English Fowler ID

[plmeek]

There are a lot of misconceptions out there about British proof marks. I'm actually surprised that more research hasn't been done on them and a definitive book published on the subject. This thread, unfortunately, has repeated some of those misconceptions.

David, aka ResearchPress, tried to point us in the right direction with his link to his website. He drew attention to the paper addressing "Why The Tombstone?":

Some arms proved in Birmingham after 1813 show additional stamps which take the form of “tombstone” shaped impressions with a variety of numbers and symbols enclosed therein.

These tombstone marks are located between the proof and view marks where the barrel maker or gun maker mark is normally placed. They are not proof marks themselves.

David also wrote, "There's also a couple of other articles on English Provincial Gun Barrel Markings." Apparently few if anybody looked at them.

The best information currently available on early British proof marks is in the paper on David's website titled "The Crossed Sceptres & Crown Mark" by Brian Godwin & John Evans. The gist of this paper is that pre-1813 Birmingham proof and view marks tend to be the Crowned P and V within an oval, and these varied some from gunmaker to gunmaker, suggesting they were doing their own proofing as shown below.

Again, quoting Brian Godwin & John Evans paper on the subject, the post-1813 Birmingham proof marks are identified as:

In 1813 the Proof House of the Birmingham Proof Company was established by an Act of Parliament and built in Banbury Street. It was set up to prove all privately made firearms (that is non-Ordnance firearms) and it still operates on the same site today. The proof marks used from 1813 until 1904 were the crossed sceptres and crown mark, incorporating the letters BPC (Birmingham Proof Company), together with the crossed sceptres over a V (View) (Figure 5 below).

The proof marks on OldRust's fowling piece are the post-1813 Birmingham marks. When I enlarge the image OldRust posted (I repost it again below), I believe I can see part of the "V" in the lower Crown and Cross Scepters view mark.

Probably the main point of the Godwin & Evans paper is that in spite of what some early writers thought were private proof marks of the Ketland firm, namely double marks of cross scepters, they are in reality proofs performed in the Ordnance proof house in London for civilian guns.

From about 1751 the Ordnance proof house, which was situated on Tower Wharf close to the Tower of London, started proving privately made civilian firearms. To differentiate between the Ordnance and civilian markings, the mark chosen for civilian or “Private Proof” was the crossed sceptres & crown, struck twice, one mark above the other - but without the Royal Cypher mark (Figure 3 below).

According to Godwin & Evans research, the guns pictured in mathews187's Post #20 and Feltwad's Post #38 carry the Tower Private Proof marks of the crossed scepters & crown, struck twice, but because they are double barrel guns, one mark is placed on each barrel.

Let me slightly enlarge on Mr Feltwad's comment above, without in any way detracting form its validity. When he mentions 'private proof marks' he does NOT mean that the owner put them there himself. The owner, having had it converted to percussion, perhaps in order to sell it as a 'modern arm', had it proofed by the Birmingham Proof House at his expense, in accordance with the law, which states that you cannot sell an unproofed firearm in the UK for the purpose of shooting it.

I'm having trouble understanding TFoley's post quoted above, so forgive me if I am misinterpreting it.

As I stated before, OldRust's fowling piece is marked with the post-1813 Birmingham proof marks. I see no evidence of any other proof marks in the pictures he posted. I seriously doubt that someone "in order to sell it as a 'modern arm', had it proofed by the Birmingham Proof House at his expense, in accordance with the law, which states that you cannot sell an unproofed firearm in the UK for the purpose of shooting it."

Even though the Acts of 1813 and 1815 tried to make proofing of barrels compulsory, they proved to be ineffective. Another attempt with the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1855 was also unsatisfactory. An effective law that required a gun to be proofed before is could be sold was not enacted until the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1868. Prior to this law, the industry was largely self regulated. The Worshipful Company of Gunmakers regulated the gun making business in London beginning in 1637. The industry in Birmingham was not as well organized, but the more reputable firms had their arms proofed at private proof houses. Ultimately, the Birmingham Proof House was established in 1813, by Act of Parliament, it was requested and obtained by the Birmingham Trade at its own expense.

Also, the Gun Barrel Proof Act 1855 required, "On all Barrels the Gauge Size of the Barrel shall be struck at the definitive Proof." Since OldRust's gun doesn't show a number for the gauge size, it had to have been proofed before that law was enacted, most likely when it was originally made.

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Very well written and spot on, Mr. Meek.

All I can add is that the private proofs found in the UK, could be a study in themselves, and many appear designed to imitate the London proof and view marks.
Some are very close, and I am sure many who view them will pass them off as London stamps, whereas they are in fact private proofs from the provinces.
Again PLmeek, thank you for the clear and informative post!

