A William Turvey, London, Mid 18th Century Fowler

[Artificer]

Inspired by another thread to look up “Queen Ann Muskets;” I was surprised to find this lovely Fowler, and so I thought other forum members may enjoy looking at it, as well.

I am certainly no expert on 18th century English Fowlers. I am not sure if the engraving on this piece marks it as being a little higher quality than the standard “Export Grade” other forum members have previously mentioned? I found the carving and engraving very tasteful and of course I have a “thing” for rounded British Locks, especially with a double bridle.
https://www.aaawt.com/html/firearms/f858.html

Though this Fowler is probably a little plainer than what “Col. Phil” of Stratford, VA (ancestral home of Robert E. Lee) would have purchased, the following documentation shows Turvey Fowlers/Guns/Rifles were used in Virginia well before the AWI.

“Col. Phil [Phillip Ludwell Lee of Strafford] also enjoyed hunting. The inventory of his possessions included “1 Rifle new made by Turvey” and “1 new Turvey,” as well as a fowling piece and a gun.57 The rifle and unspecified firearm were probably made by gunsmith William Turvey (II) of London. Most Virginia planters purchased locally-made rifles, but Col. Phil had sent to London to acquire one of the best rifles available at the time. Much more accurate than those made in the colonies, this rifle was used for recreational game hunting and target matches. Turvey rifles were elegant, artistic pieces, and an obvious status symbol in the colonies. 58”
https://www.stratfordhall.org/coll...e-revolution-philip-ludwell-lee-of-stratford/

Gus

 

[nhmoose]

At 10.5K I want the bore description in the description. They must think they are Amoskeag Auctions thinking period bore fine with pitting :wink:

 

[Artificer]

Please understand I am in no way connected to the sales site. I would not lay out that kind of money without being able to inspect the gun personally in my hands.

My main interest was in showing the general features of the gun, only.

Gus

 

[George]

Thanks for posting that, Gus. I have several 18th-century references to Turvey guns but had never seen one.

Spence

 

[Artificer]

I had run across a Turvey pistol before, but like you, I had never seen one of their fowlers. Glad you enjoyed seeing it!

Gus

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Gus,

It looks a nice and genuine fowling piece, apart from (Maybe) new side-nails.
Was surprised to see the second pattern acorn finial along with the rounded lock, but as it is likely an export type, not really unusual. (as in, anything goes!)

 

[nhmoose]

The gun is nice thanks for posting it. :grin:

 

[dave_person]

Hi Gus,
There is something really wrong about that gun. William Turvey died in 1745. The acorn finial trigger guard does not show up on any British guns until the 1770s.

dave

 

[Capt. Jas.]

You beat me to it Dave. I guess it could be the William #2 who gained freedom in the company about 1750 but I doubt it.

The lock is early enough to be 1740 and I think it's a William #1 barrel and lock but the solid sideplate, 2nd pattern acorn TG, buttplate and engraving is c1770. The pipes could be as old as the lock and barrel. I also bet that long barrel was not a hook breech on the original gun.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Dave & Capt. Jas,

I took it to have been built later for export, out of whatever parts were available.

I have a V old barrel marked TP for Thomas Peele, (I think) but mounted later with a lock of the 1780's and a guard with a pineapple!
Usable parts kept getting used it appears.

 

[Artificer]

Hi Dave, Capt. Jas. and Richard,

Very interesting discussion, Gentlemen!

So is the best guess this gun may have been restocked circa 1770 or later and the updates/improvements made at that time or are we looking at a "parts gun" that was assembled from older/usable parts?

Either way, I appreciate you all chiming in on the gun!!

Gus

 

[Capt. Jas.]

No visible proofs and maker's mark on barrel. Wonder if they are on the bottom or not there at all? I would bet they are present since Turvey's name is bold as brass on top. Comparing barrel wear to the stock (lock was cased), I would say the barrel, lock and possibly pipes were on another gun. I don't think these were just laying around for 35 years unused and grabbed up for parts but anything is possible. Unless there is some specific history to indicate (other than missing proofs) I can't see anything that takes my mind straight to an export piece.

 

[Elnathan]

A .80 caliber bore and a 60" barrel point towards a wildfowling piece of some kind. In other words, this is probably a working gun for a professional market hunter, not a gentleman's fowling piece for recreation.

