1777 Brown Bess Questions

[rescuerandy2]

Good Evening,

I am looking at a 1777 Brown Bess that does not have the Pratt Wide-Mouth second pipe.  According to Mowbray, this is highly unusual and I need to know if that pipe is a replacement for the standard Pratt pipe.  I am also curious as to when the weapon was manufactured.  Thanks, Randy






















upload

[ntqlvr1948]

Probably a carryover from the 1st model brown bess. It looks like a real nice gun

[WESTbury]

Barrel proofs?

Storekeeper's stamp in butt?

[smart dog]

Hi,
From your photos, I cannot tell if the second pipe is a replacement or not.  It would be nice to see what condition the other pipes are in.  Bailey wrote that production of the pattern 1777 began without using the Pratt pipe. However, Goldstein and Mowbray contend no example of that survives and all surviving guns they've examined have the flared second pipe, even those made in Liege.   Perhaps you have an example of one without the pipe, which Bailey suggests were early production of the 1777.  Of course, it could also be a poor restoration but I cannot tell from the photos.

dave

[120RIR]

I don't mean this to be a "criticism", just an observation, but I wonder if the stock has been heavily refinished?  The edge of the ramrod channel looks awfully sharp and clean while everything around the lock is pretty well worn.  Also, the "XII" mark looks like it was stamped yesterday and the color on the stock is highly uniform regardless of location. Perhaps this Bess has been heavily reworked and altered in which case, the unusual pipe would be highly suspect?  I'm inclined towards smart dog's suggestion of it being a restoration.  Just my two cents. 

[Mattox Forge]

Interesting. There appears to be another P1777 without a Pratt pipe up for auction today. Based on the damage to the stock, and the lock engraving, it is a different piece than the one you are showing. This one might have been made by John Grice based on the IG stamp on the barrel.

















I am always leary of the negative proof. The first production 1777 muskets were bought and rushed to a combat theater and used up, which is probably why none were found by Goldstein and Mowbray. Bailey looked at the source documentation, i.e. the Ordnance records, which indicated to him that the initial batch were made without the Pratt pipe. If a musket without a Pratt pipe turns up in the locale of the theater of war that the initial batch were rushed to and used up in, it has a better than average chance of being one of the original batch. This assumes that the Pratt pipe-less muskets were found in the US or Canada. The one shown in this post is from a Virginia collection, but, who knows, it may have been bought in Kazakstan after being whipped up in the Kyber pass. However, based on the photos the auction house posted, it looks legitimate. If it's not, it's a pretty good restoration or fake.

Mike

[WESTbury]

Interesting. There appears to be another P1777 without a Pratt pipe up for auction today. Based on the damage to the stock, and the lock engraving, it is a different piece than the one you are showing. This one might have been made by John Grice based on the IG stamp on the barrel.


I am always leary of the negative proof. The first production 1777 muskets were bought and rushed to a combat theater and used up, which is probably why none were found by Goldstein and Mowbray. Bailey looked at the source documentation, i.e. the Ordnance records, which indicated to him that the initial batch were made without the Pratt pipe. If a musket without a Pratt pipe turns up in the locale of the theater of war that the initial batch were rushed to and used up in, it has a better than average chance of being one of the original batch. This assumes that the Pratt pipe-less muskets were found in the US or Canada. The one shown in this post is from a Virginia collection, but, who knows, it may have been bought in Kazakstan after being whipped up in the Kyber pass. However, based on the photos the auction house posted, it looks legitimate. If it's not, it's a pretty good restoration or fake.

Mike

This musket has the classic signs of being a Liege built Short Land.

There is no Broard Arrow under the pan on the lock face and the Crown is rotated 90 degrees. The engaving on the lock of the Crown over GR is crude as is the engraving of TOWER at the rear of the lock plate. The "IG" in a sunken rectangle is, according to Bailey and Moller the mark of Liege barrel maker Jean Gosvin.

Lightened photos below.

[ntqlvr1948]

I have a leige made second model bess. The hammer has the same ear as this one, which is different from the standard gun. And mine is a little earlirer as there is only one screw showing behind the hammer...also the word Tower has shaded letters... The buttplate is also somewhat different

[backsplash75]

"This musket has the classic signs of being a Liege built Short Land."

+1 this auction gun is a Liege bess.  See Goldstein/Mobray's book.