Original Pre-1650 Lock Plate

[rickystl]

Hello All

Thought I would post the latest addition to my lock collection. The seller believes this lock to be from about the second quarter of the 17th Century. And I tend to agree with his opinion. Possibly, the very early 3rd Quarter. And I believe it's origin to be English. It's about "rifle" size. It has a 3-screw lock plate, coffin shaped frizzen, and a unique internal frizzen spring. There is a cut-out at the bottom, rear of the hammer which leads me to believe there was an external dog safety originally. But it now has a tumbler with both notches, which I speculate may be a period upgrade. As with most locks from this period it has a very strong mainspring. The lock is complete and in working order.
Some of us often refer to lock making during what we call the "transition" period, roughly about 1590-1660, where it seems all sorts of experimentation with new forms of lock development occurred. We know that during the English Civil War period matchlocks, wheellocks, snaphaunce, and early forms of doglocks were all used simultaneously during that period. And I believe this lock falls into that pre-1650 category.
My reasoning for the English origin comes from the overall styling of the lock. And the similar features of my 1640's English Doglock pistol built from TRS kit, which I will show on my second post.
Anyway, here are a bunch of pics. So what do you think of my origin and time frame here? Opinions appreciated. And thanks for looking.

Rick

 

[rickystl]

And here's the 1640's English Dogloock from TRS for lock comparison.

Rick

 

[rich pierce]

Nice find! Great craftsmanship. Interesting it has the fully developed sear.

 

[RAEDWALD]

Am I right that the tumbler bends are on a steel piece welded to the tumbler? Looks as if the originals wore and were replaced.

Nice period lock. Thank you.

 

[hawkeye2]

A very interesting lock. I had never seen an internal frizzen spring. Is that a replacement pan (looks welded on to me) or original?

 

[dave_person]

Hi Rick,
In my opinion, there is no reason to believe your lock is anything other than an early (1640s?) European lock. It could be French, Flemish, Dutch, or even German because they seem to have all borrowed directly from developments in flintlocks in France. In contrast, England was an uninspiring backwater with regard to firearms development during most of the 17th century. They were retarded by the civil war and the xenophobia of the London gunmaker's guild. Even the Scots made more advanced guns during the first half of that century. If you have a copy of Torsten Lenk's book on the history of the flintlock, you will see many European guns with locks almost identical to yours inside and out. Bly Straube, who is a principal archaeologist working at historic Jamestown, published a paper about English locks. I included a link to it:
https://www.academia.edu/19301317/A_Re-Examination_of_the_English-Lock

In that paper, she argues that the early English locks were essentially snaphaunces converted to the "English lock type 1 [Brian Godwin]" style much later in the 17th century than originally thought and that development along with the doglock was an English reaction to the French flintlock's rising dominance in Europe. The English gun makers simply would not copy a "Frenchy" development and had to invent something of their own. To be clear, your lock could be English from well after 1660 as they tried to catch up with Europe after the restoration but there does not appear to me to be any characteristic that clearly indicates that. The lock could easily be earlier and European and I suspect that is the case because of the shape of the tumbler.

dave

 

[rickystl]

Thank you ALL for your replies. Much appreciated.

Rich: Hi Rich. Yes, good point. A more or less fully developed "vertical" sear. Which made this lock intriguing to me in the first place. Seems somewhat out of character with the earlier hammer/frizzen/lock plate "styling" for the rest of the lock. I don't see any clues that the lock had been converted from something like a "horizontal" sear or something else. Save for that little hole in the lock plate just behind the left side of the cut-out on the hammer. You can see this in the one photo. Maybe for a dog-type safety that was never installed/needed. Possibly the lock was simply made during a later time using some older surplus parts while adding the latter sear technology (?)
The lock does show continued usage.

Hawkeye2: The pan is definitely a separate piece - that looks to have originally been forged welded in place. But it also looks like there was a very old pan repair from black powder corrosion. Looks like it was ready to fall off. LOL

Dave: Thank you once again for your comprehensive reply. And double thank you for the "Link". I've only read the Forward, but will read the text in entirety later today - and am anxious to do so.
I don't recall having Torsten Lenk's book in my library. But just now ordered a copy. Thanks.
So Bly Straube makes a case that what we call the English (sometimes called Jacobian) lock may in fact be a product of a later time frame than originally thought by collectors. And, as you mention above, there may in fact be a good case for this. Hmmm....interesting. The theory does seem to make sense. We do know everyone was in a race to catch up with the French flintlock.

Of course you are correct that my lock could have been made almost anywhere in Europe. I used the term "English" only from the look of the lock plate, hammer, and frizzen which to me have a somewhat English "flavor" to it - stylistically. But I'm sure I could be proven wrong. Also, often times, we collectors like to think (wish) an object is from an earlier period than it actually was. One of those hazards in collecting I guess.

Anyway, thank you all again for the responses. Most helpful in opening my thoughts to alternatives.

By the way, I'll post another lock here on the Forum once I receive it. It's on it's way to me from Portugal. It's been 9 days in shipping now. But with the current World situation (skeleton crews, etc.) no telling when it will arrive. But I believe it is a Northern Italian miquelet lock from pre-1700.
Anxious, but we'll see.

Rick

 

[hawkeye2]

Keep posting, these older locks are extremely interesting.

 

[rickystl]

Hi Hawkeye2

That internal frizzen spring seemed to be something from the mid-17th Century that fell out of favor by 1700. Possibly due to the extra wood that would be required to be removed from the lock mortice weakening that area (?) But then, it returned for a while in the very late flint period. Here is a sample of the last British government flintlock dated 1835. It has an internal frizzen spring, standard half-cock safety detent on the tumbler AND an additional sliding safety at full cock. Also has a waterproof pan and even a travel-limit plate on the sear spring. I guess the British military wanted to incorporate all the latest features. Apparently, few of these locks were ever mounted to guns due to the transition to percussion without so much as a hiccup during this time. You can find these locks today in almost perfect surplus condition. There is more than a few around.

Rick

 

[Rudyard]

Very interesting theme I think the dog catch was horizontal like the First Pattern Elliot carbine c 1760 .Though it appears in the 17c on a lock illustrated in Neal & Backs Great British Gun makers which stops at 1740 ( Sequel to their first work on the same theme ) an example I made & hopefully illustrate it had the internal feather spring and just the one full bent /cock the sprag like Dog catch prouving quite sufficient . What seems curious there was no evident cock buffer yet or discernable shoulder on the cock the hook of the M spring appears to contact the tumbler almost like a very early .Stantons rebounders ! idea . Might be just the springs tired ?.Choose what it's a handsome lock I will try get pics of some locks of interest perhaps by' Pukka' or Dave Person as I'me not adept at sending pics directly & how well the locks I made will meet approuval only the photo'es will confirm . Very interesting topic . Regards Rudyard

PS The Charles Manton /Nock design Carbine lock was made into carbines but had limited issue & soon became obsolete there where some put to percussion but the bulk seem to have been scrapped & the locks offered to the Belgium trade gun makers who declined the offer saying the quality was so high the natives would demand the same again and that they thought unwise to make up & send them .So it seems Bannerman got the rest /bulk ? and locks turn up fairly commonly I have one myself just looking for barrel . R