Thomas Fort Fowler ca 1690-1710

[bluenoser]

I had an opportunity to fondle an absolutely gorgeous early British fowler yesterday.  It is a new acquisition and gave me a serious case of the I wants.

It is a signed piece by Thomas Fort and reported to be built in the 1690 to 1710 timeframe.  As I recall, Fort passed away in 1713.  Please excuse the poor quality photos.  They were taken with a phone under less than ideal conditions.  It was our first peek at the lock internals and a good cleaning is obviously in order.





Half cock


Full cock


Take a close look at the sear/tumbler engagement.  The sear is a split affair with the half closest to the plate pivoting and apparently spring loaded.  The section closest to the plate engages the half cock notch and the other fixed section engages the full cock notch.  I have never seen a setup even remotely similar to this and am anxious to see more.  Perhaps if the owner decides to have it disassembled for cleaning .....
The owner is not a member, but I believe he intends to join, and might join in the conversation - hopefully with additional pics,
Did I mention that it has a silver side plate?

[rich pierce]

Marvelous! Thanks for sharing.
I’ll take a guess regarding the sear and tumbler configuration. I’m guessing this serves the same function as a fly and insures the sear will ride over the half cock notch when firing. I’m going to guess that the noses of the sear were brazed on.

[Jim Kibler]

Your date is about a half-century too early for this gun.

Jim

[Eric Kettenburg]

Is there a signature on that somewhere?  Because as Jim says, there is no way that this piece (beautiful as it is) is that early.  Maybe there was a jr. or descendant with the same name?

[bluenoser]

Rich,
That is exactly what I was thinking.
Jim,
Kind of hard to believe if he died in 1713.  The owner is a very knowledgeable collector of British fowling pieces and certainly seemed to have is facts nailed down.  Hopefully, he will chime in.

[bluenoser]

Signature on the bbl.  I have no idea regarding possibility of Jr.  Has stamps on the left side of bbl at breech which would likely shed some light on the matter.  I have an idea the owner is monitoring the conversation and perhaps he will send a photo and interpretation of their meaning to me.

[Jim Kibler]

Rich,
That is exactly what I was thinking.
Jim,
Kind of hard to believe if he died in 1713.  The owner is a very knowledgeable collector of British fowling pieces and certainly seemed to have is facts nailed down.  Hopefully, he will chime in.

Sorry, but the person who died in 1713 did not make this gun.  Not debatable in any fashion.

[bluenoser]

Jim, you are obviously adamant in your position and I would like to the basis for it
I have spoken with the owner and he will provide more info when he gets a chance.
Here is what he told me:
The family line died out with Thomas and his wife.
Thomas died in 1713.
His signature is on the barrel.
His documented makers mark (Guild mark?) is on the barrel.
Information on Fort, including his maker's mark can be found in Blackmore's book and one other reference book that was mentioned.
I am out of my wheelhouse here and am just relaying information.

[Loyer]

Some gun maker re-used an older barrel ??

[James Rogers]

Rich,
That is exactly what I was thinking.
Jim,
Kind of hard to believe if he died in 1713.  The owner is a very knowledgeable collector of British fowling pieces and certainly seemed to have is facts nailed down.  Hopefully, he will chime in.

Sorry, but the person who died in 1713 did not make this gun.  Not debatable in any fashion.

Ditto

[Mike Brooks]

Looks like a 1760-70 gun. Nice though.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I would also suspect a recycled barrel in the event there was only one man of that name.  Just off the top, the decorative wirework is straight up mid-rococo which is not late 17th/early 18th century.  Probably mid 1730s to 1740s at the earliest.  I can't get the images to open larger for me but what I can see of the lockplate also tells me mid-18th century.  Not to mention the stirrup spring/tumbler arrangement.

[Mike Brooks]

A british gun that early would have a round faced lock. This one has a flat lock with a step at the tail. 1770-ish. Pictures of the mounts would nail the date down.

[smart dog]

Hi,
The split sear is called an intercepting sear.  It is designed so the inner half of the sear tip is not connected to the sear bar.  That way, if the trigger is pulled so hard at half cock that it breaks the tip off the primary sear, the separate secondary inner sear tip will hold the lock at half cock.  When the lock is pulled back to full cock, the two sear tips line up and the lock fires normally.  This was a feature seen in locks used by John Twigg during the 1770s.  This gun may have an old barrel but the rest is from the late 1760s - 1770s. The photos are not clear but the barrel profile looks archaic suggesting an old one.  I wonder if the lock has a different name on the plate.

dave   

[Jim Kibler]

That three-stage barrel is certainly of a much earlier form and atypical of what you would see on a gun with this quality level from the 1760's-1770's.  I'm with the others who suggested a re-used barrel.

As to the details that suggest a post-mid-18th century date, I would include everything but the barrel!  After you study this stuff even a little bit there won't be any question.

