another ketland fowler

[altankhan]

Just got this piece off a modern dealer -- wondering about era, use by whom, etc. Some particulars: walnut stock, forestock spliced forward of rear ramrod pipe; 5 1/2 in. lockplate, re-converted with Germanic rifle parts (pan, at least), brass furniture (buttplate 2 in. wide) , oct to round barrel (two stages), over 48 in in length, about .66 cal. -- possibly stretched, or had a hole caused by a short start repaired (seems bulged out around repair), about 12 in from muzzle. Hope the photos work...

[/img]
[/img]
[/img]
[/img]
[/img]
[/img]
[/img]
[/img]
[/img]

[JV Puleo]

Its an export grade fowler, probably imported through Philadelphia. The photo doesn't show the proofs clearly enough to say whether it is pre or post 1813 but I would guess it is pre-1813, maybe around 1805-1810 but its really impossible to date these that closely. Anything between 1790 and 1813 is entirely believable. The Ketlands were wholesale merchants. They imported and sold guns by the case although this was only a small part of their business. They also owned ships, underwrote other ships, imported fruit and wine from Spain, cloth, pottery and glassware from England etc. Thomas Ketland Jnr. appears to have closed down the Philadelphia operation around 1812 and returned to England, perhaps to take a bigger hand in managing the firm as his father was fairly old.

If the proof marks are a crown over crossed scepters they are Board of Ordnance private proofs and pre-date 1813. If they are similar but the upper one has a V at the bottom and the lower one has the letters B P & C added to the mark they are 1813 and later.

The re-conversion is an advertisement for why this is not "restoration" in any meaningful sense. They are completely wrong. In fact, the lock probably shouldn't even have an external bridle.

[altankhan]

Thanks very much JV Puleo for your detailed input -- I have added in a clearer picture of the proofs -- any further advice on how the "re-conversion" might be morphed into something more meaningful?  I think the replacement parts on it now can be removed quite easily -- -- any references besides Grinslade, and Hamilton's Colonial Frontier Guns that show pictures of Ketland fowlers of this era?  Also, much of the hardware on the piece I posted is quite similar to the Duncan fowler on pp. 112-113 -- would the lock pictured be a good one to follow in a re-re-conversion?)   Any further input is much appreciated.

best wishes, ak

[JV Puleo]

I'm probably the wrong person to ask since I'm a well known unrelenting critic of reconversion regardless of how well its done (I'd chuck the new parts and put it back to percussion) but... if you're not in any hurry, I'm working on a piece for Man at Arms on the Ketlands. I've a pile of new primary information that is unpublished and, to some extent, contradicts popular notions. Because it may upset some folks I'm not going to publish my findings until I am confident there is an absolute minimum of conjecture involved. We'll illustrate as many locks and their variations as we can but it may be another year before this is ready to go.

Those appear to be Ordnance private proofs so the gun pre-dates the opening of the Birmingham proof house in 1813.

At the moment I think that both Grinslade and Hamilton push the Ketlands back too far. The only "evidence" of them having any presence in the American market before 1790 derives from conjecture about the dates of guns based on physical characteristics. The problem with that is that several of the features commonly used for dating were being made and sold 50 years later than has customarily been believed.

Have you had the lock out? It may very well not have an internal bridle. If it doesn't you can be pretty sure it never had the external one. The export locks were almost all made in three Black Country towns and vary very little. If you look at enough of them you ought to be able to find other examples. The trick is to find one that has not already been vandalized to compare it to since 99% of the re converters are working from flawed information.

[altankhan]

Yes, I prefer to leave them as is, un-reconverted, but as this one has already been reworked, I will try to make it comparatively right as a flinter.  ...   Indeed, there is no bridle on the tumbler -- and the insides  look pretty much like the photo of the Duncan fowler lock. I really appreciate your efforts to research the chronology of the guns -- and am interested to see what kind of info you have uncovered on contexts of usage (fur trade, market hunters, home use, etc.) and commercial market networks  -- looking forward to the article.  If you ever need better images of the things I've posted, feel free to ask ...

[Don Getz]

I certainly am not an expert in this area, but this gun looks rather crude.  Kit Ravenshear had an outstanding Ketland
blunderbuss which was a typical, high quality english gun.  Many years ago we copied the barrel from this gun in brass
and had Bruce LePage engrave it with the number 20,000, along with some other embellishments.  We usually display it
on our table at gun shows.  The gun would have been a super english fowler from the lock on back thru the butt, were it
not for that barrel.................Don

[JTR]

altankhan,
There was a briddless Tomas Ketland lock for sale on ebay a couple weeks ago.
The auction is closed, but the pictures might still be at the link below;

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=170329832925&viewitem=&sspagename=STRK%3AMEDWX%3AIT

It'll give you a good idea of what yours is suppose to look like.

John

I just tried the link and it works,,, the lock is down at the bottom of the page.

[altankhan]

Thanks -- that is helpful and lockplate is very similar to one on my gun...

[JV Puleo]

Here's a picture we took today. Its a general export grade pistol in almost new condition. This one is a W. Ketland, post 1813 but since all the locks, barrels etc came from the same suppliers it should give you a good idea what the cock/pan/battery & spring looked like. It may look crude but I assure you that they worked and usually a lot better than most reproductions ever do. These were made to sell at a price but they were sturdy and completely functional. The Birmingham makers knew exactly what they were doing and did it very well. But, if mechanical details are used to date them, you have to remember that older, simpler and less expensive alternatives remained in use long after they were considered "obsolete" in the carriage trade market.



I remember Kit's blunderbuss. It was a nice gun...but its obvious quality only illustrates the fact that the Ketlands did not make guns. They were merchants. In the British parlance of the time the term "Gunmaker" means a person who coordinates production and markets the product. They organized the production of guns in the highly specialized Birmingham trade offering a fantastic range of products from the cheapest half stock fowler at 17 shillings (wholesale in B'ham in 1812) to steel mounted dueling pistols at 300/ the pair. They sold muskets by the case but a silver mounted side-by-side double could be ordered through them. The family probably started out actually making guns, or at least gun components of some sort, but by the time they appeared on the American scene they were merchant princes. They are extremely significant in that they cornered a huge portion of the American trade. In fact, their products are far more common and better known here than they are in Britain where they are usually thought of as just another Birmingham maker that had a number of Ordnance contracts during the Napoleonic wars. Most British collectors have never even seen the generic "Ketland fowler" were so accustomed to.

[altankhan]

Thanks for the very clear photo -- does it have a detachable pan -- idea not forged integral with the lockplate?  thanks again

[Levy]

Your pictures of the fowler remind me of the Cypher Guns (tradeguns) that Wallace Gusler had at the CLA Show last year, only without the cypher escutcheon on the wrist.

James Levy

[JV Puleo]

The flash pan is detachable.

JVP