17th Century Holster Pistol

[Lincolnsreg]

Hello all,

I'm a newbie to the forum. I'm looking for help identifying lock marks on a late 17th century flintlock holster pistol.

It has been in my possession for some years, and now I have time to research more, I'd be interested in what you all think. The barrel has London proof marks (without cartouche). The lock has no outer markings (and therefore possibly for civilian market), but inside there is a crown over 'I' and and IH. I have always presumed the I to mean James II (I found this in a book many years ago). I was interested as to who IH might be. My best guess is John Hawkins, who was active in the 1680s but his later barrel marks are a crown over IH.

As much as I would like Blackmore's Dictionary of London gunmakers, it is a tad expensive.

Note: the stock, thimble and ramrod are replacements (original battered stock still in possession).

Any thoughts or suggestions gratefully received.
Thanks

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Can you photograph the proof marks on the barrel? The IH in the lock is the lock maker not gun maker. The crown over I is not English and I am not convinced at all the gun is English and it is probably from the 18th century. The separate pan is not an English feature but is common on French and German guns.

dave

 

[Lincolnsreg]

Hi Dave,

Thanks for your reply. I have little doubt the piece is English, though I did wonder whether the lock could be an import - but I doubt it. I have seen several early English muskets and pistols with separate pans - I believe my c.1710 doglock musket has the same, though will have to check. The only thing that ever made me wonder about its age was the backplate, which reminds me more of 18th century examples.

Attached are the proof marks - no doubt London, and I would say early by their simplicity - most (though not all) later ones being in cartouches.

The octagonal to round barrel, lock and buttplate make me happy it's 17th century.

Cheers,
D

 

[Lincolnsreg]

I should have also stated that I was interested in the lock maker - but in the 1680s (if this dates to then), I suspect that much of the smithing and manufacture was done by one workshop (as opposed to later when parts were brought together).

 

[TFoley]

My notes from the London Proof House advise me that the two clear marks you show above were in use between 1813 and 1855.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
I do not believe the lock is 17th century English. I went through my references including Neal and Backs GBG 1540-1740 and did not see a single lock with that style plate. They were either flat unbeveled dog locks or rounded. I suspect the gun was rebuilt much later than the barrel. Another feature are the 2 screws showing behind the flint cock. That indicates a short sear spring that did not become popular in England until the 1770s with the exception of locks mounting safety bolts.

dave

 

[Lincolnsreg]

My notes from the London Proof House advise me that the two clear marks you show above were in use between 1813 and 1855.

Hi, the CP and V marks were first introduced in 1672. Those in cartouches appear around the early 1700s and then again back to plain in the early to mid-19th century.

 

[Lincolnsreg]

Hi,
I do not believe the lock is 17th century English. I went through my references including Neal and Backs GBG 1540-1740 and did not see a single lock with that style plate. They were either flat unbeveled dog locks or rounded. I suspect the gun was rebuilt much later than the barrel. Another feature are the 2 screws showing behind the flint cock. That indicates a short sear spring that did not become popular in England until the 1770s with the exception of locks mounting safety bolts.

dave

Thanks again Dave - a useful reply. I have references to bevelled locks coming in around the 1670s for a short period - and then rounded. A good point on the sear spring - I confess that it has been years since I looked into the history and evolution of the flintlock mechanism, but I have again found a couple of I2R examples with the same screw setup - the problem with online searching is that no-one ever takes the lock off and shows the back (the first thing I do when I get a piece home). Great points made and most welcome. Cheers, D

 

[Lincolnsreg]

On another note (again - apologies for wittering), as an archaeo-metallurgist, It's interesting that the iron work all matches in this piece in consistency (my late father purchased and restored it - he was a gunsmith and collector). With most later rebuilds (and I have many), which are very common as you say, there is usually some discrepancy with the quality of the steel/iron (depending on the viewpoint) between the lock/barrel/furniture.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
You mentioned references to flat English locks with bevels in the 17th century. Show me.

dave

 

[cyten]

Particularly, with how crisp those proofs are, I, like others here doubt it being 17th century. The style is wrong for that period as well. Late 18th or more likely early 19th I'd say

 

[Lincolnsreg]

Hi, the CP and V marks were first introduced in 1672. Those in cartouches appear around the early 1700s and then again back to plain in the early to mid-19th century.

Apologies ... the date was 1637

 

[Lincolnsreg]

Hi,
You mentioned references to flat English locks with bevels in the 17th century. Show me.

dave

I don't have much of my library here with me, but below are a couple of examples:

North, A and Hogg, I A 1977 The Book of Guns and Gunsmiths pp61:
"Up to 1660, lock-plates were long and flat, but in about 1680 the lower edge of the lock-plate began to develop a slight downward curve. At the same time, the surface of the lock-plate was made convex. This fashion owed much to French influence, and is found on firearms until the last quarter of the 18th century. However, at the end of the previous century a number of locks were made in the old shape, with flat cocks fitted to lock-plates with sharply bevelled edges."

Brown, M L 1980 Firearms in Colonial America 1492-1792 pp133
"By 1685 the lockplate developed a distinctive though slight bow-like configuration in the bottom profile .... the cock was also rounded .... Though the Birmingham musket contracts noted round and "flatte" locks ..."

pp134
I or JR for James Rex ... surmounted by a crown.

Cheers

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Looks like a mix of parts to me.. The lock and plate are not 17th century English. The barrel proofs are not of the intaglio type stamp used by the Gunmakers Co. in the 17th century.
The barrel profile is also of a later period. How about a pic of the original stock and maybe the trigger guard?

 

[TFoley]

QUOTE="Lincolnsreg, post: 1674975, member: 48047"]pp134 I or JR for James Rex ... surmounted by a crown. Cheers. [/QUOTE]

Not after 1690, though................he came a poor second at the Battle of the Boyne on 12th August of that year.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Here is a British pistol from the late 17th century with the bowed lock your references describe.

Your lock and stock are from the 18th century and I suspect the whole pistol is a rebuild from a collection of older parts none of which date from the 17th century.

dave

 

[Lincolnsreg]

Oh well - it cost nothing at the time. Though my pa would have been disappointed (but should have known better - and he was a Brown Bess man). He made the stock. I confess I haven't studied flintlocks for nearly 20 years.

So, back to my original question - can anyone identify the lock maker? And is the I under the crown actually a 1 - ie an ordnance inspector's mark?

I will post pics of the doglock musket when I bring it from the lockup. I would be interested in opinions on that also (much more convincing - and was found hidden in a chimney of an old thatched cottage in Dorset).

Good discussion, thanks all - I wanted to throw ideas in there.

D

 

[TFoley]

Whether or not it is contemporary with the late James II, it is nevertheless an interesting artifact from a bygone time, and therefore, to me, still has merit.

 

[WRussell]

I love your Dolep pistol, Dave. Do you have any more like that?

- Bill