lock: J.J&WJr.HENRY

[spgordon]

Hi folks: I wonder if list members own--or know of any guns--with a lock marked J.J&WJr.HENRY (and US [over] PHILA at the rear of the lock)?

These locks were likely used on guns in 1815. (The two brothers, Joseph Henry and William Henry, Jr., procured a contract with the US on 9 February 1815 and then turned that contract over to M. Wickham on 27 December 1815.)

I now know of six examples of this lock stamp. (I've included other details that we know about each instance.) #7 may duplicate one of the previous 6--impossible at present to know.

1.
[Has I.R. inspector’s stamp & cheek cut out.]



2.
[Has I.R. inspector's stamp & SALEM on the barrel.]



3.
[a lock]



4.
[Jacobsburg Historical Society: barrel proofed with a P in an oval & stamped SALEM]




5.
[barrel proofed with a P in an oval & stamped SALEM]
Pictured in (https://americansocietyofarmscollectors.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2006-B93-The-Henrys-Gunsmiths-and-Arms-Manufactur.pdf) and sold in 2020: https://www.lotsearch.net/lot/a-excellent-1812-contract-flintlock-69-caliber-musket-by-henry-49098443



6.
[SALEM with an I over BR & raised P in an oval proof mark. Left side of stock marked LG and IR. Cheek cut out.]
Sold 2008: https://www.morphyauctions.com/jamesdjulia/item/lot-1592-rare-contract-standard-musket-of-1815-by-jj-and-w-henry-jr-31950/


 
7.
[drawing included in Reilly, United States Martial Flintlocks (1986)]





And, finally: does anybody know where the two instances sold at auction (#5 and #6) are today?

[WESTbury]

Scott,

I owned #6 for a period of time but have no idea of its present location. The musket was an example of the 1815 Contract muskets and had a 42" barrel. Lewis Ghriskey was the inspector for the U.S. It was probably made in the late 1815 to 1816 time period.

Kent

[spgordon]

I owned #6 for a period of time but have no idea of its present location. The musket was an example of the 1815 Contract muskets and had a 42" barrel. Lewis Ghriskey was the inspector for the U.S. It was probably made in the late 1815 to 1816 time period.

Kent: I don't suppose you have better/more photos of it that you could share here? The ones on the old auction site are poor and only show the lock (not the SALEM or, interesting to me, the "I.R." inspector's mark, which is also on two others.)

[WESTbury]

Kent: I don't suppose you have better/more photos of it that you could share here? The ones on the old auction site are poor and only show the lock (not the SALEM or, interesting to me, the "I.R." inspector's mark, which is also on two others.)

Scott,
Attached are all of the photos I took before I sent the musket to auction in 2012. This musket was never going to be in my book on Springield flint muskets, so I never took many photos. Sorry.
Kent

[spgordon]

These are fantastic--the I.R. mark and the SALEM B/I/R are both visible!--thanks so much!

[WESTbury]

These are fantastic--the I.R. mark and the SALEM B/I/R are both visible!--thanks so much!

You are very welcome.

Nobody, as far as I know, is quite sure which town or county, or even in which state, Salem lies. I personally believe that it is Salem New Jersey, 1st Battalion, 1st Regiment.

These muskets were built under a Federal contract so they would have been inspected and then stored in a Federal Arsenal until issuance to a state under the 1808 Militia Act. They would not have been issued to any Regular Army units. The Regular Army received all of their muskets from Federal Arsenals and would have been from the National Armories at Springfield or Harpers Ferry. Contractor made muskets were considered second rate arms at best thus they were issued to state militia units.

[RVAH-7]

Curious. Image #4 of a percussion lock. Any idea of a time frame for its manufacture? Thank you.

[WESTbury]

Curious. Image #4 of a percussion lock. Any idea of a time frame for its manufacture? Thank you.

All of the 1815 Contract Muskets were delivered by the contractors in the 1815-1816 time period. The contractors were Henkels, Wickham, and Henry.

[spgordon]

I personally believe that it is Salem New Jersey, 1st Battalion, 1st Regiment.

Do you mean that the "B/I/R" stands for Battalion / 1st / Regiment? I hadn't thought of that.

But: How would they mark 2nd Battalion, 1st Regiment?

Has any other barrel marked SALEM turned up with a different number between the B[attalion] and R[egiment]?

