Long fowler. New England 1770-1790?

[rich pierce]

Seeing this at auction. It’s a little rough with some wood loss and so on.  Lock has “Pomeroy” engraved on it. Long, .69 barrel.  Thoughts on where and when made?

[smart dog]

Hi Rich,
There are 2 Pomeroys it could plausibly be from.  The first is Seth Pomeroy who was a prominent gunsmith in Northampton MA.  He was considered one of the best in New England.  He was born in 1706 and died serving in the American army in 1777.  He was at Bunker Hill and the siege of Boston being commissioned as a brigadier.  The stock could plausibly be by Seth Pomeroy and has a Northampton-Connecticut River styling.  The other possible maker could Lemuel Pomeroy, not closely related to Seth, from Pittsfield MA but he was born in 1778 and most of his fowlers were made in the 19th century.  I don't think it likely he was the maker.  My guess is Seth Pomeroy from the 1760s-1770s.  However, a big caveat.  In the 1920s Kimball Arms in MA fraudulently engraved many antique arms from NE with historic names to increase their worth.  The only other Seth Pomeroy gun I've seen has S. Pomeroy on the lock.  Ironically, my shop will be making a copy of that gun, which is pictured in Grinslade's book,  in a year or so.

dave
 

[rich pierce]

Thanks, Dave! Darn that Kimball Arms guy! Still throwing a wrench into the works!  Styling-wise it seems early to be from the latter Pomeroy but it may be made by neither of them. I like the architecture. 

[smart dog]

Hi Rich,
I am not sure why you think it was from Lemuel Pomeroy.  The stock looks very close the the work of Seth.  I've not seen any of Lemuel's work so it is hard to judge.

dave

[rich pierce]

I’m not communicating clearly. I don’t think it could be as late as Lemuel worked. And given Kimball Arms activity, who knows if the Pomeroy marking on the lock is real. So, I’m going with it’s a NE fowler 1770-1790, maker not certain, but possibly Seth Pomeroy.

[JV Puleo]

I'm glad Rich said that...I was thinking the same thing. If the signature is right it is far more likely it would be on the barrel, not the lock. Lockplates were surface hardened so they had to be engraved before that step. I think that fowler is too old to have an American-made lock...there were virtually no locks made here until after the revolution and then almost exclusively for military arms. It's a great fowler regardless but Kimball & Teft specialized in putting names on otherwise unmarked original guns. Whenever I see something like this I look in the 1936 edition of Gardner. That's the edition that Kimball & Teft would have had when they were working and, of course, it's the book their customers would also have had. Gardner lists six Pomeroy gunmakers from the middle 17th century to the early 19th century.

[rich pierce]

The Pomeroy-marked long gun sold for $4000 hammer price. $5000 total with auction fees. I was surprised. 😮 Too rich for this guy.

[Avlrc]

It went for 4500.00. If the signature is authentic, I think it is worth it & more. Wasn't Pomeroy a soldier in the American Revolution?  The signature looks a lot like the one on page 42 in Grinslades.

I thought stuff brought good money at that auction.  For some reason, Poulin's stuff always brings decent or good money. At least that is how it seems to me.

[rich pierce]

It went for 4500.00. If the signature is authentic, I think it is worth it & more. Wasn't Pomeroy a soldier in the American Revolution?  The signature looks a lot like the one on page 42 in Grinslades.

I thought stuff brought good money at that auction.  For some reason, Poulin's stuff always brings decent or good money. At least that is how it seems to me.

Agree on all points you made. I was hoping for a steal. “If wishes were horses, beggars would ride.”

[ranger1759]

While I cannot vouch for the fowler in question, I will state that the signed Pomeroy's that I have seen? To my recollection, are all signed on the lock. I don't remember ever seeing one signed on the barrel.

