The $ 102 thousand rifle [ description now changed to" trade gun" ]

[bob in the woods]

The Contemporary Maker's Blog has a wonderful pictorial display of what looks like a tulle fusil to me
The applied decoration is similar to the O'Connor gun shown in Hamilton's book " Colonial Frontier Guns"  How common was that large 17** date display on these ?   Can it be traced to a particular area or group ?   I've seen this often associated with native use, but I wonder why a native would see a "date" as an appropriate decoration ?    Any thoughts ?

[Longknife]

https://contemporarymakers.blogspot.com/

[rich pierce]

In For Trade and Treaty there’s an English trade gun with some seed beads. I’ve seen a couple more examples. Not sure why an indigenous person would note the year but unusual stuff happens every day.

[T*O*F]

Not sure why an indigenous person

It could have belonged to a Metis or a Frenchman who married a native woman.

[WadePatton]

Did it recently sell? Is that how the valuation is derived? There's no text with the gun and they don't do comments there anymore. Is "rifle" a slip of the pen, or copied from the sales literature/promotion. I'm sure Art knows it's no rifle.

and it looks a lot like my initials on the other side. "TWP"   

[mbriggs]

I thought it might be another creation by Eric Kettenburg.  (laughs)

Michael

[WESTbury]

Quite odd that there is no accompanying discussion.

Perhaps they are waiting for the members of the ALR to assist with the appropriate description. This is not my "cup of tea", so we are relying on those knowledgeable members who can assist.

[rich pierce]

Auction houses are notorious for thinking there are 2 kinds of guns: pistols and rifles.
On topic the challenge with guns that have clearly been in indigenous hands have a lot of appeal. Example: if you auction a busted up trade gun from the 1850s you may get $800. If it’s got rawhide and tacks and some notches on it, $3000. Same here. French fusils of the period are rare to find intact but $15,000 should buy one. If it evokes real native wilderness use like this one, sky is the limit.

[Stoner creek]

I thought it might be another creation by Eric Kettenburg.  (laughs)

Michael

See? There you go EK. It ain’t just me!!!

[bob in the woods]

Some of my stuff comes out looking a bit like this without me even trying 

[WadePatton]

Some of my stuff comes out looking a bit like this without me even trying 

Well cash in on that talent Bob!

If a man wanted a copy of that gun, a shooter/display model, he could do worse than commission EK to create it for him.

[Ezra]

I paid less for my home.

Ez

[WESTbury]

Good Old George Neumann has photos on page 84 of his Battle Weapons of what George refers to as a "French Marine Infantry Musket (Fusil Ordinaire) from Nittolo's collection, that looks an awful lot like this gun.

I'm with Bob and Rich on the date not being something a Native American would put on his weapon.

Guns with purported native markings are always vexing. Of course, the people who posted this longarm have not may any claims yet on the gun or seen fit to post any description.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Is this from an auction listing?  I figured they were auction photos that Art or Robert reposted.  Art?  What's the story here?  I'd like to see a description.  I don't really buy it (no pun intended) but then I'm not buying.

I had a bit of an email exchange a while back with someone over some French trade guns of similar era along with some cc'ing in from a few others.  Apparently it has been extremely popular and common in Canada for many years now to fake up French trade guns - haven't seen this one before though so I don't know a thing about it.  There's got to be a back story with this especially given the extremely prominent 'slap you in the face' date plastered on the side.

[WESTbury]

My Research Department has determined that this gun was Lot#87 Morphy's 9-26-2018 auction. Very detailed description by Morphy's of the gun with some guesswork on its history.

Normally, I would give an "at a boy" to my RD Dept, but they have been slacking off lately. Ive condemned them to cutting the grass this morning as penance.

[WadePatton]

Thanks for the info.

I'm taking a day off for recovery from grass management. I've run four mowers in the last week/end and am yet behind--all with a bum knee.  Knee gets today off.

Also appreciate EK's comments above. thanks also Eric.

My Research Department has determined that this gun was Lot#87 Morphy's 9-26-2018 auction. Very detailed description by Morphy's of the gun with some guesswork on its history.

Normally, I would give an "at a boy" to my RD Dept, but they have been slacking off lately. Ive condemned them to cutting the grass this morning as penance.

[Eric Kettenburg]

So Art and Robert both emailed me the description from the auction (thanks guys).  This was Walt O'Conners.

