Thomas Fort Fowler ca 1690-1710

[Eric Kettenburg]

Guys where would you date that fowler in the black/white image?  I tried to zoom in on it for a better look at the lock and it does look like a sliding safety but I'm not positive.  I would not guess 1685, but again, brit stuff isn't my passion.

[Mike Brooks]

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.

I don't give a hoot about the lock internals, completely irrelevant for the simple task of dating this gun. The larger picture of the Fort gun lock easily confirms it's a 1770's lock. The black and white picture features a slightly easrlier gun, probably 1760-70. Flat faced with a sliding lock, fairly typical styling for the period. The decoration is outstanding but is found at that time period as well. You really need to look at a copy of GREAT BRITISH GUNMAKERS. You'll see at a glance what everybody is trying to tell you. A far as Bonafide's go, the guys you have answering your questions are probably the best sources of information on British guns of the period.
 I used to own a late 1670's english gun. I'll see if I can find some pictures. Radically different features.

[Jim Kibler]

Guys where would you date that fowler in the black/white image?  I tried to zoom in on it for a better look at the lock and it does look like a sliding safety but I'm not positive.  I would not guess 1685, but again, brit stuff isn't my passion.

1765 or so.

[Mike Brooks]

Guys where would you date that fowler in the black/white image?  I tried to zoom in on it for a better look at the lock and it does look like a sliding safety but I'm not positive.  I would not guess 1685, but again, brit stuff isn't my passion.

1685 guns are rather plump. The stock architecture says 1760's at a glance. Decoration comes from that era as well.

[backsplash75]

Guys where would you date that fowler in the black/white image?  I tried to zoom in on it for a better look at the lock and it does look like a sliding safety but I'm not positive.  I would not guess 1685, but again, brit stuff isn't my passion.

1685 guns are rather plump. The stock architecture says 1760's at a glance. Decoration comes from that era as well.

an extreme example as it is an 8 bore but...

https://www.bonhams.com/auction/29210/lot/88/a-rare-8-bore-flintlock-wildfowling-gun/

[Eric Kettenburg]

Thanks for posting, that looks about perfect for the late 17th/early 18th century period.

[JH Ehlers]

This is that Bonhams 8 bore gun sideplate, that is a very nice piece. The other gun being discussed is also nice and very obviously not from the same period.

[Jim Kibler]

Johan,

I love your sideplate.  Sure do enjoy this period of work.  Seeing it makes me want to do more.

[bluenoser]

Here are some pics of the lock internals.
It would be appreciated if someone could post pics of the Twigg intercepting sear arrangement.  Not having pics, I have to go with smart dog's description - which might not entirely fit this mechanism.
Smart dog states "It is designed so the inner half of the sear tip is not connected to the sear bar"  On this lock, the spring-loaded inner tip of the sear is connected to the sear at the pivot point, but is not directly connected to the outer full-cock tip.  Depending how one interprets smart dog's description, it could fit this lock.
Smartdog also states "When the lock is pulled back to full cock, the two sear tips line up and the lock fires normally"  On this lock, the two sear tips do not line up at full cock and only the full-cock tip engages the tumbler. 

On this lock, the spring-loaded inner portion of the sear engages the half-width half cock notch on the tumbler at half cock and the fixed portion of the sear engages the also half-width full cock notch at full cock.  It should also be noted that the full-cock lobe on the tumbler appears to be at a slightly larger radius than does the half-cock lobe.  The off-center pivot hole in the sear is also interesting.  Considering how far it is off center, I believe it to be deliberate.  The effect, if any, would appear to be slightly raising the full-cock nose as the spring is compressed and lowering it when relaxed.  Relevance?

While not suggesting this lock dates that early, it appears the mechanism in this lock might fit the description on 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."

I am not sure I have a proper understanding of " made both prongs of the sear act on the tumbler" but the description would appear to fit this lock.

All in all, this is an interesting mechanism and I look forward to what others have to say about it.  As rich pointed out, the inclusion of the stirrup might well establish the earliest possible date of manufacture.  Still looking for hard evidence regarding introduction of the stirrup.











