A large 19th century flintlock pistol

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Jim,
The ELG and star in a cartouche was used from 1810 until the present. I have attached a copy of London and Birmingham proof marks from The Worshipful Company of Gunmakers of the City of London and The Guardians of the Birmingham Proof House. This shows that a crowned V is a London proof and not Birmingham and if the gun was foreign made the V would be circled with the crown on top. All the charts I can find relating to Liege state that a crowned letter is the inspection mark from 1853 to 1877. I have also attached another chart with more specific dating.
Hope you are keeping well in this time of uncertainty.
My Regards,
Norman.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

The ELG and star in a cartouche was used from 1810 until the present ...

Nothing more than a slight detail, if i may, Norman. As per my post 31#, the star was replaced by a crown in 1893 .

[Norman McCormick]

Originally Posted by fernando

Nothing more than a slight detail, if i may, Norman. As per my post 31#, the star was replaced by a crown in 1893 .

Hi Fernando,
My post was in response to Jim's statement that the ELG star in an oval was from 1810 to 1853 thereby limiting pistols with this stamp to within those dates whereas the date range is in fact greater.
My Regards,
Norman.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi Fernando,
My post was in response to Jim's statement that the ELG star in an oval was from 1810 to 1853 thereby limiting pistols with this stamp to within those dates whereas the date range is in fact greater.
My Regards,
Norman.

As i said Norman, a slight (by the way) detail ... more for possible future aknowledgement

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi Jim,
The ELG and star in a cartouche was used from 1810 until the present. I have attached a copy of London and Birmingham proof marks from The Worshipful Company of Gunmakers of the City of London and The Guardians of the Birmingham Proof House. This shows that a crowned V is a London proof and not Birmingham and if the gun was foreign made the V would be circled with the crown on top. All the charts I can find relating to Liege state that a crowned letter is the inspection mark from 1853 to 1877. I have also attached another chart with more specific dating.
Hope you are keeping well in this time of uncertainty.
My Regards,
Norman.

Hi Norman,
Thank you so much for entries from this resource. I must say that while have studied swords most of my life, firearms have always seemed to elude me, so this great discussion is quite a learning curve for me. Of the very few books I have on firearms, this reference by Howard Blackmore has been with me for well over 40 years, and he seems to have been one of the most highly respected firearms authorities (according to most of the arms figures I knew in the years with the Arms & Armour Society in Loondon).

What puzzles me is that in his book (1961, attached pages) he shows items 25-30 as view and proof marks of PRIVATE Birmingham proof houses.
You will note that #27 is a crown over V. There seem to have been others using a P.

n "English Pistols and Revolvers" (J.Nigel George, 1938, p.94), the author notes the 'private proof houses were abolished in 1813, and "....a proof house similar to that of the Gunmakers of London was established at Birmingham. Arms that had undergone proof were now stamped with two marks, each in the form of two crossed sceptres surmounted by a crown, the first marked with the letter V, for viewed, the second with the letters BPC fr Birmingham Proof Co.".

As the resource you show begins with 1813 with these markings, it would seem that Mark's pistol must have been viewed by one of the number of private proof houses. During the wars (Napoleonic and 1812) the volume of firearms processed through London and these proof houses was staggering.
As previously noted, the constant break downs of flow of parts etc. with contractors was a frustration for makers, and it is easy to imagine that less costly and ready weapons from Liege would be resorted to, especally in the case for outfitting privateers.

While most resources seem to focus on 1813+, the records of gun markings seem less abundant in the years prior, as well as remarkably inconsistent.

As Mark has shown in the excellent entry from the National Maritime Museum, these sea service pistols were certainly in use early in the century. While the 'HMS Victory' association is surely spurious as they note, they do not dismiss the presence of these Belgian pistols in that period.

For me, the evidence points to the period we have been suggesting, 1810-13 for this Belgian Sea Service pistol, and likely use on any privateer vessel for the British during these wars in that time.

As for the anchor marking, just as with swords, these are by far not a prerequsite for naval weapons, and in my opinion were likely added privately in either zealous or hubris oriented character on other ranks arms.
I cannot imagine why Liege would apply such a mark, as their arms were not intended to serve any particular branch. While these pistols seem to have been regarded as 'sea service', they were used widely by any number of military units in many countries through the century.

