The Newtowne matchlock

[okawbow]

It seems that every gun I see and would like to copy is a fake!

I wasn't planning on an exact copy of the Newtowne anyway. Maybe this Dutch/ German model would work well for what I want to do....Or, is it a fake also, because it is in such good condition for a gun made around 1620? I like the trigger and rear sight.

image by okawbow, on Flickr

 

[coloradoclyde]

http://www.therifleshoppe.com/catalog_pages/matchlocks/(785).htm

 

[Wes/Tex]

The dealer that had a virtual match of it for auction called theirs "A Very Good & Rare 30 Years War/Early Colonial American "Pilgrim Era" Dutch/German Arsenal-Made Military Matchlock Musket, c.1620"...phew, that covers all the bases! :wink: :haha:
http://www.ambroseantiques.com/images/guns/wlongarms/wor7.jpg
http://www.ambroseantiques.com/images/guns/wlongarms/wor1.jpg
http://www.ambroseantiques.com/images/guns/wlongarms/wor2.jpg
http://www.ambroseantiques.com/images/guns/wlongarms/wor6.jpg

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Nice matchlocks ... any idea what it sold for?

 

[Wes/Tex]

Their site only said "Sold"...most of those places are pretty private about winning bids. Know from first hand experience you never tell anyone what someone else paid for anything! :wink: :haha:

 

[dave_person]

Hi Folks,
I received a note from Richard Colton and thought I would pass on the information from someone who examined the musket at the Smithsonian. Richard holds a Masters of Art degree in history from the University of Mass. at Amherst and recently retired as the National Park Service ranger at Springfield Armory Historical Park in MA. Rich spent a number of years trying to document every surviving 17th century firearm from New England in museums and collections. His work included the Newtowne musket. He discovered that almost half the firearms he examined were forgeries. With respect to the Newtowne gun, he said it was an obvious fake. The barrel had French markings from the 18th century and the lock and stock did not match any New England archaeological finds whatsoever. Moreover, the lock parts looked modern and the mainspring was definitely 19th century. He said the Smithsonian staff knew this but those staff with expertise in firearms retired long ago and have not been replaced.

dave

 

[rhdln]

Hi Folks,
and thought I'd introduce myself, Rich Colton, [new member!] and give a few more details. When I went to the Smithsonian to see the "Newtowne" musket, I was excited by the hype. Regarding my assertion that the "Newtowne" musket is a modern forgery, here's the details: (I) it has an all-round tapered barrel...musket barrels that I've seen were either 1/3 octagon or full-octagon. None were all round until the very late 17th C. (II) I recall noticing a partially erased engraved numeral atop the breech tang that looked suspiciously like M1766 or some such. (III) The lock plate has no holes that correspond to matchlock, wheel lock, nor Brescian flintlocks. (IV) The "lock" screws were modern and the spring was a small atypical mainspring of not older than late 19th century date. (V) The use of curly maple for a stock is unknown for use in America at this date ...any 17thC New England muskets are in plain maple. (VI) All the "Paddle" butt style guns [two carbines, & two muskets] found in museums [Smithsonian, Plimoth Plantation, Historic Deerfield, among others] I looked at were forgeries procured in the second quarter of the 20thC representing early New England guns. This was the same period Kimball Arms in New England were selling guns now known to be forgeries. What has been noticed is that some "original early" matchlock repros appear to have been made for the 1930 Massachusetts Tri-Centennial (1630-1930) commemorations & parade in Boston. Very possibly, though these may not have been made to fool anybody, they may have, like repros today, fallen into the hands of con men who passed them off as originals.

 

[Flint62Smoothie]

Welcome Rich! And thank you. I don't know if you ever spoke to Leonard about this, but many years ago he too questioned the authenticity of it.

You certainly have the experience and reputation that is without question.

Cheers!

 

[dave_person]

Hi Richard!
Thank you for chiming in. I remember reading somewhere about Kimball Arms. It is very disturbing to realize much of our very early firearms heritage was altered or faked. Even long rifles fall into the same pit with so many reconverted to flint (sometimes even when it is doubtful they were built as flint guns) and hardware and stocks altered. The famous early rifle by John Schreit is a good example. A number of years ago I was commenting about a very early English wheellock included in Neal and Back's "Great British Gunmakers 1540-1740" and I got a private message from a collector saying the gun was not what it appears to be. He would not provide any details but said even great collectors like Keith Neal get fooled from time to time. I guess when there is money to be made, scruples often are ignored.

dave

 

[SgtWinterer]

It's a lovely and graceful myske of the 1640 era and I'd give my eye teeth and left testicle to get one for hunting, range shooting and fowling...what a joy that would be. Can you imagine a small battalion of all 375 used by a recreated group.

If there was a series production, they would all have minor differences. Seen this in Suhl, 5-6 muskets made to the same pattern. They had the same general styling and parts. But length variied by 4-5 inches, also weight, length of pull and caliber. Here and there were also small differences in style, having a band more, or different metal type.