The signature on the plate appears to be "Thoma?".  Any ideas?


Some pics of furniture and architecture will follow shortly.

[JH Ehlers]

The bridle looks a lot like the one on a Chambers Colonial Virginia lock I have.

[bluenoser]

I just re-read smart dogs description of the intercepting sear for the umpteenth time and noticed something that I had previously overlooked.
Smartdog states "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."

That does not appear to be the case with this lock.  When at half cock, only the secondary sear tip is engaged (in the half cock notch on the tumbler), there being nothing for the primary sear tip to engage.  When at full cock, only the primary sear tip is engaged, there being nothing for the secondary sear tip to engage.  One would think that clearly establishes this to be something other than an intercepting sear arrangement - at least not an intercepting sear as described.
Rebuttal, clarification and thoughts regarding what else this mechanism might be are invited.

[bluenoser]

The lock on this fowler has a split sear.
According to Brian Godwin in his April 30th, 2018 Blog on the Contemporarymakers blogspot, the split sear dates to the early to mid 1600s on French firearms and John Twigg did use a version of the split sear in the 1770s.  The advantage of the split sear is that a strong pull on the trigger can not force the lock off half cock.  The intercepting sear, as described by Smart Dog, is a different mechanism.

With regard to first appearance of the stirrup - which this fowler also has:
According to Nigel George in his book "English Guns & Rifles", The invention of the stirrup "may be dated with some confidence between the years 1770 and 1775...." (ref: pg. 116).  That date may or may not still be considered accurate.

Here are some pics of the architecture and fittings.
The broken off piece of the sideplate is not missing.

[James Rogers]

I may have missed the picture of a Thomas Fort signature on the barrel but the stock, along with all the hardware and the lock as well as the provincial proofs put this gun in a solid 1770-80 period for me. I have not seen these types of proofs on earlier pieces.. Anyone know who had the Crown over HT maker's mark? Certainly not Thomas Fort?

[smart dog]

Hi James,
The barrel may be a red herring because  it looks archaic compared with the rest of the gun.  The marks on the barrel are unlike any I've ever seen but indicate the barrel was not made by any London gunmaker's guild member. Everything else is from the late 1760s and 1770s. The acorn trigger guard, the stirrup fitted lock, the style of the lock, the style of the silver wire inlay, the style of the ramrod pipes, the style of the stock, the style of the engraving,  etc. etc. etc. The Op needs to buy Neal and Back's "Great British Gunmaker's" series of books that will plainly date everything except the barrel and not expect any of us to violate copyright laws posting pictures from those books. 

dave   

[bluenoser]

Everything other than the barrel does indeed point to the 1770-1780 period.  The owner is pretty solid on his attribution of the barrel to Thomas Fort.  I do not have a photo of the signature, but will request one.  I would think the two attached pics from the book " Small Arms Makers, Gardiner, 1977" should be sufficient to support the attribution.

[bluenoser]

The Op needs to buy Neal and Back's "Great British Gunmaker's" series of books that will plainly date everything except the barrel and not expect any of us to violate copyright laws posting pictures from those books. 

dave

Actually Dave, I do not believe you would be violating copyright laws by posting pics since it would be for educational/scholarly purposes, but stick with what makes you comfortable

[James Rogers]

Brian Godwiyn shows a G. Farmer sporting gun dated c1770-80 that has those elongated "pro""ved" provincial proofs marks in his published work of provincial English proof marks.  https://silo.tips/download/english-provincial-makers-marks-new-thoughts-on-gun-barrel-markings-of-18-th-and

Here's another
http://contemporarymakers.blogspot.com/2014/04/revolutionary-war-period-american-made.html?m=1

Another https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/breech-loading-flintlock.39805/

I think these types of proofs were also replicated and used by a couple of gunmakers working in America

I'm also not convinced the maker's mark Bluenoser posted showing the HT stamp as Fort's is the same as on the barrel. The barrel mark is made to imprint the letters as in relief with a tombstone and the one in the book is imprinted as intaglio(maybe I have reversed those terms? ). If the barrel, which i agree is older in design is in fact much older than the rest of the gun I believe the proofs and most likely the makers mark coule be contemporary to the rest of the gun.


