The Latest Scam

[btech]

Here's a guy offering what he claims is a 1780 Flintlock. There's no date or maker's mark on the lock anywhere. So I asked what proof does he have of it's authenticity?
Here's the answer I got:
"This type of lock was pretty much discontinued being made approx 1825. My estimate of age is conservative as it could possible be somewhat older than I indicated. I have the pistol that a this lock was removed from. The stock was in such poor condition that I decided not to restore it but to sell the lock separately which is in good condition. I have collected guns for over 50 years and consider myself to be quite knowledgeable on their history."
It's now selling for almost $200 and will probably go higher. I can't believe the gullibility of people.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Plate could be old. Hammer looks contemporary but could be old since many repro items are made from original castings. That screw is new. Frizzen spring looks possibly new to me and the frizzen could be a repro. Hard to tell from the pic. Would like to see the other side for internals. I wouldn't risk $200.00 on it.

 

[fleener]

what proof do you have that he is wrong?

Other than your opinion?

Fleener

 

[Wes/Tex]

Unless I've gone daft, the wider, shorter lock plates with "rain-proof" pans with "gutters" didn't come along until after 1800 and are more common to 1815-1830. Even if it proves to be all original, it's a late flint era lock.

 

[jamesthomas]

The pan looks like a Late English flintlock, but the frizzen back is thicker than the ones at Track. Like I said post this on ALR them guys my know something about it.

 

[Loyalist Dave]

Looks a bit "chunky" to me..., like a Middle Eastern rebuild of old parts into a "collector" gun often does.

LD

 

[hanshi]

I wouldn't trust anyone's word for it without documentation.

 

[Shine]

I belive it is a late English flintlock and it is original. This is a pic of an original working late English Mortimer lock on one of my rifles.

 

[pargent]

It is a modern cast lock

 

[Shine]

No

 

[pargent]

I can see 6 problems with that lock in just the one outside photo

 

[Joel/Calgary]

It is a modern cast lock

I can see 6 problems with that lock in just the one outside photo

Request for clarification: are you talking about btech's photo or Shine's, since you appear to be replying to Shine?

Regards,
Joel

 

[Shine]

Enlighten the less informed then.

 

[pargent]

No no I am not talking about Shine's gun but the lock which this topic is about .

 

[jamesthomas]

I can see 6 problems with that lock in just the one outside photo

Name them then, instead of just saying "I see 6 problems with that lock" :shake:

 

[pargent]

1. top jaw screw
2. lock plate (telltails it is cast )
3. shape of pan and detail
4. hammer shape
5. roller style
6. spring shape and finish
7.cock shape and detail
:thumbsup: :wink:
compare it to shine's lock on his rifle

 

[Sean Gadhar]

2. lock plate (telltails it is cast )
3. shape of pan and detail

Trying to learn here;
Q: Is the shape of the pan (3 parts melded together to my eye) also done for ease in casting?

 

[btech]

That's exactly my point with these threads. These guys want to sell you an "antique" with nothing but their word on it. My word saying it isn't is just as unreliable as his word saying it is. They never provide any type of authentication or verification. His "30 years of experience" doesn't make it real or unreal. They also never supply anything to back up that "30 years of experience". But what does continue to amaze me is there is no lack of people willing to spend big money to own one of these "antiques" without any questions.

 

[pargent]

:thumbsup:

 

[zimmerstutzen]

An auctioneer near here often announces, " You are buying it for what it is, not for what you think it looks like."

Once saw him get $18.00 for an empty labelless Michelob bottle.