Thomas Fort Fowler ca 1690-1710

[bluenoser]

Presumably, the Durs Egg would be a higher quality build.  A 1750-dated Spanish barrel bearing the signature of an earlier builder?

[Seth Isaacson]

Reused barrels:  This is the suggestion I have the greatest difficulty reconciling.  The reuse of barrels is well known and I have pieces with reused barrels.  However, I cannot fathom a maker reusing a barrel on a piece of this quality and leaving the original name on the barrel.  It just does not make sense to me when it would be so easy and advantageous to scrub the barrel and  add the later builders signature.  I would also question the practice of leaving the earlier builder's Guild mark on the piece. Please provide examples of high-end pieces where that has happened.  Pieces such as that posted by backsplash75 are irrelevant because they are plain utilitarian arms.

It isn't that uncommon on high end European guns in the late 18th century. I was just looking at a Spanish gun later updated in France a few weeks ago. I've seen English guns with old Spanish or other Continental European barrels (possibly picked up while on a Grand Tour), English guns with barrels from earlier English makers, German flintlocks with reused barrels from older wheellocks etc.

This rifle appears to have been originally built in the first half of the 18th century and then been updated late in the flintlock era about a century later c. 1829-1835. It was reportedly owned by King George III and later presented by him:
https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/86/1261/johann-stockel-and-alden-and-smith-signed-flintlock-jaeger-rifle

German flintlock with older barrel:
https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/86/222/von-der-fecht-flintlock-jaeger-rifle

[bluenoser]

I am certainly not trying to force this fowler into a pre-1713 straightjacket and I think it unfair to suggest otherwise.  I am trying to understand WHY it falls within whatever timeframe is appropriate, as well as why it would not fall into an earlier timeframe.  Quite frankly, comments such as "your date is about a half-century too early for this gun",  "Sorry, but the person who died in 1713 did not make this gun.  Not debatable in any fashion",  "Looks like a 1760-1770 gun" and "Looks like the mainspring and tumbler work together using a stirrup" without any explanation why, or what that means, do nothing to help myself, or anyone else with a similar level of knowledge, better understand those little nuances that make all the difference.

I have the greatest respect for the members of this board, their level of expertise and their willingness to help.  However, one all too often sees pronouncements with no accompanying explanation or documentary reference that leave the less informed reader with those big unanswered questions - WHY, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN and HOW DO WE KNOW THAT.  Dave's, and Seth's recent posts are, in my mind, good examples of posts that help the reader to better understand the subject or track down the information.  I would have included Mike's recent comment, had he mentioned if the barrel was signed.

And, yes, I am guilty of looking at the 18th century through a 20th century (because I am an old @*rt) lens.  End of rant.  I sincerely hope it is taken in the spirit it was given.  Not to criticize, but to help folks understand that, sometimes, a little more information can make all the difference.

[Jim Kibler]

It isn't our responsibility to educate you.  Buy Great British Gunmakers.  Do a thorough search on the web.  Look at past auctions.  Look at really good modern examples.  Everything less the barrel appears to be solidly 1760-1770, so an explanation would require an extreme amount of effort.

For starters you can check out a couple on my website:  https://www.jimkibler.net/john-harman-fowling.html
https://www.jimkibler.net/english-fowling-piece.html

Also, here is a modern example I made:  https://www.jimkibler.net/fowling-piece-1.html

And here is a 1690-1710 example: https://www.jimkibler.net/john-cookson-fowling.html
I personally don't have time to explain every detail that puts this at 1760-1770.  Others may vary.  If all this really matters dig in!

[bluenoser]

Simply posting those three links would have accomplished so much.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Jim your 1690-1710 link goes right back to the later Harmon piece; looking forward to seeing the earlier work, I find it much more interesting personally.

[smart dog]

Hi,
Post a picture of the Crips gun.  I'd like to see it.  Or at least provide the reference.  According to Blackmore, Henry Crips was an apprentice in 1668 and did his proof piece in 1677. 

dave

[JV Puleo]

I'll come down on the side of a reused barrel and even posit that the barrel came from a well loved much earlier gun and it was the owner who had it restocked...and updated. Perhaps it was his father's gun or perhaps it was a gun with a long record of "shooting hard" (to use their term). In any case, it doesn't look anything like a late 17th / early 18th century gun.

I'm of the opining that dating artifacts strictly by style is not very precise...but this is a case where the style is so far off what was common in the period 1690/1715, and so similar to mid to late 18th century guns that I don't see how there can be any question.

