fake or good?

[guest5234]

Anyone think this is original or repro?

 

[Mattox Forge]

that looks nothing like the original lock markings I have seen. I am pretty sure that's a reproduction.
Mike

 

[JeffG]

The stamping shadow, (bounce, or rebound) looks modern. I'm going with repro. For what it's worth, I like it.

 

[Colonial Boy]

Counter sunk screws don’t look right either.

 

[FlinterNick]

Anyone think this is original or repro?
View attachment 351684View attachment 351685View attachment 351686View attachment 351687

Looks like a restoration, mix of original and reproduction parts.

 

[FlinterNick]

that looks nothing like the original lock markings I have seen. I am pretty sure that's a reproduction.
Mike

Locks were being stamped of that era, I think the British stopped using engravers on locks around the 1780’s.

 

[mikesto44]

Very well done reproduction. These people who can antique firearms are amazing. That being said it is a nice gun.

 

[deerstalkert]

send it to me and i will determine if its fake or not! might take a few years.
It looks like a fine repop.

 

[Mattox Forge]

Locks were being stamped of that era, I think the British stopped using engravers on locks around the 1780’s.

Generally the ordnance markings were both stamped and engaved in that petiod and earlier. There are examples of completely engraved marking including the "TOWER". Generally, the crown was partially stamped and partially hand engraved. There were multiple small stamps used to make up he crown. The shading was hand engraved. Sometimes the cypher was engraved, sometimes stamped. These are all originals dating from 1800 to 1835. The OP one lacks the proper elements to be a real one and it lacks the kings cypher.
MC

 

[FlinterNick]

Generally the ordnance markings were both stamped and engaved in that petiod and earlier. There are examples of completely engraved marking including the "TOWER". Generally, the crown was partially stamped and partially hand engraved. There were multiple small stamps used to make up he crown. The shading was hand engraved. Sometimes the cypher was engraved, sometimes stamped. These are all originals dating from 1800 to 1835. The OP one lacks the proper elements to be a real one and it lacks the kings cypher.
MC

Great info and observations, I’ll go with the repro position on the lock.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Others have mentioned the bad stamping. The lock was "wiped" and then an attempt to "restore" it to something more plausible. You can see circled remnants of previous engraving...

LD

 

[FlinterNick]

Others have mentioned the bad stamping. The lock was "wiped" and then an attempt to "restore" it to something more plausible. You can see circled remnants of previous engraving...

View attachment 352316


LD

It kind of looks like a new land pattern lock from the 1840’s, the ones that were put on trade guns.

 

[smoothshooter]

Anyone think this is original or repro?
View attachment 351684View attachment 351685View attachment 351686View attachment 351687

I’d say both.
For one thing, the stampings newer than the rest of the gun.
They don’t show any of the light pitting found on the rest of the gun.
Still a cool piece. and is still valuable.

 

[wiscoaster]

Counter sunk screws don’t look right either.

Ya, I thought the scews looked suspicious, too.

Kind of a cool gun, though. I'd clean it up and "restore" it and represent it as a nice repro.