Can Anyone Help Me Identify This Lock

[bluenoser]

I know it is a stretch, but am exploring every avenue I can think of.  Using a broad brush stroke, I am thinking somewhere between 1725 and 1825 and something likely to be encountered in America.  That covers a lot of ground.

Ideally, I would like to find a reference with a searchable image.

Here is what I know and think I kinda maybe know:
Originally flint and currently percussion and 6 1/4" long by 1 3/16" tall
Based on the proximity of the border to the edge and a noticeable change in the draft between "A" and "B" and "C" and "D", I would say the plate has been reshaped in those areas.  On that terrible photo, I have attempted to sketch in what the plate MIGHT have originally looked like, but am likely way off the mark.
EDIT
There is an assembly mark consisting of three notches filed into the edge of the plate ahead of the frizzen area.
I have blown pics of 2nd and 3rd model Bess locks up to full scale (assuming 6 1/4" lengths) and laid this plate on the photos.  The overall fit, the tumbler screw and the bridle and sear screws line up reasonably well, but the forward screw hole locations do not match.  Also, the internals don't appear to be a reasonable match.  I was thinking possibly Bess lock filed flat.  Filed flat is probably a very unlikely scenario.
The center-to-center distance between the lock nails is just a hair under 3 1/2".
I suspect that engraving might be later doodling.

Currently stumped





Thanks for looking

[JV Puleo]

English (Birmingham) made export quality lock, probably around 1800-1820.

[bluenoser]

Thanks.  Can you provide a link or reference to a searchable image?

[JV Puleo]

To the best of my knowledge, there is nothing worthwhile on the internet concerning this sort of thing.

[bluenoser]

Then where would you recommend I look?  I will have Moller's books I and II in hand by the end of the week.  I do have Neuman's book, but that is not much help in this instance.

[Eric Kettenburg]

You're getting information pretty much directly from THE best source for the type of question you're asking.  In other words, you are looking exactly where you should be looking.  Cheers! 

[jdm]

You're getting information pretty much directly from THE best source for the type of question you're asking.  In other words, you are looking exactly where you should be looking.  Cheers! 
[/quote]

Yes ,Eric is correct.  Mr. Puleo has published quite a bit on English  made locks. He is source.   Jim

[backsplash75]

Then where would you recommend I look?  I will have Moller's books I and II in hand by the end of the week.  I do have Neuman's book, but that is not much help in this instance.

try going through the Virtual Library/Museum boards here. Sift through and find four or five locks that are similar to yours. Note the approximate date of the arms using similar locks. Post up your matches.

[bluenoser]

Yes, there is a significant number of extremely knowledgeable and very helpful members here in ALR.  I very much appreciate what each member is generous enough to contribute.  In this case, I am making a concerted effort to identify and date each component on a musket and, at this point, reasonably accurate identification and dating of the lock has become the key element.  I would be lacking in my due diligence if I did not seek out corroborating evidence to accompany information I receive.

Two members have identified this lock as a late flint period English lock, but have not offered any supporting documentation.  They may very well be correct.  However, I have looked at literally hundreds of supposedly late English flint locks on various internet sites (the primary resource currently at my disposal) and elsewhere, and have not been able to find a single example that is a reasonable match.  The screw and pin holes do not match, the toe is different or the overall shape is different.  Also, this lock is currently 6 1/4" long and, prior to being modified, was likely longer.  I believe (perhaps incorrectly) late period trade locks tend to be significantly shorter.

I am not trying to be difficult or argumentative.  I am just trying to do my due diligence.

[bluenoser]

Thanks backsplash75, I will do that.
Perhaps, if any member is aware of a match, they could do likewise.

[bluenoser]

OK, that was sound advice.
A couple of locks that appear similar in "New England" and none in "New York"
https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=12127.0
1750 -1800
Similar size, toe  and component layout
No bridle

https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=4650.0
Featured in the book "Flintlock Fowlers" by Tom Grinslade.
Date 1769
Similar size and component layout.
Shorter toe

Thanks again backsplash.  I should have thought to do that.  Will look further.