Mike makes a good point regarding rounded lock surfaces...yes, there are early flat-faced locks but they tend to be either dog locks or relatively inexpensive guns...not wire inlaid fowlers.

[James Rogers]

Jim your 1690-1710 link goes right back to the later Harmon piece; looking forward to seeing the earlier work, I find it much more interesting personally.

How about this one...
https://www.jimkibler.net/john-cookson-fowling.html

And this one....
https://www.jimkibler.net/burl-stocked-fowling-piece.html

[bluenoser]

As JVP suspected, it is a dog lock and there is only one poor quality photo of the lock face.  The date might be somewhat suspect.
William & Mary University
1990 Dissertation by Beverly Anne Straube
"Early English Firearms: A Re-examination of the Evidence"
Page 57, Figure 16
Ref: Jackson and Whitelaw, Plate XXVIII, Figure 49
Image of face of lock
https://scholarworks.wm.edu/etd/1539625569/

As it turns out, there is a name on the fowler lock.  It is mostly worn away and only the first name is visible - and not clearly at that.  The owner is working on it.

[Jim Kibler]

Sorry for the bad link.  James Rogers corrected it in his later post and I changed my original post.

As to quality level, I would call this a mid-range or upper-middle quality gun.  Interestingly you see earlier barrel forms such as this three-stage version being used on lower-grade guns even during the period of this piece.  They are very common on trade guns and export quality fowling pieces.  One exception is that these generally have significantly smaller breeches than the earlier barrels.

Jim

[bluenoser]

In order to avoid once again being accused of "trying to force this fowler into a pre-1713 straightjacket" I wish to make something perfectly clear.  What follows concerns only the lock.

I believe it is clear that raised (not flush mounted) flat-faced English flint locks were in existence in the last half of the 17th century.  They might not have been common, but they did exist.  I do not have Neal and Backs "Great British Gunmakers 1740-1790" and have no intention of paying several hundred dollars to purchase a copy.  I do not know what the intercepting sear used by Twigg looks like.  If someone were to post a pic of plates 106-109 in Great Gunmakrs, it would be most helpful.

The following quote is taken from page 34 in Blackmore's  "Guns and Rifles of the World".
"Next comes a lock which from the outside appears to be no different, but has a sear with an additional prong inside which comes into operation in the half-cock position, blocking the movement of the tumbler.  The gunmakers obviously did not trust this measure entirely and so for the most part retained the outside dog as well.  In the 1640s, however, they took this idea one step farther and made both prongs of the sear act on the tumbler, there being no longer a projection through the lock-plate.  A pair of pistols with this type of lock, by the London gunmaker William Watson in the Tower of London (XII-1495-6), can be dated to c. 1650."

On the surface, that description of the last iteration  appears to be a pretty fair description of the mechanism in this lock.  I have just received, and am attaching, additional pics of the lock.  I have also attached a picture from another Blackmore book showing a 1685 fowler having a lock with a stepped tail.

[Jim Kibler]

There are some 17th-century flat-faced locks, but they are significantly different than the lock being discussed.  Sort of like comparing a 1950 pick-up truck to one built today.  In the 1690-1710 period being discussed round faced locks dominated in England.  Anything else would be the exception.

Look at these locks as a whole and then drill down to the details when comparing.

Jim

[smart dog]

Hi,
With respect to the Crips lock mentioned by the OP, the lock is nothing like the lock on the fowler with the Fort barrel.  It does not have a pan bridle, and its date is most likely a forgery. It pays to read the text in any documents cited plus the description and discussion are included in Bly Straub's condensed version of her MA thesis published in the American Society of Arms Collectors volume 63, pages 32-56. It has been a while since I read it.  The date was likely changed from 1679, which was in line with Crips biographical information.  The earlier 1647 date was engraved sometime much later, maybe a few centuries later by someone desiring the gun to be from the English Civil War.  We see this often with folks trying to "enhance" the provenances of their guns by adding important dates like our Rev and Civil Wars.  No surprise, British collectors have done that as well.   

dave

[bluenoser]

I did read the relevant section of the dissertation and clearly stated that the 1647 date is suspect.  However, 1679 is still well within the last half of the 17th century, it is a flat-plate lock and it was not flush mounted.  This lock was presented in rebuttal to the statement that a lock dating to the 1690-1710 time period would not have a flat face.  Whether or not it has a bridle is irrelevant.  And finally, both the owner and I are well aware of the practice of trying to enhance the provenance of a piece.

[rich pierce]

The stirrup linking tumbler and mainspring says something about when this lock was made.

