Snaphance Help
- Thread starter Boyd
- Start date
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
Teleoceras
45 Cal.
Boyd:
I can help with some of the identification. That type of Snaphaunce is known as an Italian Snaphaunce.
That particular lock looks to be of the "Bresican" style found around Tuscany and Emilia. The bad news is that the design of this type of lock was almost unchanged from the late 1600's up to the 1820's. I say bad as it would help in knowing what year it is made to help figure out the value. :sorry:
I can't help with the value of such a piece, but I hope knowning the region of it's make can help in your quest.
:m2c:
P.S. Welcome to the forum!
I can help with some of the identification. That type of Snaphaunce is known as an Italian Snaphaunce.
That particular lock looks to be of the "Bresican" style found around Tuscany and Emilia. The bad news is that the design of this type of lock was almost unchanged from the late 1600's up to the 1820's. I say bad as it would help in knowing what year it is made to help figure out the value. :sorry:
I can't help with the value of such a piece, but I hope knowning the region of it's make can help in your quest.
:m2c:
P.S. Welcome to the forum!
Light Dragoon
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2005
- Messages
- 264
- Reaction score
- 2
I think that Teleoceras is right on the money with the identification as an Italian Snaphaunce. It's what is for whatever reason called "Northern Italian" though I understand they were more popular in the middle, i.e. Tuscany, etc. Anyway, just from a wild guess/gut feeling I would say that it's probably 1750-1800 from the looks of it. MAYBE earlier, since it looks as though it has the tang screw coming up from the trigger guard, but since I don't know enough about Italian arms to say, it might just be a local tradition that hung on. The rest of Europe put the screw in from the top from around 1700 on (usually).
Looks too as though it was "Sporterized" at some point, in other words someone cut down the stock to make it a half-stock. Thus the weird brazed on ramrod pipe. It SHOULD have a band just like the rear one that still exists, made of brass. The iron ramrod is also a more recent replacement as well, though probably during the working life of the gun.
Anyway, I hope this helps at least a little. It looks as though it was a good, serviceable hunting gun in it's prime, and saw LOTS of use over the years!
Cheers,
Gordon
Looks too as though it was "Sporterized" at some point, in other words someone cut down the stock to make it a half-stock. Thus the weird brazed on ramrod pipe. It SHOULD have a band just like the rear one that still exists, made of brass. The iron ramrod is also a more recent replacement as well, though probably during the working life of the gun.
Anyway, I hope this helps at least a little. It looks as though it was a good, serviceable hunting gun in it's prime, and saw LOTS of use over the years!
Cheers,
Gordon
In my opinion, for what it's worth, you're not holding a high value arm there (except of course to the right customer). I don't think any Brescian maker - or their successors in Italy - would claim responsibility for that workmanship. The mark on the breech doesn't match any in Neal's book on Spanish arms. Could be Spanish, Italian, Portugese... made for utility at low cost.
The fact that the "thumbpiece" behind the tang is inletted and not just nailed to the surface is a clue that it's not Spanish.
I don't know what to make of the stock design. That could be the key, if someone happens to know when and where the design was used.
The barrel looks like maybe it was shimmed at the breech, like maybe it's not the original barrel.
The pan is interesting too, having three flats on the bottom.
How about a closer look (in different light) of the lockplate under the pan? Could there be a signature under the rust?
I don't see any sear poking through the lockplate - have you had the lock out to look at the inside? The excellent Spanish locks seem to have been influential in the area, and they didn't go to the design where the sear acts vertically on the tumbler until the late 1700's. The snaphaunce design went to a vertically acting sear early on, but some had a peculiar version where the sear actually acts as the stop for the fall of the cock (!). If the lock has that type of sear it would likely belong to the 1600's, but otherwise it's hard to say. At least, if the sear acts on the tumbler, not through the plate on the back of the cock, then it makes it less likely to be Spanish.
Thanks for sharing the fun. I hope you get some more replies.
The fact that the "thumbpiece" behind the tang is inletted and not just nailed to the surface is a clue that it's not Spanish.
I don't know what to make of the stock design. That could be the key, if someone happens to know when and where the design was used.
The barrel looks like maybe it was shimmed at the breech, like maybe it's not the original barrel.
The pan is interesting too, having three flats on the bottom.
How about a closer look (in different light) of the lockplate under the pan? Could there be a signature under the rust?
I don't see any sear poking through the lockplate - have you had the lock out to look at the inside? The excellent Spanish locks seem to have been influential in the area, and they didn't go to the design where the sear acts vertically on the tumbler until the late 1700's. The snaphaunce design went to a vertically acting sear early on, but some had a peculiar version where the sear actually acts as the stop for the fall of the cock (!). If the lock has that type of sear it would likely belong to the 1600's, but otherwise it's hard to say. At least, if the sear acts on the tumbler, not through the plate on the back of the cock, then it makes it less likely to be Spanish.
Thanks for sharing the fun. I hope you get some more replies.
I guess I should have been a little more precise when I said exact twin.