Richard.

 

[Rudyard]

Ide be the first to admit its been a guessing game re proofs all my collecting days I believe originally it didn't apply much beyond London and for most of the years the Proof houses didn't apply to Scotland. Today if their was any alteration such as a re breach or putting to percussion might need reproof this seems not to have troubled the old firms who altered them . .Before the better roads the canals might be alternatives to the carters . But coastal gunmakers seem to have sent their barrels in by sea such as Yorkshire had regular Colliers . So natural option .Might even get 'Browned" on the way back !. Rudyard

 

[Pukka Bundook]

Rudyard,

I have an old Twigg sporting gun, converted to percussion, and as you say, half of the proofs are missing where the breech was chopped off !
No re-proof.
Mind, it Did come from Scotland that one.

 

[TFoley]

@ Mr PLMeek - Sir, you wrote - I'm having trouble understanding TFoley's post quoted above, so forgive me if I am misinterpreting it.

In UK, I can sell you a genuinely antique shot gun or fowling piece for you to hang on the wall without anything being done to it prior to sale. Not even paperwork, as it is a muzzleloader AND antique.

What YOU do with it thereafter is up to you.

However, if YOU want to shoot it, it would be wise to have it proofed, for your own peace of mind. To shoot is you must also hold a S2 certificate to possess it as a live-firing shotgun.

That you are not in business of selling firearms means that you arrange to have it proofed privately, and not as part of a commercial venture that bulk-submits guns for proof.

Moving on, if you were to sell it as a shooter without having had it proofed, then you are breaking the law. Prior to selling it as a shooter, you must submit it for proof to London or Birmingham Proof Houses.

 

[Feltwad]

As what has been said if you want to use a original muzzle loading shotgun here in the UK it must be entered on your shotgun certificate . It is better if it is entered has a antique so it can be returned to antique status if needed ,this saves a lot of hassle with the local constabulary .
Feltwad

 

[Rudyard]

Any reproof should Never! go to London they mark all the rubbish on visible areas' Black powder only 'ect .Stupid dessicration ! . Brum put that rubbish unseen all you want is the mark .And I wouldn't bother, if you have to put a shotgun on liscense just put ' one ML shotgun' and shoot what you fancy not pander to some loony govt bods . I voted with my feet though of late we have loony anti gun idiots pushing unworkable laws for no good reason just political ideology . Sound familiar ?..
Rudyard

 

[TFoley]

Any reproof should Never! go to London they mark all the rubbish on visible areas' Black powder only 'ect .Stupid dessicration ! . Brum put that rubbish unseen all you want is the mark .And I wouldn't bother, if you have to put a shotgun on liscense just put ' one ML shotgun' and shoot what you fancy not pander to some loony govt bods . I voted with my feet though of late we have loony anti gun idiots pushing unworkable laws for no good reason just political ideology . Sound familiar ?.. Rudyard

Over the last thirty years or so I've had just three Section 1 firearms proofed, or rather, have asked them to be proofed so that I can buy and shoot them, as they were previously unproofed in UK. As Mr Rudyard notes above, BPH marked them all 'under the wood' where they don't glare out at you, unlike my ultra-rare Boer War 'named' carbine, just three digits apart from the example shown on 'Forgotten Weapons'....

 

[Pukka Bundook]

For my own use, I had never even considered having an old arm re-proved.
If the bore is within specs still, the old proof is as valid as the day it was struck.
Mind you, we've used all kinds of rusty old relics, and cleaned them up a bit for use.
After the usual tests, "Barrel rings well, and no 'feelable dents, etc. etc,
They were tried on the saw -horse and taken back into service.

Best,
R.

 

[plmeek]

TFoley,

I have no disagreement with what has been said about current Gun Proof laws in the UK.

I just don't think they are pertinent to the OP's question or his fowling piece. Looking at OldRust's avatar section, I see he lives in Pennsylvania, therefore he and his gun is not subject to current UK laws. That was settled by mutual agreement in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris.

The OP's original question was,

Any information or a direction to research this fella would be greatly appreciated.

He has some follow-up questions,

This is an education in British arms for me. Is it possible that the two markings below the very clear Birmingham proof are partial London proofs? I see that Henry Nock was a very early gun and lock maker and I cant find the timeline of Mr. S.R. Dickson. Possibly a H Nock flint gun converted to percussion by Mr Dickson ?