[fernando]

It is naturally sensum communem that the Liegeois would not stamp the anchor or any other symbol in the lock plate of a generic (mass) production. What i have (only) suggested is, if the pistol in the museum was part of a private purchase, which all indicates it is, it would be nothing implausible that the client, a ship's captain or a sailing enterprise, would order a lot of such fireamrs for his/their crew and send along the technical drawing for the anchor to be engraved in the origin workshops. Otherwise, it is left to know where the client took the gun/s go be engraved elsewhere in England; he would certainly not require the job from the BO facilities.
Just a pitty the museum photo doesn't have macro opitions to visualize both anchor and the two initials with one's eye.
My humble perspective, this is .

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

It is naturally sensum communem that the Liegeois would not stamp the anchor or any other symbol in the lock plate of a generic (mass) production. What i have (only) suggested is, if the pistol in the museum was part of a private purchase, which all indicates it is, it would be nothing implausible that the client, a ship's captain or a sailing enterprise, would order a lot of such fireamrs for his/their crew and send along the technical drawing for the anchor to be engraved in the origin workshops. Otherwise, it is left to know where the client took the gun/s go be engraved elsewhere in England; he would certainly not require the job from the BO facilities.
Just a pitty the museum photo doesn't have macro opitions to visualize both anchor and the two initials with one's eye.
My humble perspective, this is .

Naturally that is sensum communem that the Liege shops would not place anchors or any such defining symbol on the weapons they produced, as I have always thought of this arms center as producing a sort of generic assortment . The weapons they made were either imitations of other standing forms or heavily influenced by them. As such I had not thought that such commissions were engaged there.

Good point on the weapons once acquired being taken to engraver for markings or these kinds of motif/symbols as these specialized shops took care of such requirements. I often forget how many contractors and vendors were involved beyond the actual maker/retailer of the weapn.

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

Naturally that is sensum communem that the Liege shops would not place anchors or any such defining symbol on the weapons they produced ...As such I had not thought that such commissions were engaged there...

Jim, i will not further soak the thread with unrelated (or colateral) issues. I will therefore send you e-mail on the subject .

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by fernando

Jim, i will not further soak the thread with unrelated (or colateral) issues. I will therefore send you e-mail on the subject .

Well noted Fernando, and thank you for sending me details on activity in Liege where indeed certain weapon forms were commissioned and would have been marked at factory. Its always interesting to see the many aspects that surround a topic even when not directly on topic, the learning curve never ends!!

[M ELEY]

Just another interesting tidbit going on during the time these pistols started hitting the market. Hey, I gotta get in my pirate barb whenever I can, right! Just saying that these pistols, if funneled through Dutch channels, might have ended up in all manner of hands!


https://www.napoleon-series.org/mili.../c_danish.html

[Norman McCormick]

Hi Richard,
I take it this is the mark you are referring to.
My Regards,
Norman.

P.S. I've just read the whole of your post and of course it is the one you're referring to re your post no 53, I blame senility it's always a good get out clause.

[rickystl]

Interesting that most of these pistols you find today are still in good condition.
And there use seemed to have an abrupt end during the transition to the percussion era. I've never seen one that was converted to percussion. After about a 25 year run the pistol appears to have fallen out of favor with the various governments that purchased them creating a large surplus. There is hardly an antique gun auction today that doesn't have one or two for sale.

Rick

[fernando]

Originally Posted by rickystl

... There is hardly an antique gun auction today that doesn't have one or two for sale...

So true, Rick. However, contrary to what has been said here, i could swear i have read that these pistols were of fragile construction; could it be ?

[rickystl]

Hi Fernando

I have not read that anywhere, that I can remember. From a shooter's perspective, the locks, barrels, stocks and hardware are very solidly built.
Even the breech plug integrity to thick barrel wall is done well. Very much to European standards.

The only ones I've personally seen that are in lesser condition were due to latter, 20th Century neglect. Not many.

