Looking for Forum

[rand]

The title arms and armor forum sort of says it all. The same type of metalwork done on a sword was done on a firearm as was done on armor. Its all intertwined and all parts of the of arms and armor are needed to fully explain a reason or progression of use. Its a cause and effect ralationship...

Glad you are here Fernando... And I look forward to reading the posts on your fine pistol.

Am curious, what questions do you have about your pistol?

rand

[Chris Evans]

Feranando,

What a wonderful pistol - I bet it wasn't cheap.

My attitude to weapons in general is that they are implements of survival. Without them we would have no way to hunt of defend ourselves. Firearms and edged weapons are all all armaments. That said, I think that Ariel's suggestion of a subforum for antique firearms is a good one.

Cheers
Chris

[josh stout]

If you had said "Queen Anne" and "antique" to me I would have thought of furniture. It is neat to see the same style in a pistol. For me, that is the useful part of looking at related items from a particular time and place. It allows one to see continuity of themes from a particular culture, which then allows better identification of other artifacts.
Josh

[fernando]

It just came to my mind that one specimen i would like to have in my collection would be the donkey jaw bone with which Samson killed one thousand Philistines. Certainly an unusual resource weapon as also an ethnographic one .
According to what i have learnt in the last couple days, the Queen Anne pistol pattern has indeed comenced before Queen Anne reign, but was nick named after this Monarch due to having achieved its popularity during such period. It looks lyke style and decoration ( baroque and rococo ) were adapted by British gunsmiths from XVII century French basis.The actual name of this pattern was "turn off pistol". Apart from the screw barrel ( breech loading "forced" bulllit ), other characteristics would be the shape of the stock, usually with a dragon ( lion?) mask in the butt, and the absence of a stock fore end. Further references would be the cannon shape of the barrel and the inverted peculiar frizen spring. This specimen of mine appears not to have a turn off barrel, but a ramrod instead, which is not so often seen but still a variant of these pistols. Eventually a famous gunsmith ( James freeman 1710 ) has once come up with one of these, which was referred to as a night pistol. The intention was to load it with buck shot, to avoid a precise aim with solid shot in the dark of the night. This would eliminate the need for a screw barrel, using a ramrod instead. I don't think this would necessarily apply to all ramrod version "Queen Annes".
The total length of this example is close from 9" and the barrel measures 4 1/2". The caliber rounds the .50".
My great question, the one i am eager to have solved at short term, is its genuinity, on what touches origin. I have paid a considerable amount of money for it . Then somebody told me this is a knock off, based on the fact that the gunmaker's name is omitted and there are no proof marks visible. A good quality piece, but still a knoff off, basicaly of Belgium provenance. This being true, the value of such imitation woud be some 60% of the original British stuff, which would be a disaster, considering what i have paid for it. However the opinnion i had about the knock off possibility is not founded on a fully solid basis. For example, i have read that the fact of only having as a mark the sole word LONDON, could either be a foreign imitation trick or also the several indiscriminated British regional gunmakers resource to increase the image of their products. So i give it so far the benefit of the doubt.
Any coments towards this dilemma, good or bad, will be most wellcome.

[Berkley]

there are no proof marks visible

Thank you for adding this information – I kept looking for proof marks in the pictures and thought it strange that I saw none. The following information may be useful to you; however, attempting to determine the authenticity of an antique firearm from a photograph is not something I would venture to do.

The practice of proving firearms apparently started in 1637 when a royal charter was granted to the gunmakers’ guild of London which authorized them to have the final authority in the testing of all firearms…. If you find the letters “VP” on a gun that has been sold in the British Empire, it means “Viewed and Proved.” The first step, called “Viewing,” consists of tests to see that all parts have the necessary tolerance, that they are assembled properly, and that the gun functions well mechanically. At the end of this process, the letter “V” is stamped on the gun. Next, heavy charges are fired to see if the gun is safe; if it is, it is regarded as “proved” and the “P” is stamped.

Gun Collecting, Chapel, Charles Edward; “Identification”, pp.140-141.

The first Charter of Incorporation of the London Gun-makers’ Company possibly did not confer the powers which rendered gun-barrel proving at the Company’s house imperative, but the second charter, granted in 1672, gave powers of searching for and proving and marking all manner of hand guns, great and small, daggs and pistols, and every part thereof, whether made in London or the suburbs, or within ten miles thereof, or imported from foreign parts, or otherwise brought thither for sale; and a scale for proof was thereby established.

The Gun and Its Development, Greener, W.W., “The Proof of Guns”, p.288.
The absence of any proof marks is, therefore, at least a cause for concern. (It should be noted that the marks might be other than the "VP" referred to above, and might include variants of "GP", "BP", or other combinations, depending on the place and date of manufacture and proving. The letters would be in script typeface, surmounted by a lion rampant or royal crown).
Berkley

[Jim McDougall]

Excellent information Berkeley!!! and thank you so much for citing the references. I think its most helpful when details are addressed as you have done.
Best regards,
Jim

[fernando]

Thank you Berkeley
Your quotations are most interesting, and almost coinciding with the references i read in my little book "The Standard Directory of Proof Marks" by Gerhard Wirnsberger, translated by R.A. Steindler. We can read here that a first Royal edict was issued in 1631 and not in 1637 as often stated, permitting the association or guild of ( seven ) gunsmiths, charging them with the responsability to keep the arms of citizen's militia in shootable condition. They were granted the right of inspection, and each such arm was marked with a crown over "A" stamp. On March 1637 gunsmiths banded together and founded the pompously named "Worshipfull Company of Gunmakers of the City of London", replacing the not less pompously named "The Master, Wardens and Society of the Misterie of Gunmakers of the City of London". The original Worshipfull Company consisted of 125 gun makers, of which 63 were London citizens. They had the powers to search for unproofed firearms, and even confiscate them, in case the owner didn't want to test them. It was also forbidden to sell arms that did not bear the crown over "A" mark.
The obliging mark at this time was the crown over "A" for the Gunmakers Company, as well as the crown over "GP" for the proof mark. In 1670 the Crown over "V" was added. During the 18th century these marks were seen together, with the barrel maker name between them. Crossed scepters, rampart lions and crowns followed as arm and barrel proof marks for long time.
However other countries, Belgium included, have their history on marks, and those should appear according to the same rules. However exceptions make the rules, and there are arms with so many different stories. Somebody has just sugested that my piece could have been made in raw condition in Belgium for a British order, and be decorated and finished at the destination, with the intentional erasing of the original proof marks ... one of so many probabilities. I have meanwhile dismounted the barrel ... not the whole mechanism, which is rather complex for me. No marks in the interior though .
My dilemma continues.