Original lock, flint re-conversion or not??

[Molly]

Photos of a lock on a original rifle.  Does the lock look original to the rifle?  And from what you can see is it as original flint or reconverted using the original lock?

[ntqlvr1948]

It all looks good to me. I say all original.

[JTR]

From the pics, I'd say all original. I say that in part because it looks like all the engraving on the barrel down around the breech area is intact. If it was percussion for any length of time, and use, the engraving would have showed signs of erosion from the percussion caps.
If you really want to be sure, pull the breech plug or run a bore camera down the barrel to the area of the touch hole. If original, you'll see just a touch hole sized hole. If reconverted, you'll see signs of a larger threaded hole from the drum, and the end piece of whatever was used to fill in the drum hole. 

How about some pictures of the rest of the rifle?
John

[Molly]

More on this rifle later, maybe tomorrow.  It has been around a bit.  In Whiskers books but incorrectly identified.  In an article back in the 70's but also mis identified and in an article in the 1990's and also mis identified.   Yes, it is signed.  One "expert" dates it 1830's. Another and probably a better source said it was probably 1809.  There is a long story about all that which I and husband are researching now.  One HEAVY rifle and does not appear to have been any major restoration.

[Bob Roller]

POSSIBLY the mainspring IS a replacement and there appears to be an area that was scraped for a small amount of clearence so the spring won't knock the lock mortise off.The gun is good looking and may be an original unconverted golden oldy.
Bob Roller

[RAT]

North Carolina? Maybe Virginia?

[Molly]

It's Virginia, of course. Signed by a member of a well known family of Virginia makers..."Sites" as it were.  But not G. Sites, not Henry, not William, not John or Chester or John Jr.  Actually it is "P * Sites"  on the barrel.

But do you think the lock is original to the gun and that it was not reconverted.  I'll confess to thinking that is the case.  And that puts me in the camp with Mr. Roller.  This rifle has been examined (personally and up close) by a number of well regarded collectors all of whom feel it is an original lock not reconverted.  But yet one also well known expert sees it differently and he puts it later than the others.

I'll try to dig out some of the articles which show and referenced this rifle one day soon.  So why is it incorrectly identified when the name is clearly on the barrel?  Maybe because there is very limited information on P Sites and what happened to him after he left VA to "parts unknown"

[Avlrc]

Once an owner attributed a rifle, many, if not most people back a few years, never questioned it.  The owner tells the author who made it.  I have had at least four misattributed signed rifles. They would still be in that status if I had been the satisfied kind.  Three were as yours, misidentified in a book.  One I returned home with, I started looking at the signature & realized another man had made it.  I called the fellow I purchased from and told him what I found; he said, " Well then, you need to send me a check; I sold it too cheap." I was happy, as it was a rare maker.  Another one I had for years and was just never convinced it was made by whom it was attributed; after ten years, I finally figured out who made it, and it is now in another fellow's collection. It happens & it is part of it.
 
Nice rifle, by the way; I have looked at that rifle in the book many times, but nice to see better pics of the barrel engraving near the breech, nice touch.

[Buck]

Molly,

Nice rifle. I’d agree with John and the rest that it looks good and original. I’d date it more in line with the 1830 projection or a tad earlier. 1809 IMHO is too early for that type of lock, an old collector taught me that the roller frizzen came into fashion just prior to 1820. Anyway nice rifle.

Buck

[Molly]

I was reading something recently about the development of locks and features and there was something about the roller BUT I cannot recall specifics and cannot even recall what I was reading!  Here is the rub.  No question it is a Virginia style rifle and no question it is signed P * SITES.

P Sites left Virginia in 1809 and relocated in Ohio.  So if this was made 1820/1830 then it was not made in Virginia if made by P Sites.  So could it be a product of 1809 OR is it a gun made in Ohio at a later date.

I doubt there are really any answers.

[Avlrc]

Molly,

Nice rifle. I’d agree with John and the rest that it looks good and original. I’d date it more in line with the 1830 projection or a tad earlier. 1809 IMHO is too early for that type of lock, an old collector taught me that the roller frizzen came into fashion just prior to 1820. Anyway nice rifle.

Buck

 I have a circa 1770 French Pistol that has a roller lock.  I think they have been using them since the 1760s.