[WESTbury]

Do you mean that the "B/I/R" stands for Battalion / 1st / Regiment? I hadn't thought of that.

But: How would they mark 2nd Battalion, 1st Regiment?

Has any other barrel marked SALEM turned up with a different number between the B[attalion] and R[egiment]?

Good questions.
Possibly: II B  IR

All of the known 1815 Contract muskets that have regimental markings are marked on the barrel: "I over BR SALEM" and all are Henry produced muskets. There is is one other musket that I know of branded "SALEM". That musket is a Charleville M1766. Also, there is a M1766 Charleville branded "IPSWICH". Conversely both could represent towns in Massachusetts.

My interpretation of the markings is just my opinion, not hard facts. One could drive oneself nuts trying to interpret regimental markings in some cases.

There are a great many Wickham produced M1816 muskets marked to various New Jersey regiments.

Now that I think of it, those M1816 muskets are branded to New Jersey counties and the brand usually includes the word "BRIGADE". So conceivably, the I/BR could signify 1st Salem County Brigade.

[spgordon]

Do you mean that the "B/I/R" stands for Battalion / 1st / Regiment? I hadn't thought of that.

But: How would they mark 2nd Battalion, 1st Regiment?

Good questions.
Possibly: II B  IR

Maybe. But the current configuration doesn't allow for that. That is, if muskets from different brigades and/or regiments carried these marks (of which, for some reason, only the 1st Battalion, 1st Regiment survives), the configuration would allow for a different number for the brigade and for the regiment. 

In another instance, it seems that there is a mark--a period?--between the B and the R? And it does seem that these letters/numbers were stamped separately, as in this other instance the "1" (if that's what it is) is a bit askew.

[WESTbury]

By the way, per Pete Schmidt, a February 27, 1816 dated letter from J.J. Henry to Callender Irving, Henry indicates that he wanted to relinquish his contract to Marine T. Wickham. Henry delivered a total of 200 muskets and Wickham delivered 200. Both failed to make good on their contracts. Henry's contract had specified 2,277 stand of arms.

[spgordon]

I think the contract was transferred to Wickham in December 1815?

[WESTbury]

That is a great document Scott.

The late 1813 to early 1818 was a very convoluted period for musket production for and by the Federal Government. It is considered to be a transitional period relative to muskets from the Charleville Pattern 44-1/2" long barrel to the U.S. Model 1816 Flintlock Musket. For example, Springfield Armory produced eight different distinct pattern muskets with 42" long barrels in this period based on stock configuration, barrel band configuration, lock configuration, and markings.

These 1815 Contract Muskets were reflective of the quickly changing musket configurations having early Type One 1812 Standard locks, 42" long barrels, cheek recesses, but Type Three barrel bands with the retaining springs forward of the lower and mid bands.

Incidentally, arms researcher and author Peter Schmidt was the first to correctly identify these 1815 Contract muskets in his book U.S. Military Flintlock Muskets Vol. I , published in 2007.

Below is a photo of an 1812 Standard Pattern musket produced at Springfield during the period these 1815 Contract Muskets were being made.

[spgordon]

By the way, per Pete Schmidt, a February 27, 1816 dated letter from J.J. Henry to Callender Irving, Henry indicates that he wanted to relinquish his contract to Marine T. Wickham. Henry delivered a total of 200 muskets and Wickham delivered 200. Both failed to make good on their contracts. Henry's contract had specified 2,277 stand of arms.

Just got home where my books are. I can't easily tell whether Mr. Schmidt used the Henry family papers (now at Hagley, and now all digitized on the Jacobsburg Historical Society webpage) in his terrific book--I don't know of a book more chock full of primary material!

But there's a lot of info in those papers about the various Henry contracts (William Henry II, William Henry II and Joseph Henry, Joseph Henry & William Henry III, etc.).

The December 1815 transfer of the contract from the Henrys to Wickham (two months earlier than this transfer is mentioned in U. S. Military Flintlock Muskets [p. 348]) is there, for instance:

http://www.jacobsburghistory.com/henry-family-papers-hagley-microfilms/

[spgordon]

With many thanks to the listmembers who helped out with this. (Will be printed in the Jacobsburg Hist. Soc. newsletter later this month.) Should be readable if you click on the image--and then click on each again.

BTW, still time for corrections, so please let me know if you see anything that needs fixing.