[bluenoser]

Look at these locks as a whole and then drill down to the details when comparing.

Let me tell you a little bit about the owner of this piece.
He has been collecting British arms for probably in excess of 60 years.
He has toured the Tower of London at the unsolicited invitation of the Chief Curator.
His one-on-one tour of the pattern room and other unseen collections was conducted by none other than Howard Blackmore - who also presented him with an autographed copy of one of his books.
I do believe he has at least a passing knowledge of the history and development of locks on British firearms.
I also believe we could have stood to learn a fair amount from him - had we not been quite so condescending.

[bluenoser]

The stirrup linking tumbler and mainspring says something about when this lock was made.

That is a very good point and the second time it has been mentioned.  It, in itself, could be a defining feature.  However, without a solid verifiable date for the introduction of the stirrup, one cannot be certain what it has to say about how early the lock could have been made.  Just a little more information in a post can make a significant difference

[rich pierce]

There’s always a mix of personalities and communication styles on any forum and nothing here has crossed the line. Many responses have been very even-toned and you’ve gained a lot of perspectives. I’d sum them up, noting the yeahs and nays for the earliest dates proposed. Also, typically we don’t estimate dates by the earliest feature present on a gun, but the latest. In this case, for me the most obvious later feature is the lock stirrup connecting tumbler and mainspring, and I’m not expert but don’t recall this pre-dating 1760.

People have been trying to help but not good enough I guess.

[bluenoser]

It has been more to do with certain condescending attitudes and unsubstantiated statements.  I had made this individual aware of the group, praised the collective level of knowledge and members willingness to engage in discussion.  He had intended to join prior to viewing some of the unsubstantiated condescending and, quite frankly, rude comments that were posted.  There is no need to repeat how he now views of some of our members.  Suffice it to say -  I am embarrassed.

[Jim Kibler]

Bluenoser,

I have helped you at my own expense of time.  Appreciation???  Seems you are pretty sore about being wrong.  Also, I couldn't care less about the credentials of your collector friend.  Bottom line is that if he thinks or thought the gun was 1690-1710 he knows next to nothing about English guns of the 17th to 18th century. 

Further, if you don't like my communication style, I could care less. 

Jim

[bluenoser]

Thanks,
That speaks volumes.

[JTR]

Bluenoser,

I have helped you at my own expense of time.  Appreciation???  Seems you are pretty sore about being wrong.  Also, I couldn't care less about the credentials of your collector friend.  Bottom line is that if he thinks or thought the gun was 1690-1710 he knows next to nothing about English guns of the 17th to 18th century. 

Further, if you don't like my communication style, I could care less. 

Jim

What a sad comment.....

[smart dog]

Hi,
This thread is ridiculous.  If the owner of the gun is so knowledgeable, why is he not communicating directly rather than going through you, bluenoser, who admittedly doesn't know much about English guns.  You ask questions, we answer them and then you challenge them with absolutely no reasonable evidence. The Crips gun is irrelevant and in no way supports any contention that the gun you posted was made around 1700.  You have shown no evidence that makes a compelling argument for that case and you are not a knowledgeable judge.  You admit that yourself.  So have the owner post so we can have an informed conversation.  I have not been condescending in the least and support my statements. So if you want to continue, have your friend communicate to me by PM.

dave     

[Eric Kettenburg]

The dual "prongs" you mention a number of posts back re: a 17th century doglock are not the intercepting sear arrangement that your lock displays; it's referencing sear developments which transpired in the 17th century into the very early 18th century during the transition from a lateral sear to a vertical sear.  I don't have a photo available at the moment but I've seen them and worked with them and there were a couple of different funky ways they were designed.  It was a very experimental period.

The black and white fowler photo does not look to be a 17th century gun.  It's another that very clearly looks to be mid-18th century, a little earlier probably than the piece you posted.  It looks to have a sliding safety behind the cock (the external piece is a thumb slide and passes through the plate to lock internal components in place).  I'm not sure of the exact date of that development but I'm pretty positive it's another mid-century characteristic at earliest.  Again, I'd defer to Jim or Dave or Mike.

One big issue with many of the older books of the mid 20th century through the 1960 and into the 1970s was that the dating of most pieces was extremely 'off' and the authors tended to early-date everything.  Some of this was due to fraud (not on the authors' part, but fraudulent markings being used as a basis for comparison) and some due to the authors not having much easier access to pieces such as we do now via many many more books, CDs/DVDs, collecting shows and organizations etc.