[Tanselman]

I've looked at this lock since it was first posted, was uncomfortable with it then, and am still uncomfortable with it... for several reasons. I would expect a good VA rifle to have a good English lock, and I would expect it to be marked on the front either by maker, or by importer, but there is no name. The area where a name should be present is covered with many light tool marks covering the surface, as seen in image 4 when enlarged. Yet there is a smooth plate surface under the frizen spring area and on the lock's surface area round the edges of the cock. That suggests work has been done on this lock's face. I'd also expect somewhat similar but perhaps sparce engraving on the cock face, and it is plain. Both the small screw head holding the cock on the tumbler, and the jaw screw, look modern to me. I'm also suspicious of the rough end of the bolt attaching the frizen spring... no good original lock would have that rough of a surface. The spring looks OK, but that doesn't mean it was originally on this lock, and I'm pretty sure that roughly cut off bolt wasn't, either.

A particularly questionable detail is the row of small, slightly uneven dots on the lock plate just below the pan. That looks like a more recent addition to me... too rough to be original work, and I've not seen that detail on other locks before. That type stuff is usually present to take the eye away from more recent pan work. The pan appears attached rather than integral, and a little on the clunky side [both pan and bridle] to my eye for an original lock. This lock just doesn't have the surface I'd expect for an original lock, and several of its details raise questions about its originality, at least to me. As to the dating question, these oval tailed plates with no trace of a point on the tail suggest an 1810 or later dating to me. This is one of those locks that some like, and a few don't. It may be all original, but it is suspect in my mind.

Shelby Gallien

[Dennis Glazener]

Molly,

Nice rifle. I’d agree with John and the rest that it looks good and original. I’d date it more in line with the 1830 projection or a tad earlier. 1809 IMHO is too early for that type of lock, an old collector taught me that the roller frizzen came into fashion just prior to 1820. Anyway nice rifle.

Buck

 I have a circa 1770 French Pistol that has a roller lock.  I think they have been using them since the 1760s.

I agree with Avlrc, years ago I was talking with one of the Rice brothers, I think it was LC. He told me he had a book, on early locks that pictured very early locks that had Roller frizzens. I can not remember how early but much earlier than normally stated.
Dennis

[Molly]

Most probably will not follow my comment.

Putting any item up for evaluation brings mostly opinions, good or bad. That's fine. Seeking information is the objective.  No reason to trash the item by an expression of delight that "glad it's not in my collection".

So then with an expectation that "a good VA gun would have a good Va lock" by deduction, along with other comments, one must conclude this is not a good Va lock thus also not a good Va gun.

I'll simply conclude with my view.  No one is more grateful this gun is not in your collection than I. 

MAS

Just an additional note.  This rifle is one of several featured in the ASAC dating back to 1989.  While the photos therein are not clear it appears to be then as it is now. Same thing about the many Whiskers books in which it is shown.  It was also in a local article published by the VA Historical Society (I think) in around 1969.  With the believe that this rifle could be 200 plus years old, what expectation should one have that there has never been any repair or any attempt at preservation?

[Jim Kibler]

I've looked at this lock since it was first posted, was uncomfortable with it then, and am still uncomfortable with it... for several reasons. I would expect a good VA rifle to have a good English lock, and I would expect it to be marked on the front either by maker, or by importer, but there is no name. The area where a name should be present is covered with many light tool marks covering the surface, as seen in image 4 when enlarged. Yet there is a smooth plate surface under the frizen spring area and on the lock's surface area round the edges of the cock. That suggests work has been done on this lock's face. I'd also expect somewhat similar but perhaps sparce engraving on the cock face, and it is plain. Both the small screw head holding the cock on the tumbler, and the jaw screw, look modern to me. I'm also suspicious of the rough end of the bolt attaching the frizen spring... no good original lock would have that rough of a surface. The spring looks OK, but that doesn't mean it was originally on this lock, and I'm pretty sure that roughly cut off bolt wasn't, either.

A particularly questionable detail is the row of small, slightly uneven dots on the lock plate just below the pan. That looks like a more recent addition to me... too rough to be original work, and I've not seen that detail on other locks before. That type stuff is usually present to take the eye away from more recent pan work. The pan appears attached rather than integral, and a little on the clunky side [both pan and bridle] to my eye for an original lock. This lock just doesn't have the surface I'd expect for an original lock, and several of its details raise questions about its originality, at least to me. As to the dating question, these oval tailed plates with no trace of a point on the tail suggest an 1810 or later dating to me. This is one of those locks that some like, and a few don't. It may be all original, but it is suspect in my mind.