The quality and amount of decoration should be evaluated with that in mind, I think.

 

[Artificer]

Thank you James,

I am embarrassed I missed the fact there is no visible "View" or "Proof" mark.

I have to admit I get a bit confused because I have read conflicting things on whether or not View and Proof marks were required on "Private" guns and what that meant.


The following from "The Wilsons: Gunmakers to Empire," 1730”“1832 DeWitt Bailey II and on Richard Wilson

"Only three days later [7 October 1730] he was once again in very hot water with the Gunmakers’ Company, who seized 59 pistol barrels which had been filed down after proof, a potentially serious weakening of the barrels, which might endanger the customer and the reputation of the Company whose marks the barrels bore. Wilson was hailed before a meeting of the Company and faced with his crime, denied any knowledge of the byelaw forbidding filing after proof. His judges ruled against him and initially levied a significant fine of 10/ per barrel or £29 10s. What this amounted to in purchasing power may be illustrated by the fact that a silver-mounted fowling piece could be purchased during this period for around £5. However, since Wilson was “a young member and promised not to offend again in the like kind” they dropped his fine to six Guineas [i.e., £6 6s] which he paid. He did in fact repeat the offense in 1740, when he was fined a mere £3 for 12 barrels filed after proof."

and

"During this 30-year period no other member served so frequently in the higher offices of the Gunmakers’ Company; he was also one of a small select group chosen to be the first Liverymen of the Company when it achieved Livery Company status in 1758. Apart from the offices he held, Richard Wilson was appointed to a number of committees, and his contributions seem to have been specialized in fiscal matters. He was also active on the committee for managing, carrying on, and defending lawsuits involving the seizure of unproved firearms for export."

(Sorry I can't seem to link the PDF but it comes from the americansocietyofarmscollectors.org)

Then from Birmingham:


"Prior to 1813, barrel proving had not been compulsory for private guns but of course, reputable gunmakers did carry out barrel proof, either at their own premises or at a proof house. After the Gun Barrel Proof Act in 1813, a new Birmingham Proof House was built in Banbury Street, where it still stands today."
www.britishcarbines.co.uk/GunTrade.pdf

So does this mean the gun would have been "re-britched" or re-breeched and assembled in Birmingham in the 1770's-1780's?

Gus

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Gus, A lot hinged on what was within the baliwick of the Gunmaker's Co in London which encompassed the outskirts a short distance IIRC. Your last quote is correct I think but if you were a London maker they required proofing.
This is quickly off the top of my head.
I suggest the Gunmakers of London 1350-1850 and it's supplement, both by Blackmore. Worth their hardback weight for English stuff.

 

[Artificer]

Thank you James,

It would seem to me, then, that this gun was modified/re-stocked some other place then London. No way of telling where that may have been, but it seems likely it was still done in England?

Gus

 

[Capt. Jas.]

I don't know. Really no way to tell where it was stocked again other than England. They are English hardware pieces with English engraving.
About 10 years ago I was looking at a gun with 1730 type English hardware and a Ketland lock with a fourth quarter 18th century type stock. The collector nearly had a heart attack when I said it was a re-stock. A re-stock to collectors suggests done in modern times. Should have said period re-stock ; )

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Capt. Jas,

Yes, Blackmoor books certainly worth it!

In GBG 1740-90, we see a few re-stocks. It happened quite often. Things got broken or didn't fit right.
Peter Hawker had his joiner re-stock an otherwise satisfactory wildfowl gun.
It seems as well that Will'm Constable was always breaking something!

Just came to me that I have just such an animal;
Spanish barrels, (or Belgian copies) French mid century locks, and early 19th C English stocking up. Has an Earl's coronet so Possibly an old family arm re-stocked.

 

[Artificer]

Oh, yes, telling collectors their gun has an old or even period re-stock will oft times set them off, anyway.

Thank you for the additional information.

And to all, I certainly appreciate everyone's replies to this thread. I know I learned some things and hope others have as well.

Gus

 

[Capt. Jas.]

Would love to post some pics of that "period re-stock" I owned for a while. It was a 1730ish silver mounted half stock (Yes a very early half stock) but with the photobucket mess I haven't been able to post pics.