Neat gun, regardless of collection I agree with others here that the date is beyond unusual, especially being in beads (with the assumption therefore that it was owned by a native):

This Fusil de Chasse, or hunting musket, contract of 1729 and 1734, was purchased in the early 1960's by Walter O'Connor as part of a large varied collection of antique arms assembled by a long-time auctioneer in New Jersey. The man he had purchased it from has always held it out of the guns for his personal collection. Although the history is unknown Walter felt that it may have been brought home by own of Captain Hezekiah Dunn's New Jersey Ranging & Co. after their service on the New York Frontiers between 1756 and 1760. Walter kept it for two years before selling it to his good friend West White, then 30 years later bought it back from him. When Walter acquired the Fusil it was in as-found and untouched condition but was missing 15-1/8" of the forend and its ramrod. Carl Pippert professionally restored the missing wood and found an original ramrod to fit the gun. The two ferrules closest to the muzzle were professionally made by Carl and are a perfect match to the existing originals. The restoration is so well done that if Walter had not recorded this information, one would have a very hard time discovering it. The barrel has not been lengthened and the lock remains in its original flintlock configuration. The gun remains in untouched, dry attic condition and has never been cleaned in any way. By Walter's count there were originally 244 Wampum beads inlaid into the stock, some were obviously secured by red sealing wax. Of the original beads, there remain 152 full beads today and many other fragments which are not counted. This number includes the initials "IW" and the dated "1759". The Fusil itself features a two stage iron barrel with a small front sight and a groove extending from the tang into the breech. The flat lockplate is stamped "ATVLLE" in the center and stamped with a "D" at the tail. The lock is internally unmarked and on the exterior a crown over a Fleur-de-Lis is stamped below the pan. All typical French furniture is iron. The full length walnut stock is of typical early French form and profusely decorated with beaded designs, initials and date. A small piece at the toe was obviously replaced during the period of use of the Fusil. The wrist displays an attractive inlaid lead or pewter repair done early in the gun's life. A relief carved tear drop around the barrel tang surrounded by a punch-dot decorated border. The Fusil is in fantastic condition and retains a dark patina overall. There are various cracks and minor losses to the stock, all resulting from its use during the period. Original and authentic examples of early French Fusils are extremely rare with only a few authentic examples with bead decoration known to exist. Also included is a great deal of research on early French Fusils and trade guns, including copies of many articles and other beaded examples. There are hand-written descriptions of the gun written by Walter O'Connor and a copy of "The Fusil de Tulle in New France 1691-1741" by Russel Bouchard.

[rich pierce]

Cool gun.  A shame that there’s been enough enhancement of some originals post-discovery that we sometimes see red flags where we don’t need to.

[Hungry Horse]

I have to say it is a shame that there have been so many spurious antique firearms manufactured or altered by unscrupulous “collectors” that we have to dissect every offering, and possible miss an opportunity, because the provenance isn’t spotless.

  Hungry Horse

[bob in the woods]

Wow !   No wonder the gun looks so similar to the O'Connor gun in Hamilton's book !
Same source ?    It has 1777 on the stock

[Eric Kettenburg]

I am not a trade gun guy although of course I think they're cool.  To those who are more knowledgeable on French Tulles:  is it *possible* that a piece such as this, destined for trade (i.e., it was known that it was going to a native), could have been decorated in this manner either at point of origin or at receiving end in North America before it was passed along directly to a native?

[WESTbury]

The "I W" looks to be more of a set of initials applied in the British/American colonies.

[Eric Kettenburg]

BTW Kent, I could sure use a RD dept like yours as it's time to start lopping up next year's firewood, let alone mowing the grass, and I sorely could use such a division especially if lacking in overt complaint!

[WESTbury]

Eric--They are second only to my Shameless Book Marketing Div. in complaints of all sorts, incoming and out-going.

Kent

[Mtn Meek]

I am not a trade gun guy although of course I think they're cool.  To those who are more knowledgeable on French Tulles:  is it *possible* that a piece such as this, destined for trade (i.e., it was known that it was going to a native), could have been decorated in this manner either at point of origin or at receiving end in North America before it was passed along directly to a native?

Eric,

This particular model of French trade gun is a bit perplexing.  T.M. Hamilton in Colonial Frontier Guns noted that, "In contrast with the Types C and D, the archeological remains of Tulle hunting guns [fusil de chasse] -- or what we assume to be the remains -- are sparse.  A the moment, there are more of these guns reposing in gun collections than there are individual fragments assigned to that pattern."

Several explanations have been suggested at to why there are so few gun parts of this pattern in the archeological record.  Two of the most plausible are that this particular model was developed rather late in the period of New France (the gun referred to as fusil de chasse in the French records may have not been one pattern but changed over time and was actually several different patterns).

The other plausible explanation is that this pattern was intended for the French militia and not meant for the Indian trade, though some were obviously traded to the Indians.  This is the explanation preferred by James A. Hanson in Firearms of the Fur Trade.  He notes that, "Surprisingly, there is no documentation that Tulle produced guns for Indians other than some special chief's guns. However, there are references that belie the official record.  For example, in 1722-23, French traders at Fort Frontenac sold 59 Tulle-made guns, valued at 17 livres each.  Tulle hunting guns were generally more expensive and of better quality than those made at other government factories, and traders were specifically directed to prevent the Indians from becoming familiar with them..."

The odds are that the subject gun was owned by a civilian and not an Indian.  The fact that it has survived also suggests that it wasn't an Indian owned gun.