Shelby Gallien

Great post Shelby.  I agree with you.

Jim

[Buck]

Dennis / Avlrc,

The repetitious dilemma of our interests! As I stated in my response "IMHO". It doesn't mean it's correct, it's only congruent with what I was taught by a more advanced collector than I. Shelby makes excellent points as always, perhaps the original owner didn't appreciate the producers mark on the plate and had it removed. None of us were there, it's all speculation isn't it?

Molly - enjoy the rifle, I don't believe anyone was knocking your rifle just sharing opinions. I'd hang it on my wall.

Buck

[Molly]

Mr. Buck:

PM sent to avoid having the topic high-jacked down another road.

[Avlrc]

Mr. Buck:

PM sent to avoid having the topic high-jacked down another road.

Not a good policy to get participation to your future post. Could offend some people.  IMHO.   

[Seth Isaacson]

Molly,

Nice rifle. I’d agree with John and the rest that it looks good and original. I’d date it more in line with the 1830 projection or a tad earlier. 1809 IMHO is too early for that type of lock, an old collector taught me that the roller frizzen came into fashion just prior to 1820. Anyway nice rifle.

Buck

 I have a circa 1770 French Pistol that has a roller lock.  I think they have been using them since the 1760s.

Rollers on the frizzen go back to the early 1760s. Rollers on the frizzen spring became common in the U.K. around 1800.

[LynnC]

Hi Molly,

I rarely opine but your photos of the lock are so good that I will make the following observations.

First is that I see no accumulated dirt, grundge, grime, patina if you will, in any of the protected areas on the exterior of the lock.  Now If the lock were disassembled and heavily cleaned, the patina would be lost forever so that really doesn't tell us anything.

The other thing that strikes me is that the series of punched dots beneath the pan seem to be pushing metal to fill a gap. Still not definitive as it could have been a period repair.  Just my observations and Im not advocating one way or the other. It is a grand rifle I would be glad to be the caretaker of.

[Molly]

Thanks!  Both totally valid observations.  I took care to get the punch marks in as best as I could.  I do not see it as a decorative feature but rather more likely a repair.  "Recent" when speaking about a 200 year old item is sort of ambiguous but photos of the rifle from as far back as 1969 (?) show that feature.

While it's not the primary question here one may ask what is the degree of restoration/repair on a typical rifle of the period.  Probably a rather common.

[sbowman]

Thanks!  Both totally valid observations.  I took care to get the punch marks in as best as I could.  I do not see it as a decorative feature but rather more likely a repair.  "Recent" when speaking about a 200 year old item is sort of ambiguous but photos of the rifle from as far back as 1969 (?) show that feature.

While it's not the primary question here one may ask what is the degree of restoration/repair on a typical rifle of the period.  Probably a rather common.

Looks like you did a pretty good job of matching those punchmarks to the ones on the barrel-Lol.

What I see is a 200yr old give or take original rifle with its original lock. The wood shrinkage evident in the pictures around barrel, tang and lock is consistent and a telling feature no one has mentioned.  The rifle was never a precussion and neither was the lock. 

The lock has been "tinkered with/tuned" a lot. The screws are all buggered up.

What I find most interesting is the reversal of the frizzen screw from front to back and along with the roller suggesting a partial rebuild/replacement, overhaul of the lock early on in its career.  nothing more/nothing less.

My "expert"-lol-opinion.

Steve

[Avlrc]

Sometimes, sizeable high-resolution quality photographs create more questions than answers.

[JTR]

If you want a true answer, have the lock magnaflux tested.
Originally that pan would have been cast with the plate, and if welded on as in a reconversion, the test will tell the tale.

A little fiddling with the lock could make it blend in a bit better.

If it were mine, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

[Jim Kibler]

If you want a true answer, have the lock magnaflux tested.
Originally that pan would have been cast with the plate, and if welded on as in a reconversion, the test will tell the tale.

A little fiddling with the lock could make it blend in a bit better.

If it were mine, I wouldn't worry about it too much.

Original plates of this period were not cast.

Magnaflux would only show if there is a discontinuity in the plate / pan material.  If full weld penetration and no original seam were present, Mag particle (Magnaflux) inspection would not identify anything.

Jim