Rick

[fernando]

Rick, i have visited a zillion sources over this thread by the time; to find the one where i have (thought) i read mentioning such particular, would be like a needle in a haystack. Perhaps i have made some confusion; reason why i was asking if "it could be".
With the due respect for these specific pistols, it wouldn't be the first time that (some other) Liegeoise guns came buy with visible function weaknesses, s i had them in hand myself. But that is another story .

[Norman McCormick]

Hi,
With regard to the fragility or otherwise of these pistols. The Liege one I have has obviously had the hammer repaired and also many years ago I dry fired one of these with flint in situ of course and the hammer broke in two. Maybe the quality of metalwork varies as I suspect there were many smaller manufactories turning these out by the barrel load.
Regards,
Norman.

[fernando]

Many many of pieces came out from Liege; the best ... and the worst. I have had both.



.

[M ELEY]

Originally Posted by Norman McCormick

Hi,
With regard to the fragility or otherwise of these pistols. The Liege one I have has obviously had the hammer repaired and also many years ago I dry fired one of these with flint in situ of course and the hammer broke in two. Maybe the quality of metalwork varies as I suspect there were many smaller manufactories turning these out by the barrel load.
Regards,
Norman.

Interesting you mention this, Norman, going back to this gun's primary function. Private purchase weapons were always made on the cheap, often to be used only in a pinch and often at the cheapest price a merchant captain (or board of directors) could get by with. Thus, on private purchase swords we see surplus m1803's, mismatched blades, blacksmith quality sheet metal guards, etc. It seems likely the guns would also be treated similarly. The swords were rolled out literally in barrels to arm the crew and the pistols taken down from racks to do likewise. These were not 'tenderly handled' gentlemen's pistols. They were practically never used unless attacking an enemy or defending their ship, unlike a military pistol in the field which would see much more action. Mine is extremely sturdy and apart from one time when I pulled the trigger and the hammer fell off(having 'fired' it many times without the flint like a dummy), it has been fine and I just tightened the screw holding the hammer in place.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by M ELEY

Interesting you mention this, Norman, going back to this gun's primary function. Private purchase weapons were always made on the cheap, often to be used only in a pinch and often at the cheapest price a merchant captain (or board of directors) could get by with. Thus, on private purchase swords we see surplus m1803's, mismatched blades, blacksmith quality sheet metal guards, etc. It seems likely the guns would also be treated similarly. The swords were rolled out literally in barrels to arm the crew and the pistols taken down from racks to do likewise. These were not 'tenderly handled' gentlemen's pistols. They were practically never used unless attacking an enemy or defending their ship, unlike a military pistol in the field which would see much more action. Mine is extremely sturdy and apart from one time when I pulled the trigger and the hammer fell off(having 'fired' it many times without the flint like a dummy), it has been fine and I just tightened the screw holding the hammer in place.

Capn, this is the best insight and perspective on the weaponry typically used on vessels yet, and literally describes the nature of the quality issues as well as reasons for it or lack therof. As we have discussed these pistols were often almost a 'one shot' deal, and became more of a bludgeon or projectile after the initial discharge. Obviously such weapons were inexpensive and suited the often limited budget of a vessel for such arms.
The unusual array of edged arms etc. reflects the use of various 'available' components often assembled by their armourers as well, and likely accounts for the anomalies you have often identified and discussed.

[M ELEY]

Hello Jim and thanks for your comments. I was just thinking about even the food that the sailors were subjected to as a reference to the penny-pinching involved in the navies and ships of the era. Pursers were often the most reviled crewmates on a ship, frequently known to skim off the top to pocket the extra money while serving tripe to the sailors! A little off-topic, I know, but the same principles were always in place! Much like today's industries, lowball the bid to get the biggest bang for the buck!

[Norman McCormick]

Hi,
Got a reply from the Belgian Military Museum. Not a Belgian service weapon, possibly a trade pistol and may have been used in the mercantile marine. Didn't get any info re the numerous stamps on these type pistols. Not really anything we didn't already know apart from maybe the definitive statement that it was not a Belgian service weapon. I asked if Belgian long arms of the first part of the 19thC were of the same bore as the pistol i.e. .69 as Dutch and French service issue muskets were and I thought there may have been some crossover with Belgian long arms and this pistol, didn't get a reply to this question. Hope this is of some use re this elusive pistol.
Regards,
Norman.