[bluenoser]

Two more with somewhat similar locks

https://www.nramuseum.org/the-museum/the-galleries/the-prospering-new-republic/case-28-romance-of-the-long-rifle/london-made-copy-of-lancaster-flintlock-rifle.aspx
London made copy of Dickert
Ketland & Co lock
Circa 1776 -1780
Similar component layout and, possibly, size
Shorter toe

https://www.nramuseum.org/the-museum/the-galleries/the-road-to-american-liberty/case-15-shot-heard-around-the-world/dutch-english-club-butt-flintlock-musket.aspx
Dutch English Club Butt Flintlock Musket
Circa 1750
Toe appears similar, unknown size, overall similarities but screw-attached mainspring

That about does it for the library
thanks again backlash

[Bob Roller]

Utility grade lock and nothing that can't be copied today.
Bob Roller

[backsplash75]

Two more with somewhat similar locks

https://www.nramuseum.org/the-museum/the-galleries/the-prospering-new-republic/case-28-romance-of-the-long-rifle/london-made-copy-of-lancaster-flintlock-rifle.aspx
London made copy of Dickert
Ketland & Co lock
Circa 1776 -1780
Similar component layout and, possibly, size
Shorter toe

https://www.nramuseum.org/the-museum/the-galleries/the-road-to-american-liberty/case-15-shot-heard-around-the-world/dutch-english-club-butt-flintlock-musket.aspx
Dutch English Club Butt Flintlock Musket
Circa 1750
Toe appears similar, unknown size, overall similarities but screw-attached mainspring

That about does it for the library
thanks again backlash

I've got some doubts about the early dating on those two pieces, I'm curious about to the Ketland & Co rifle's proofs and what JVP has to say about that lock marking. The club butt gun has an acorn finial triggerguard, if I recall correctly the hallmarked acorns start in the mid 1760s and are common a bit later. Nothing really "Dutch" looking to me there (will see what the earliest acorns are in Visser), I'd put the lock at 1790-1810ish based on similar guns with that lock. Likely a New England buccaneer style gun ca 1800 IMO.

[bluenoser]

Thanks for taking the time to investigate.  I look forward to seeing your, and JVP's, opinions.

I would really like to see a similar lock of known similar dimension that can be reasonably documented to the 1800 - 1820 time period.

[JV Puleo]

That rifle in the NRA collection can't be used as any sort of defining example. It's a reconversion – and not a particularly good one. None of the external lock parts are original to it.

The so-called "Dutch" musket is even more absurdly identified. That is English-made lock of the lest expensive type. The lack of a bridals on the frizzen is meaningless...it's a matter of cost rather than date. The cheapest locks didn't have internal bridals either but we don't say they are 17th century.

This is the great shortcoming of internet research. Chances are the NRAs description came from the person who donated it. No one can know every period and I don't think the NRA has ever had a curator who was a specialist in early NE flintlocks. The current curator is a friend of mine. He's certainly knowledgeable but this isn't his area and this description certainly pre-dates his tenure. This is a chronic problem with all museums...I've run into mis-identified items in the Royal Armouries and at Springfield. Usually, the curatorial staff is more than happy to get specialist advice.

Both of these guns are miss-dated. The fowler is probably c1800 (not 1750) and the rifle is certainly after 1795.

[bluenoser]

Thanks for your view of those examples.

And the ones in the ALR library?

By the way, I was mainly focused on the lock plate dimensions and component layout.  I didn't really pay much attention to the hammers, pans and frizzens.

[JV Puleo]

I am not at all convinced that, even if you found an identical lock, it would tell you much. At least until recently, most collectors were under the mistaken impression that locks were made by the supposed "gunmaker." That was very rarely the case though I will not go so far as to say it never happened. Certainly by the mid-18th century, and probably somewhat earlier, gunlock making was a highly specialized trade. Virtually no one who assembled guns made their own locks...including the best London makers. Most gunlocks were made in a three or four towns on the outskirts of Birmingham. They were made in roughly consistent sizes and sold by the dozen. Quality ranged from excellent to simply "fit for purpose". The features we tend to associate with the progression of lock making like bridles, sliding safetys and waterproof pans are really only applicable to the best quality. The cheapest locks, what the William Ketland price list refers to as "Common Fence Gun Locks hardened and Engraved" (selling for 17s per dozen) did not include these refinements. (This is the type of lock shown on the fowler in the NRA collection).

Much the same can be said for decorative mounts. While they appear on fine guns at identifiable dates (because we know and can date the makers) they continued in use on cheaper guns for a long time thereafter.

In the American context, it was simply not economical to make locks. The almost total lack of skilled specialist workmen and the lack of the raw materials (notably steel) in America made it too expensive even where the workman was able to do it. Were there exceptions? Yes...but even these raise new questions as to what the "maker" actually made. In Britain, a "gun lock maker" fitted and assembled parts supplied by other specialists. It was a highly developed form of pre-industrial mass production that is only now beginning to be studied in detail.

For instance...we know that locks were made for Armory and Contract muskets. This was a conscious effort on the part of the government to develop domestic sources for military arms and it ignored the costs involved but even the National Armories had to import the steel (and much of the iron) they used  until after the American Civil War.

