the worms had already had their fest and eaten their tunnels before the wood was cut into a gunstock. Uncut/unshaped worm eaten wood has only small roundish holes on the surface, where the worms/critters had exited, only to fly off to a new piece of wood to lay eggs, to start eating again!

For a piece of wood to show worm tracks like this, the worm damage was already done before the wood was shaped into a gun stock.
And that begs the question as to why a gun stock shaper in early times would use such a piece of wood, as the value would be minimal at best to either gun maker or potential owner.

However, in later times, say 50 years ago, with the resurgence of antique furniture, especially English and Continental items, it was thought by some, that using worm eaten wood in more contemporary made antiques would/could comfort the unwary buyer that the piece was indeed very very old and certainly antique, due to the visible worm damage!

I’m not suggesting this is the case for your gun. However, all the dovetail repairs, etc, suggest that a lot has gone on with this one over time.

John 

[Steve Collward]

Thanks for the additional photos.  That is very nice butt plate and tang.  Also, could you post the barrel length and overall length of this piece?
At some point, are you looking at replacing the cock or will you leave it as is?
Steve

[Pukka Bundook]

John,

I replied earlier, but where it went I don't know!
Worm damage;
I wondered if the stock had been sanded heavily at one time. thus bringing more worm-runs to light. However, the wood is not under-sized and all traditional fitting appears to be done, so don't think it is a 'new' stock made in the last 50 years.
The wood is a bit 'tender' and will need some thin glue to stiffen up the crumbling areas,  around the comb.
The stock also has old splits, repaired with nails etc, the splits where we would expect with use, (forend, where wood is thinnest)

With all the " Gone onning" it has had, I wonder if it would be kosha to try and make that sideplate look better...

Steve,

Barrel length is 15 3/4"  without tang, and overall is 30 1/2"

I will definitely replace that bodged and broken cock, as it shows blow-holes from some clown electric welding it!

Here is a photo with a Chambers cock;    It is maybe a bit later in style, but could be made to fit and altered a little as well.
What do you think?

Any further light or advice most welcome!

R.





Edited to add the following;

John,

Sitting here looking at the old blunderbuss, I think I have it!

You mentioned that the worm damage would have to be in the wood Before the stock was made;
Well on mulling this over, it seems such could not be the case, as the worm damage is only on the very Outside of the stock. With buttplate removed no evidence of worms at all.
This would be very difficult to find,...a piece of wood with damage only where we wanted it to show, on both sides.

Then it struck me!...  If the stock had a thick coat of shellac, the worms could run just under this layer, burrowing Along the stock surface, following the softer grain as is evident now.
Some of the worm-runs are so close to the surface, that they can be seen as darker lines, and slightly raised up, so a pin can penetrate straight into them.  To "fine tune" their burrowing in this manner must mean that a thick coat covered the stock whilst this was happening.

What do you think?

Richard.