Many of the features were very close and the style was certaily very very close. The stock is mainly what caught my attention about it.
The flutes running down the butt of the stock and the general shape. They were certaily from the same area I would think.
The lock on the other gun did not have the "face" on the back and was maybe curved a little less than mine. The rest was fairly close. (Not the designs)
The other gun did not have the brass "thumb" piece on it.
The ram rod thimbles were almost the same except theirs was a little shorter as I remember.
I can't remember the barrel at all.???
They also never talked about the marking on the rear of the barrel. I would have though they would have if it were there. I saw nothing on their photos.
I have seen a lot of guns from Morocco and middle east. The parts are usually easy to ID (for me anyway). The inletting of the lock usually leave a lot to be desired. and they love to inlet things (and poorly). Also inletting of the barrel is pretty poor also. They don't usually use this high of quality wood on the stock (they have very little). I've had a few people (collectors) look at it (in their hands) and they all seem to say close to the same thing. Spanish or Italian. I've looked at Spanish guns and this gun seems off a little. That is why Italian make more sence to me. I don't know, maybe some Spanish influence??? That is why I am trying to get a good idea here.
These parts are certainly old and not made to look that way. Although not of the highest quality workmanship perhaps. I don't think whoever built it was trying for a show gun. I think it was made to be used and get the job done cheap. Maybe a local blacksmith even???
Darryl
Many of the features were very close and the style was certaily very very close. The stock is mainly what caught my attention about it.
The flutes running down the butt of the stock and the general shape. They were certaily from the same area I would think.
The lock on the other gun did not have the "face" on the back and was maybe curved a little less than mine. The rest was fairly close. (Not the designs)
The other gun did not have the brass "thumb" piece on it.
The ram rod thimbles were almost the same except theirs was a little shorter as I remember.
I can't remember the barrel at all.???
They also never talked about the marking on the rear of the barrel. I would have though they would have if it were there. I saw nothing on their photos.
I have seen a lot of guns from Morocco and middle east. The parts are usually easy to ID (for me anyway). The inletting of the lock usually leave a lot to be desired. and they love to inlet things (and poorly). Also inletting of the barrel is pretty poor also. They don't usually use this high of quality wood on the stock (they have very little). I've had a few people (collectors) look at it (in their hands) and they all seem to say close to the same thing. Spanish or Italian. I've looked at Spanish guns and this gun seems off a little. That is why Italian make more sence to me. I don't know, maybe some Spanish influence??? That is why I am trying to get a good idea here.
These parts are certainly old and not made to look that way. Although not of the highest quality workmanship perhaps. I don't think whoever built it was trying for a show gun. I think it was made to be used and get the job done cheap. Maybe a local blacksmith even???
Darryl
robinghewitt
62 Cal.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,605
- Reaction score
- 23
Arilar, I am surprised at you, have you lost your reading glasses? ::
A good clue is that it has the maker's name stamped on it, MOLAS, it's Spanish :crackup:
robinghewitt
62 Cal.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,605
- Reaction score
- 23
Ooops! I was so busy annoying Arilar I forgot to tell you
Unfortunately there were 2-3 of them working in Ripoll, Stockel lists active dates spanning a century
Molas c1686
Pere Molas c1687-1704
Eudal Molas c1789-90
best regards
Robin G Hewitt
robinghewitt
62 Cal.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,605
- Reaction score
- 23
Robin,
Very nice! Very cool.
Reading the mark on the gun now make very good sense.
The A at first is not an A at all but the right side of an M
That is why the O (second letter) seemed larger than the A(first letter).
The left side of the M(first letter) is there, just so worn as very hard to see.
The third letter L has the lower right portion almost gone also. The top of the L is flared out making it look somewhat like the letter T. I thought it was a T worn down.
The last letter (S)I could not make out at all. Only the top of it. Could not figure out why it looked like a G or C but half the height. Looking at the photo actually is easier to read than directly at the barrel! Strange.
Last question here. I hate to ask this but how do you get a copy of Stockel's lists?
You guy's have been great. I really apreciate all your hard work...Thank you!
Darryl
Very nice! Very cool.
Reading the mark on the gun now make very good sense.
The A at first is not an A at all but the right side of an M
That is why the O (second letter) seemed larger than the A(first letter).
The left side of the M(first letter) is there, just so worn as very hard to see.
The third letter L has the lower right portion almost gone also. The top of the L is flared out making it look somewhat like the letter T. I thought it was a T worn down.
The last letter (S)I could not make out at all. Only the top of it. Could not figure out why it looked like a G or C but half the height. Looking at the photo actually is easier to read than directly at the barrel! Strange.
Last question here. I hate to ask this but how do you get a copy of Stockel's lists?
You guy's have been great. I really apreciate all your hard work...Thank you!
Darryl
:curse: :redface: :redface: :master: :master: :master:
Robin, what can I say......I thought......I thought.....I thought you were on vacation ::.
Darryl, first I want to tell you that I love couscous!!