[bluenoser]

Thank you for that excellent explanation of the gunlock making trade and how it was tied to the to the gun making industry - probably better described as the gun assembling industry.  If I am not mistaken, there were similar lock making centers in other areas, such as Liege.

Let's take a look at a particular Ketland & Co lock.
https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=4650.0
The fowler in this example is dated 1769 so, I believe, we can be relatively confident it was made no later than 1769.  Do you consider the lock to be age-appropriate for the musket?  If not, it would be helpful if you could explain why.

[JV Puleo]

I believe the lock is replaced...or the gun was restocked at a later date using a new lock and the the mounts from an earlier fowler.
"Ketland & Co" was not formed, at the earliest, until 1776 and did not start exporting to America until 1794. It was a partnership between Thomas Ketland Sr., William Walker, Alexander Walker and, for a time, William Ketland. Alexander Walker and William Ketland were out of the firm by 1803 but the company continued trading under this name until about 1821.

Usually, when we say a lock is replaced it is because it doesn't fit all that well, You can often tell when the replacement was done in period (because the touch hole will line up regardless of the lock plate) or in modern times because usually it's the lock plate that lines up and the touch hole doesn't. But...gun locks were made in roughly standard sizes by the lock makers who must have had jigs and fixtures to facilitate the job, We know (roughly) how many people were involved and how many locks were made and it is simply impossible that it was done otherwise. These were not artists...they were tradesmen making a living and they did that by making the most product in the shortest time.

The fit of this lock does not look as if it was replaced which leads me to suspect the 2nd alternative...that it's simply a well liked older gun given a new life around the beginning of the 19th century.

[bluenoser]

That is an excellent and easily understandable explanation.  I had suspected the lock was not original to the gun - assuming the balance is original.  The information regarding the founding of Ketland & Co. no earlier than 1776 is pretty convincing evidence.

I would, if I may, like to dig a little deeper.
Do you consider the overall style, size and fitment of the lock appropriate to the 1769 date on the buttplate?  Once again- if not, it would be helpful if you could explain why.
I and, I have no doubt, others find this discussion to be enlightening and I thank you for that.

[Mike Brooks]

I suspect the 1769 date is the owner's birthday. Or some other noted event in time, it has nothing to do with the date the gun was made. That lock is 1790's at the earliest. There is nothing to suggest that the gun isn't made at or around the 1795 to 1820 time period. Could have been made for the war of 1812. The butt plate is quite narrow suggesting later rather than earlier. I have always liked this gun and have repopped it once or twice.
Collectors always push to have guns be made far earlier than what they were. That was really a problem in the 1940's-60's. They were dating 1790 era Lehighs to the 1720 time period. Also, it was quite popular in the early to mid 20th century to engrave spurious Rev war era dates on guns to increase their value.

[JV Puleo]

Overall style is very difficult to nail down in anything other than the most general terms. Were it made in 1769 I think it would have more likely had a round faced lock but flat locks were known then as well. It is important to remember that, at least in the American context, we are dealing with arms made far from the centers of fashion for an essentially "provincial" market. Yes...in general style it could be as early as 1750 but that style persisted, in a general sense, almost to the Civil War. I once had a club-butt musket with a British Land Pattern trigger guard and butt plate and a much later export flint lock converted to percussion. EXCEPT...if you looked closely at it, the drum was so far back on the barrel, almost flush with the end. It could never have had a touch hole there. I rather think it was actually made as a percussion gun from old parts in an old style, probably around 1820-25. It also had the date "1782" stenciled on the butt stock in blue paint! I bought it from a gentlemen who had gotten if from his 90-year old neighbor...who told him that it was his father's gun and he'd hunted with it into the 1930s.

[bluenoser]

Another excellent explanation.  Here is my take on it and please correct me if I am wrong.

An unmarked lock in the style the one on the 1769 fowler could have been made anywhere between approximately 1750 and about 1859 - well into the percussion period.  However, statistically speaking based on survival rates and the the annual rate at which such locks were entering the country, it is unlikely a given example would date to about 1750 and it would most likely date to the 1790 to 1810 time period.
Am I understanding correctly?

I read Mike's comments and he brought up some interesting points.  Although they are valid points, I fail to see how they are germane to the discussion since, to my mind, the focus is on an unmarked lock in that style and how it would relate to a 1769 date.

Once again, thank you for sharing your knowledge with us and thank you for this most interesting discussion.

[Mike Brooks]

The lock doesn't relate to the 1769 date.....