[rick.a.britton@gmail.com]

Hi folks - I was the one who purchased this Fowler at auction. This was made by Seth Pomeroy. Compare the stock architecture and the lock signature to the Seth Pomeroy on page 42 of Grinslades Flintlock Fowlers. Both are almost identical. The main difference is this gun lacks the S. with the surname Pomeroy. But the engraving of Pomeroy is almost identical. I have included a picture. This was not a Teff job. Teffs primary list of gunsmiths to forge was in Charles Sawyers "Firearms in American History" published in 1910. Pomeroy is not listed there.  I had several experts on New England Fowlers examine this gun and they all agreed it is a legit Seth Pomeroy, or at least made in his shop. The Pomeroy is the second from the top in the attached photo of two fowlers.

[Avlrc]

Rick, you got a great gun. I would love to have it. I must have just spent my allowance  , or I would have given you some competition on that one. 

[rich pierce]

Wonderful architecture. I’m glad to see fine New England fowlers getting collector attention.

[eastwind]

Lovely fowler and interesting discussion on the Kimball-Teft-Pomeroy connection. Some years ago, when I was writing my book on Joe Kindig’s collection, a lady from the Chicago area called me and offered me letters between Kindig and her husband. I bought the total batch, including photos and the material turned out to contain even more from Herman Dean – letters, photos, etc., between Dean, Kimball, Kindig, Renwick, Hoopes, and other notable collectors. It included many letters between Kimbal and Dean, and to my surprise, some correspondence with Howard Teft himself.
I was surprised at the volume of correspondence between Dean and Kimbal where Teft’s forgeries were often discussed. I won't bore you with the many other fascinating goodies in the letters, but Dean once returned a pair of E.Y. Pomery pistols to Kimball, claiming they were spurious and forged by Teft. The pistols were marked on the lock plate, not on the barrel, (as far as I can tell in the photos/correspondence). Kimball took them back.
 In 2006, James Julia Auctions sold a similar single pistol, marked on the barrel, M. Pomery. It sold for $11,500. It was the opinion of many that the signature was bogus, and it appeared to be similarly engraved to other suspected forgeries of Tefts. Julia Auctions did not suggest that possibility, and in fact, said the pistol was accompanied by a 1983 letter of authentication by Richard Littelfield.
There is a lot more of this mystery to be found as I dig into the Kimball/Teft story, but I might point out at this early stage of the research, that it is possible that Kimball may not be guilty of being in cahoots with Teft, thou I can't say that for sure---yet.
 I’ll leave you with this quote from a 1948 letter from William Renwick to Herman Dean – “Some very expert faker has been re-engraving pieces. One of his specialties appears to be taking perfectly good European arms and engraving American names on them”. Renwick once had the largest collection of firearms in America, among them the famous/infamous Martin Mylin rifle, which he sold in California in 1973.
 I would greatly appreciate any material, gun photos, etc., related to any suspected Teft forgeries or stories for an upcoming article.

Patrick Hornberger

[rick.a.britton@gmail.com]

AVLRC - thanks, I am grateful you did not bid me higher! 

Patrick - All-I am particularly interested in Hills guns, and working on an article on the Hills family of gunsmiths. Since Benoni Hills was trained by the Pomeroys in Northampton, I wanted wanted to study this gun nd make some architectural connections. This gun is almost certainly made by Seth Pomeroy, or possibly in his shop by his son Lemuel (not the Lemuel from Pittsfield) who was a fine gunsmith in Northhampton (see the Northhampton Historical Page on the Pomeroys). No comments on the Kimball-Teft-Pomeroy connection, other than to say after examining this signature under  20x and 30x loop and comparing it to the rest of the engraving on the gun, and the Pomeroy gun in Grinslades book, this signature is contemporary with the lock nd is definitely not a Teff job.  I do own a couple of Hills guns, and one with a signature on the lock that one is not a Teff job, but at least one collector has suggested to me that it is. Here is a picture of the signature. If you want to discuss more about why I am  confident this is a legit original Medad Hills signature, let me know. The insinuation that this was a Teff job was based more on the architectural differences between this and other Hills guns than on the signature itself. As with the Pomeroy gun, I have had a number of experts review this gun/signature who agree it is original.

[Snowmoon]

I'm glad to hear that this one could be authenticated. Are there some details available on the dimensions, weight, balance, and swing? Looks lovely.