Second, according to "Heer", its at least six barrel-makers with the name Molas known from Ripoll. More about Pere and Eudal might be found in "A History of Spanish Firearms", by James D. Lavin (Herbert Jenkins, London, 1965). Thats the book Heer is refering to.
ARILAR :: :thumbsup:
robinghewitt
62 Cal.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,605
- Reaction score
- 23
Hee hee hee ::
Interesting gun...
Fairly average, but unusual...
I think the half stock may be original, if a little idiosyncratic for the time (usually you only find "turn off" guns with a halfstock in the C18th )
On the balance of probabilities, I would say it's spanish - though it would be hard to have found a gunsmith who would have fitted that kind of lock instead of an "old reliable" Miquelete.
My guess is it was made in Spain for an Italian, or ex-Italian who just happened to have the brescian snaphance with him... I would check inside the lock recess to see if its the original lock too
Fairly average, but unusual...
I think the half stock may be original, if a little idiosyncratic for the time (usually you only find "turn off" guns with a halfstock in the C18th )
On the balance of probabilities, I would say it's spanish - though it would be hard to have found a gunsmith who would have fitted that kind of lock instead of an "old reliable" Miquelete.
My guess is it was made in Spain for an Italian, or ex-Italian who just happened to have the brescian snaphance with him... I would check inside the lock recess to see if its the original lock too
robinghewitt
62 Cal.
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2004
- Messages
- 2,605
- Reaction score
- 23
I wondered about that, but Spanish miquelet lock plates tend to be short and stubby while snaphances tend to be long and thin. There is no sign that the lock margin has been compromised so I'd guess it's original to the stock :hmm:
I wish I had taken photos of the stock when the lock was removed. I don't wan't to remove it again. I can say that the margins around the lock are pretty good. The stock behind the lock looks to be matched to the lock and not altered to accomidate this lock.
Who knows if this is the original lock or not. It certainly appears to be, but there is no way we can be positive that a gunsmith (a very good one) way back when, didn't replace the lock with this one. My only question is why? I mean this lock is not the most impressive lock I have ever seen, not even close. Also, I'd of though they would have used something "better" than this type of system.
Also that barrel is "tight" to the stock.
It is possible that a Spanish gunmaker made it with some Italian parts.??????
I would love to hear the entire story of this gun. Wouldn't it be interesting what ever it is!
It appears to be older than most of my rev war muskets. Just by apearance. But maybe it was used harder than the muskets and only "looks" older. It certainly is no where as robust as the old war muskets! But the stock work is certaly as good.
I wish you guys could hold it and look at it. You would get a better feel for it.
Last thing here. I think who ever made it was a stronger craftsman with wood then he was with metal.
Your comments are very interesting! I look forward to them!
Darryl
Who knows if this is the original lock or not. It certainly appears to be, but there is no way we can be positive that a gunsmith (a very good one) way back when, didn't replace the lock with this one. My only question is why? I mean this lock is not the most impressive lock I have ever seen, not even close. Also, I'd of though they would have used something "better" than this type of system.
Also that barrel is "tight" to the stock.
It is possible that a Spanish gunmaker made it with some Italian parts.??????
I would love to hear the entire story of this gun. Wouldn't it be interesting what ever it is!
It appears to be older than most of my rev war muskets. Just by apearance. But maybe it was used harder than the muskets and only "looks" older. It certainly is no where as robust as the old war muskets! But the stock work is certaly as good.
I wish you guys could hold it and look at it. You would get a better feel for it.
Last thing here. I think who ever made it was a stronger craftsman with wood then he was with metal.
Your comments are very interesting! I look forward to them!
Darryl
Light Dragoon
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2005
- Messages
- 264
- Reaction score
- 2
Boyd;
I would still go with the original contention that it's Italian, as from the studies I've seen of Italian guns of the late-17th and 18th Centuries suggest that the style of both the stock and the lock fit right in. And I would also still argue that the stock was cut down at some point from a full-stock, since not only were half-stocks rare in that era, but so were iron rammers. As I recall iron rammers didn't even become common on military weapons until the last half of the 18th Century, and for the most part never really caught on with civilians all that much. So that's either a replacement by a collector, or was put in when the stock was shortened, at least in my opinion.
Again, it's not a Boutet by any means, but looks as though it was a serviceable hunting piece in it's prime.
Cheers,
Gordon
I would still go with the original contention that it's Italian, as from the studies I've seen of Italian guns of the late-17th and 18th Centuries suggest that the style of both the stock and the lock fit right in. And I would also still argue that the stock was cut down at some point from a full-stock, since not only were half-stocks rare in that era, but so were iron rammers. As I recall iron rammers didn't even become common on military weapons until the last half of the 18th Century, and for the most part never really caught on with civilians all that much. So that's either a replacement by a collector, or was put in when the stock was shortened, at least in my opinion.
Again, it's not a Boutet by any means, but looks as though it was a serviceable hunting piece in it's prime.
Cheers,
Gordon