If Brian Godwin is still around he should be able to shed some light on these barrel proofs which I think are contemporary with the rest of the gun.  I lost my contact information for him.

[Pukka Bundook]

Quite agree with your thoughts on the maker's mark James.

Its not in Blackmore or suplemenent, but does not look like the mark above.

very best,
R.

[Mike Brooks]

I have seen those barrel stamps before but I don't know anything about them.  It seems Fort would use a stamp with the letters HT.  Maybe the barrel makers stamp and not Fort's.

[Pukka Bundook]

Quite  common to have a barrel makers mark different to the gunmaker's name, as Mike says.

[JV Puleo]

It is, as Brian Godwin has noted, a provincial proof, almost certainly Birmingham. It isn't extremely common but I've seen it a few times.

[James Rogers]

JV Puleo,
Have you seen those "proofs" on a gun that was older than last (third at most) quarter of the 18th century? I have not.

[bluenoser]

The study of this fowler has taken many twists and turns as the owner and I gain knowledge and learn more about it.  I had understood the barrel to be signed, but recently learned it is not.  The owner relied on the HT maker's mark (assuming it is a maker's mark) in his attribution to Thomas Fort.  Knowing the barrel is not signed appears to open multiple new possibilities.  To my untrained eye, the HT mark appears right as rain for Thomas Fort's mark.  James and Pukka are both seeing something in the mark that brings it into question. They have the knowledge and know what to look for.  I did think it odd that a member of the London Guild would have his barrels proved somewhere other than London, but that might have been a common practice.

The signature on the lock appears to be "Thoma(s)" in script.  The mark on the barrel is "HT".  Could it be the mark of a provincial builder named H. Thomas?

With regard to the barrel and the makers and proof marks:
Others have opined that the barrel appears considerably older than the gun.
- Could the barrel be contemporary with the gun?
- If an older and previously unproved barrel were reused, could it have been proved and the gunmaker's mark applied at the time this fowler was built?
- If it is an older and previously unproved barrel that was proved at a later date, is it reasonable to think HT might be the barrel maker's mark?

Back to the lock
Having now read Neal and Backs description of the Twigg intercepting sear, I see the functional similarity between the Twigg intercepting sear, the earlier French split sear and what we see on this lock. All three serve the same purpose.  However, the construction of the sear in this lock is significantly different than that of both the Twigg lock and the French lock.  There is a possibility the inner half of the full cock notch on the tumbler has broken off and, that being the case, this and the Twigg mechanism would function in the same manner.  I believe it has broken off.  It should be noted that, in neither mechanism, does the primary sear nose engage in the half-cock position.  Has anyone seen an 18th century British mechanism that closely resembles this one and, if so, what is known about the lock maker and the gun maker?

[James Rogers]

The maker's mark on the barrel has the crown and initials raised. The stamp was made in a tombstone shape and the features were engraved into the surface of the stamp so as to make them raised when stamped on the barrel. The Fort mark in the book is exactly the opposite. The crown and initials were raised above the surface of the stamp so as to impress them into and below the barrel's surface.
It is possible an unproven, unused old stock barrel was used or an older barrel was used and the breech cut and re-threaded for the standing hook breech system. Many of these older barrels had huge breeches. 

There was a maker in Birmingham named Henry Thomas who was active for sure 1773-1811

I'm still of the opinion the barrel mark and the name on the lock are the same person.  Those proofs are of the period of the gun.

It is a very nice piece to own IMHO

[bluenoser]

Thank you James.
That is solid information and we appreciate the explanation regarding what looked off with the Fort mark.
We have seen two Thomas marked pieces and the name on the lock was in a different (later?) format than on this piece.  The proof marks we could see on one of the pieces are a double-struck London private proof.