BLUNDERBUSS FROM YORK MAIL

[kahnjar1]

A very nice and interesting piece, BUT those marks bother me. IF it is truely an English piece then it SHOULD BY LAW have English Proof marks unless it was made prior to 1630ish. The official Proof House was established around then and official marks started to appear.
The marks on this Blunderbus are not English IMHO unless they are some sort or local Armorers mark. Also it is unusual for the lock not to be marked.
Have you given any thought to this not being YORK UK, but (New)York USA? Don't forget that the Brits held sway there until 1776,and would no doubt have run some sort of mail service to their troops. British Proof laws did not (and still don't) have any meaning in the US.
Hopefully someone can identify the marks as I for one would like to know more about this piece.
As an aftertought, have you checked UNDER the barrel for marks? If you can safely remove it, then it might possibly give up some secrets. The other thing which concerns me a bit is the relatively unblemished lock. A look at the inside of that might also give up some secrets.
Regards Stuart.

[gbxfb]

Any blunderbuss displaying supposed Royal Mail ownership markings has to
be viewed with a large degree of scepticism, due to the significant boost
to its value granted by an authentic association. I am afraid that I don't
think that the Mail related script on this piece is remotely genuine, being
quite wrong stylistically and not particularly well executed.

The highly respected London gunmaker H. W. Mortimer was an early
contractor supplying arms for guards on Royal Mail Coaches circa 1783.
An example garniture of arms supplied by Mortimer can be viewed at the
National Postal Museum. Mortimer was a top quality gunmaker, and this
is reflected in the standard of the guns he supplied to the Crown, the
better to withstand the rigours of the Coaching service. I don't feel that this
blunderbuss exhibits the high standards of manufacture that would be
expected in a Government contract piece. The better quality English
makers from this period were justifiably proud of their workmanship and
took pains to carefully mark their products, and clear British proofs would
be present too.

Perhaps removing the lock and barrel from the stock as suggested
in an earlier post will shed some light on this gun's origins. Whilst the
general appearance suggests an English blunderbuss dating from the
1780s, I'm a little concerned about the the signs of artificial ageing
on the handrail stock and what looks like cold blue wash on the lockplate.
It's an uncomfortable fact that blunderbusses because of their value
and popularity are frequently spuriously marked and faked.

I hope that this has not disheartened you too much, but if you paid
a premium for this gun as a genuine Royal Mail piece you have good
grounds for the return of your money if it was auction or dealer purchased.

Best regards,Simon.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by gbxfb

... I'm a little concerned about the the signs of artificial ageing on the handrail stock and what looks like cold blue wash on the lockplate....

Yes indeed; a sharp eye you got !

[Matchlock]

Maybe this is an Indian reproduction ...

m

[Cerjak]

Originally Posted by gbxfb

Any blunderbuss displaying supposed Royal Mail ownership markings has to
be viewed with a large degree of scepticism, due to the significant boost
to its value granted by an authentic association. I am afraid that I don't
think that the Mail related script on this piece is remotely genuine, being
quite wrong stylistically and not particularly well executed.

The highly respected London gunmaker H. W. Mortimer was an early
contractor supplying arms for guards on Royal Mail Coaches circa 1783.
An example garniture of arms supplied by Mortimer can be viewed at the
National Postal Museum. Mortimer was a top quality gunmaker, and this
is reflected in the standard of the guns he supplied to the Crown, the
better to withstand the rigours of the Coaching service. I don't feel that this
blunderbuss exhibits the high standards of manufacture that would be
expected in a Government contract piece. The better quality English
makers from this period were justifiably proud of their workmanship and
took pains to carefully mark their products, and clear British proofs would
be present too.

Perhaps removing the lock and barrel from the stock as suggested
in an earlier post will shed some light on this gun's origins. Whilst the
general appearance suggests an English blunderbuss dating from the
1780s, I'm a little concerned about the the signs of artificial ageing
on the handrail stock and what looks like cold blue wash on the lockplate.
It's an uncomfortable fact that blunderbusses because of their value
and popularity are frequently spuriously marked and faked.

I hope that this has not disheartened you too much, but if you paid
a premium for this gun as a genuine Royal Mail piece you have good
grounds for the return of your money if it was auction or dealer purchased.

Best regards,Simon.

there is really a lot of knowing here! I think that afer an "autopsy" this blundesbuss will speak.
I will let you know
Thank you for your help
Very interesting comment ! I have learn a lot since I have joined this forum !
REGARDS

CERJAK