He's received some good information about the "Fine Twisted Stub" marks on the barrel. The upper proof mark on the barrel is clearly a post-1813 Birmingham proof mark. I don't think there is any disagreement about that. I pointed out that the lowest proof mark on the barrel is the post-1813 Birmingham view mark and not a private proof mark. David, aka ResearchPress, pointed us to the paper by John Evans & Brian Godwin that explains the tombstone mark is not a proof mark but likely a barrel makers mark. That pretty well covers all the marks on the barrel.

OldRust had some additional questions about the H Nock lock on his gun. It was pointed out that even though Henry Nock died in 1805 (actually it was 1804), his firm continued on as many other prominent firms had. In Nock's case, it was his foreman and son-in-law James Wilkinson that continued to make guns under the Nock name (Gunmakers of London 1350-1850 by Howard L. Blackmore, pgs 149 and 202).

Assuming the lock is original to the gun, it obviously was originally flint and later converted to percussion. Knowing that Wilkinson continued Nock's business after 1804, there is no discrepancy between the lock and the post-1813 proof marks on the barrel.

The shape of the lock plate and the engraving on the tail of the plate and in front of the hammer and below where the pan used to be suggest a late flint period lock, say 1820's through 1830's. If OldRust's gun was made for the English market, it would likely been made before 1830 since there was very little demand in England for flintlocks after that date. If the gun was made for export, then it could date in the 1830's.

I find it interesting that James Wilkinson was a member of the Gunmakers Company of London, but the gun was proofed in Birmingham rather than by the Company. Does that suggest that it was an export quality gun or was there a market in England at the time for low- to mid-range quality guns?

I would agree that S H Dickson may be the person that converted the gun from flint to percussion. I can't find a Dickson in my reference books that matches the initials. Blackmore has an Isaac Dickson in London in 1828. Bailey and Nie have no gunsmiths by that name. Frank M. Sellers' American Gunsmiths lists several DICKSONs in his book, but none that match the initials "S H".

I do believe that the lock had engraving added to the nose at the time of conversion. Notice that Iron Jim Rackham's H Nock lock has no engraving on the nose of the plate under the frizzen spring.

That's the norm for flintlocks, yet OldRust's lock has a floral designed engraved on his lock. The floral design is inconsistent with the engraving design on the tail and in front of the hammer. It's also inconsistent in style with the engraving on the other parts of the gun such as the barrel, trigger guard, tang, and butt plate heel extension. It most certainly was added at a later date.

 

[TFoley]

TFoley,

I have no disagreement with what has been said about current Gun Proof laws in the UK.

I just don't think they are pertinent to the OP's question or his fowling piece. Looking at OldRust's avatar section, I see he lives in Pennsylvania, therefore he and his gun is not subject to current UK laws. That was settled by mutual agreement in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris.

The OP's original question was,

He has some follow-up questions,


He's received some good information about the "Fine Twisted Stub" marks on the barrel. The upper proof mark on the barrel is clearly a post-1813 Birmingham proof mark. I don't think there is any disagreement about that. I pointed out that the lowest proof mark on the barrel is the post-1813 Birmingham view mark and not a private proof mark. David, aka ResearchPress, pointed us to the paper by John Evans & Brian Godwin that explains the tombstone mark is not a proof mark but likely a barrel makers mark. That pretty well covers all the marks on the barrel.

OldRust had some additional questions about the H Nock lock on his gun. It was pointed out that even though Henry Nock died in 1805 (actually it was 1804), his firm continued on as many other prominent firms had. In Nock's case, it was his foreman and son-in-law James Wilkinson that continued to make guns under the Nock name (Gunmakers of London 1350-1850 by Howard L. Blackmore, pgs 149 and 202).

Assuming the lock is original to the gun, it obviously was originally flint and later converted to percussion. Knowing that Wilkinson continued Nock's business after 1804, there is no discrepancy between the lock and the post-1813 proof marks on the barrel.

The shape of the lock plate and the engraving on the tail of the plate and in front of the hammer and below where the pan used to be suggest a late flint period lock, say 1820's through 1830's. If OldRust's gun was made for the English market, it would likely been made before 1830 since there was very little demand in England for flintlocks after that date. If the gun was made for export, then it could date in the 1830's.

I find it interesting that James Wilkinson was a member of the Gunmakers Company of London, but the gun was proofed in Birmingham rather than by the Company. Does that suggest that it was an export quality gun or was there a market in England at the time for low- to mid-range quality guns?

I would agree that S H Dickson may be the person that converted the gun from flint to percussion. I can't find a Dickson in my reference books that matches the initials. Blackmore has an Isaac Dickson in London in 1828. Bailey and Nie have no gunsmiths by that name. Frank M. Sellers' American Gunsmiths lists several DICKSONs in his book, but none that match the initials "S H".

