Hi Guys,
I am very glad Joe Puleo chimed in. When it comes to anything Ketland I am in awe of his erudition. The British gun trade during the 18th and early 19th centuries is utterly fascinating. It exhibited so many contradictions. Britain was arguably the initial prime mover of the industrial revolution, providing much of the science, engineering, and inventions that fueled it. Yet, to stick with gun making, by our Civil War, we were making guns largely with machines but the British still relied on extensive hand work and highly skilled labor. Why? Even during the 18th century, the Brown Bess musket changed very little technologically compared with French muskets. Why the conservatism? It wasn't just stodgy government officials, it was a societal phenomena. Whereas the U.S. had a dearth of skilled workers for its first 100 years, Britain overflowed with skilled workers. Where we used machines as a force multiplier for our lack of workers, the workforce in Britain looked on many machines as ruining their livelihoods. In many industries in Britain, particularly gun making, instead of using machines to augment workers, they turned a large population of workers into machines by extreme divisions of labor. The mercantilism that obsessed Britain as a way to keep high employment and profits was a major reason why we rebelled. Lock makers were the most technically proficient tradesmen (and tradeswomen) in the British gun making system. They also could ply their expertise making instruments, clocks, and mechanical toys. They could work where the money was. To the British government, keeping lock makers in the trade was a matter of national security. So ample production of export guns, East India company guns and African slave trade guns became an important source of income and job support when government military contracts were slim. The civilian sporting gun industry was comparatively small and often difficult for makers to stay solvent. The real fortunes were made either supplying guns to the Ordnance or supplying the EIC and Africa Company. The lock makers ebbed and flowed to and from the gun trades depending on the economy. It was easier to bring them back to full production if the locks they were making were ones they made before. That stifled change and innovation outside the elite civilian gun trade. So the end result is you have archaic lock designs being sold for export and on trade guns because those were cheap to produce, required little "re-education" of the work force, and maximized profits to the gun makers.
dave
Very well put!
By the way, the first time around I missed the fact that the lock was marked on the inside. I
think that the internal markings are the earliest for K export locks, before their name was so well established that it spawned Belgian-made fake "Ketlands." That would put it in the area of 1793 to 96 or 97...but that is just a
guess. There are other possible reasons, one of which is that the brothers Thomas & John in Philadelphia were nothing like the exclusive agents of their father's company so perhaps one of the other customers didn't want their name on the face of the lock. Much later it would be common for American hardware dealers to order locks with their name on the face but I don't think that comes until around or after the War of 1812...just as the K's were getting out of the business.
