Ketland fowler without british proof marks on barrel ?

[Monty59]

Hello, my question is why does this Ketland fowler not have the normal british proof marks on the barrel the only marks I found are three letters ITH on the bottom. The barrel does not look like replaced to me. I would be pleased about any help !

Monty

[Pukka Bundook]

Monty,

It looks a very nice gun!
Early as well.  V nice engraving. I like it.

Two or three things come to mind;
1, Lightly struck and worn away,

2, Barrel shortened from  breech at one time, and proofs lost.  (Highly unlikely in this case, usually happens when a gun is percussioned and new breech fitted)

3, Some English guns seem to just not have had proof marks for some reason.  we see best guns without proofs at times.

Also bear in mind that only London required proof at one time, though most makers had barrels proved either private or at the Tower.

Again, a very nice gun.

R.

[JV Puleo]

I agree... a fairly early example too. Does it say "Ketland" or "Ketland & Co." on the lock?

As Pukka has pointed out, proof was only a legal requirement in metropolitan London. Most Birmingham guns were proved, either at the local private proof house or the barrels were sent to London for Ordnance private proof but that was a convention, not a legal requirement. I've seen a few K guns without proofs...all guns that were made for export. I'm not certain abut this one, it could have been exported but it could also have been sold in Britain.

The legal requirement for proof wasn't extended to England (outside London) and Wales until 1813 and it wasn't legally required in Ireland or Scotland until much later (1876 comes to mind but I don't have my notes handy). Probably 99% of guns were proved, if only because it was expected.

[Monty59]

Thank you for your comments, it certainly is not always easy to explain something like it could be. The look is marked only Ketland as far as I can see that.

Monty

[JV Puleo]

That is consistent with the round-face lock. Where are you? If you are anywhere near Rhode Island I'd love to get some high res photos for my book - which, believe it or not, I'm actually putting together right now. I need more fowler pictures, especially early ones.

Further to the above... I am reasonably certain that gun pre-dates the Ketlands active participation in the export trade which doesn't start until the 1790s. The partnership with William Walker et al appears to have been formed in 1776 or 1777 when Thomas moved "uptown" from Litchfield Street to what would become the Birmingham Gun Quarter.

So... it is one of the handful of K guns that really could have been here at the time of the Revolution... whether it was or not is anyone's guess but I think it is old enough.

[smart dog]

Hi,
Joe, do you believe that feather spring is original?  I am not so sure.

dave

[Tim Crosby]

Hi,
Joe, do you believe that feather spring is original?  I am not so sure.

dave

  "feather spring" what is it or makes it a Feather spring? Basic I'm sure but I'm missing something.

   Thanks, Tim

[Pukka Bundook]

Dave,

I believe it is replaced, I see another  hole in the lock plate.
Nothing wrong with this though, springs do not always last as long as a lock.   (Like you didn't know this!)

R.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Tim:  feather spring or frizzen spring.  Are you thinking because it is shorter than the forward extension that it might be a replacement?

[rich pierce]

Would expect the original spring bend to cover the front  “nose” of the lockplate, where we see the front lock bolt.  I see an extra pin hole in the plate.