[bluenoser]

Thanks,
Some good and thought-provoking information here.  We will see see what the owner has to say and, hopefully, more pics.
Thanks to smart dog for the information on the intercepting sear.  I do need to make one clarification.  The two sear tips do not line up at full cock - ref the full cock photo.  Each notch is approximately 1/2 the width of the tumbler face and, as I recall, the full cock notch is on a larger radius - but I might be mistaken there.

[rich pierce]

Looks like the tumbler and mainspring work together using a stirrup.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I should add - assuming that the owner is following the thread - that to pretty much any of us here, the barrel being recycled is not in any way considered a negative.  Frankly, to me personally, it makes it more interesting.  I'd second the request to see pics of the furnishings.  The lock is clearly not recycled - it's of the era that the piece as it now stands was stocked, so if there is a name on the lock, THAT may conceivably be the name of the guy who stocked it.  It would be interesting to see if any of the furniture was recycled from the earlier gun whence the barrel came.

[James Rogers]

I agree Eric about the interest factor of a barrel from an earlier time. Ive seen guns that were made around an older barrel as well as guns re-stocked in a more modern form using barrel and hardware. The earlier buttplates lent some hint of the earlier style just due to its shape but the stocker definitely used lock panel and stock forming styles contemporary to his time. From the first picture I would say all of the hardware looks from the period of the lock if i squint but it would also be interesting to see those. This is a really neat piece.

[backsplash75]

For another example, this very mid 18th century American stocked fowler at the Va Hist Soc/MCH has a MUCH earlier (17th century) barrel and a lock by Collicott.

[bluenoser]

OK folks compared to many of our learned members (and I mean that as a compliment) I know very little.  However, I am very good at doing research and believe I have a fair dose of good old common sense.  I continue to maintain an open mind on this subject but, by nature, am following up with my own research.  I am not offended when I get shot down, so have at it.  I take such occurrences as just another learning opportunity.

The owner is quite busy at the moment, so it might be some time before we get more photos and information.

To Mikes comment regarding round vs flat faced locks:  There are examples of English flat faced locks dating to the second half of the 17th century.  The Henry Crips lock dated 1647 would be one example.  Granted, it is a dog lock but, going from memory - which can be a perilous move at my age - the plate bears some similarity to the plate on this piece.  What am I missing here?

Intercepting sear:  Could someone post a photo of, or a link to, a lock mechanism (Twigg or otherwise) that has an intercepting sear?  Although the concept might be the same, intercepting sears I have found on the net have significant mechanical differences compared to this lock.  What is the documentation regarding the first use of such an arrangement?

Spring/stirrup/bridle:  When did the stirrup first come into use and what is the supporting documentation?

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.

We can get into architecture and fittings when we have more to go on.

[smart dog]

Hi,
Plates 106-109 in Neal and Backs' "Great British Gunmakers 1740-1790" show all the parts of an intercepting sear used by Twigg.  Page 49 has the written description.  Flat faced locks mounted flush with the stock were common on British guns during the late 17th century but they were much more primitive mechanisms and did not have raised moldings on the edges or stirrups on the tumbler.  Many had no internal bridles and almost all had no pan bridles.  The lock on this gun was made during the late 1760s or early 1770s.  Hopefully, the owner possesses the reference I mentioned. 

dave

[bluenoser]

Thanks Dave, I will pass that along to the owner and inquire about the reference.  For clarity, The 1647 Crips lock is not a flush-mounted lock and does appear to have a pan bridle.  No pic of the internals.

[Mike Brooks]

I use to own a Durrs Egg ca. 1780s that had a 1750 dated Spanish barrel. Old barrels on new guns wasn't discouraged on British guns

[Eric Kettenburg]

It's also unrealistic to apply modern ways of thinking (i.e., 'nobody would simply leave and old signature on a restocked barrel') to 18th century tradesmen.  Many pieces are entirely unsigned - did the makers not have any pride or personal satisfaction in the piece?  I have no idea.  I have seen a few pieces at KRA shows with signed or marked barrels that clearly were not the signatures of the dude who stocked the gun.  There are many examples of pieces with two or three sets of owners initials on thumbpieces, sideplates etc.  Previous initials were not removed.  I can't pretend to understand the philosophical outlook of a man in 1760 but I have worked to try to set aside how *I* think and view things in 2023 and not apply that lens to the 18th century short of evidence - documented, period evidence - to the contrary.

Also, to be blunt - and there are folks here with more experience in English work than I - this doesn't appear to my eye (admittedly tiny photos) to be a "high end" or upper level piece.  It's very nice and is attractive and looks to be well made with some nice decoration, but it's probably around average for a European piece of the era that it actually is.  I may be wrong - Mike or Dave or Jim certainly would be more experienced in this.  I'd listen to what they have to say.  Trying to force this fowler into a pre-1713 straightjacket seems to me to be a level of absurdity comparable to finding a Hawken rifle with a recycled Dickert barrel and insisting that Dickert made it.  I just went through a very comparable discussion with someone in regard to an extremely fine Neihart rifle with a completely unknown signature on the barrel; all the wishful or optimistic thinking in the world isn't going to make it something it's not.