I do believe that the lock had engraving added to the nose at the time of conversion. Notice that Iron Jim Rackham's H Nock lock has no engraving on the nose of the plate under the frizzen spring.

View attachment 49150

That's the norm for flintlocks, yet OldRust's lock has a floral designed engraved on his lock. The floral design is inconsistent with the engraving design on the tail and in front of the hammer. It's also inconsistent in style with the engraving on the other parts of the gun such as the barrel, trigger guard, tang, and butt plate heel extension. It most certainly was added at a later date.

Please ignore everything I've written in this thread. Thanks.

 

[OldRust]

TFoley,

I have no disagreement with what has been said about current Gun Proof laws in the UK.

I just don't think they are pertinent to the OP's question or his fowling piece. Looking at OldRust's avatar section, I see he lives in Pennsylvania, therefore he and his gun is not subject to current UK laws. That was settled by mutual agreement in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris.

The OP's original question was,

He has some follow-up questions,


He's received some good information about the "Fine Twisted Stub" marks on the barrel. The upper proof mark on the barrel is clearly a post-1813 Birmingham proof mark. I don't think there is any disagreement about that. I pointed out that the lowest proof mark on the barrel is the post-1813 Birmingham view mark and not a private proof mark. David, aka ResearchPress, pointed us to the paper by John Evans & Brian Godwin that explains the tombstone mark is not a proof mark but likely a barrel makers mark. That pretty well covers all the marks on the barrel.

OldRust had some additional questions about the H Nock lock on his gun. It was pointed out that even though Henry Nock died in 1805 (actually it was 1804), his firm continued on as many other prominent firms had. In Nock's case, it was his foreman and son-in-law James Wilkinson that continued to make guns under the Nock name (Gunmakers of London 1350-1850 by Howard L. Blackmore, pgs 149 and 202).

Assuming the lock is original to the gun, it obviously was originally flint and later converted to percussion. Knowing that Wilkinson continued Nock's business after 1804, there is no discrepancy between the lock and the post-1813 proof marks on the barrel.

The shape of the lock plate and the engraving on the tail of the plate and in front of the hammer and below where the pan used to be suggest a late flint period lock, say 1820's through 1830's. If OldRust's gun was made for the English market, it would likely been made before 1830 since there was very little demand in England for flintlocks after that date. If the gun was made for export, then it could date in the 1830's.

I find it interesting that James Wilkinson was a member of the Gunmakers Company of London, but the gun was proofed in Birmingham rather than by the Company. Does that suggest that it was an export quality gun or was there a market in England at the time for low- to mid-range quality guns?

I would agree that S H Dickson may be the person that converted the gun from flint to percussion. I can't find a Dickson in my reference books that matches the initials. Blackmore has an Isaac Dickson in London in 1828. Bailey and Nie have no gunsmiths by that name. Frank M. Sellers' American Gunsmiths lists several DICKSONs in his book, but none that match the initials "S H".

I do believe that the lock had engraving added to the nose at the time of conversion. Notice that Iron Jim Rackham's H Nock lock has no engraving on the nose of the plate under the frizzen spring.

View attachment 49150

That's the norm for flintlocks, yet OldRust's lock has a floral designed engraved on his lock. The floral design is inconsistent with the engraving design on the tail and in front of the hammer. It's also inconsistent in style with the engraving on the other parts of the gun such as the barrel, trigger guard, tang, and butt plate heel extension. It most certainly was added at a later date.

Mr. Meek.

I thank you for your posts and for going into such detail ( with visual aids no less) to point out the correct historic information on this old fowler. I do appreciate the time and effort you must have taken for this.
I appreciate the education from all the contributors and it has me taking second look's at the UK fowlers at my local auctions and sales. I would usually walk past them to see the US versions.

Best regards
O.R.

 

[OldRust]

Please ignore everything I've written in this thread. Thanks.

Mr Foley I cant do that. Just imagine doing a web search for a " Twisted Stol or stool " It brought up images that I thought I was going to need to pour bleach into my eyes to remove ! The inquisitive slowhead that I am never imagined Twisted Stub , the meaning or process of it, or the details of proofing in the UK and other European countries.

During my career I did a good bit of training for fellow field techs and one of my most used lines was
"Nothing comes to you in a dream ! " If you are not exposed to something or the information or direction to research is not readily available. Well it just doesn't come to you in a dream. Thank you for your help.

Best regards
O.R.