• This community needs YOUR help today. We rely 100% on Supporting Memberships to fund our efforts. With the ever increasing fees of everything, we need help. We need more Supporting Members, today. Please invest back into this community. I will ship a few decals too in addition to all the account perks you get.



    Sign up here: https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/account/upgrades

1667 Flintlock?

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

dogfood

45 Cal.
Joined
Jun 12, 2013
Messages
503
Reaction score
340
Location
OH 45385
Hi All,
Arguably the flagship piece of the Rhode Island Historical Society's Armament Collection is a musket attributed to Joseph Williams, the son of Roger Williams, the founder of our state. Its description is as follows: "Flintlock, large bore musket; has bayonet lug. Elaborate cheek-piece on stock, wood inlay. Initials "J" "W" 1667 etched on barrel, also 1779. Length:57 in."
It was allegedly "found in the rafters of the old Williams' home at Roger Williams Park" at some point and donated to the RIHS in 1916.
Since it's not my picture, nor my flintlock, below is a link to it:
http://rihs.minisisinc.com/RIHS_IMAGES/RHiX171156w.jpg
That's the only photo available. I realize it's not a lot to go on and I will take photos of my own when I next have the opportunity.
All that being said, do the picture and description match its timeline? I'm thinking that the bayonet lug must have been put on in the 18th Century, and that the current lock on it and maybe even the stock were as well. In short, nothing in the description nor photo screams 1600s to me, but that century is not one that I am terribly well-versed in.
Thanks for your help,
ken
 
All that being said, do the picture and description match its timeline? I'm thinking that the bayonet lug must have been put on in the 18th Century, and that the current lock on it and maybe even the stock were as well. In short, nothing in the description nor photo screams 1600s to me, but that century is not one that I am terribly well-versed in.
Thanks for your help,
ken

So basically, what you are saying is, that apart from the lock, the stock and the barrel, it's all original?
 
It could be stock at one time, lock later. A century later the five civilized tribes had handy gunsmiths making Frankenstein guns from used parts. For all of colonial America throwing stuff away just wasn’t done.
 
Just like my 5 times removed gandfather's tomahawk that's been handed down. :D
It is original, made before HC/PC was invented yet. I have to chuckle at those old guys some times that took what parts they had and nailed some guns together and went out and shot game Indians and redcoats without a second thought to as to the school their gun was in, correct stock architecture ect. Thank God we have better research today and can only use correct HC things.
 
Apologies for the delay, folk. Here are some pictures I have taken of the musket in question.
 

Attachments

  • JW 1667 1.jpg
    JW 1667 1.jpg
    81.6 KB · Views: 296
  • JW 1667 2.jpg
    JW 1667 2.jpg
    94.8 KB · Views: 284
  • JW 1667 3.jpg
    JW 1667 3.jpg
    73.1 KB · Views: 291
  • JW 1667 4.jpg
    JW 1667 4.jpg
    83 KB · Views: 276
  • JW 1667 5.jpg
    JW 1667 5.jpg
    87.3 KB · Views: 275
  • JW 1667 6.jpg
    JW 1667 6.jpg
    85.3 KB · Views: 282
  • JW 1667 7.jpg
    JW 1667 7.jpg
    82.5 KB · Views: 290
  • JW 1667 8.jpg
    JW 1667 8.jpg
    74.7 KB · Views: 279
  • JW 1667 9.jpg
    JW 1667 9.jpg
    88.9 KB · Views: 292
  • JW 1667 10.jpg
    JW 1667 10.jpg
    90.3 KB · Views: 250
last two:
 

Attachments

  • JW 1667 11.jpg
    JW 1667 11.jpg
    84.7 KB · Views: 154
  • JW 1667 12.jpg
    JW 1667 12.jpg
    52.5 KB · Views: 169
I see a front sight and not a bayonet lug. It's too far back to be a bayonet lug and it's also behind the ramrod pipe. There is a notch cut into the tang for sighting too. I am not an expert but I don't see much there that might date to 1667. I'm sorry but I believe I would be doing it a kindness in calling it a relic.
 
The lug is on the underside of the barrel. I concur- the only thing that seems to be 1667 about it is the inscription on the barrel.
 
The only thing I can see on the underside of the barrel is the ramrod pipe and its supporting spacer. Is it hiden by the string wrapped around the barrel and pipe?
 
My mistake. Its at the three o'clock position if looking at it if it were shoulered.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20190603_104245620.jpg
    IMG_20190603_104245620.jpg
    78.7 KB · Views: 139
Here's one of some more of the carving on the butt
 

Attachments

  • IMG_20190603_104401487.jpg
    IMG_20190603_104401487.jpg
    41.4 KB · Views: 149
On the butt, in white paint is written 1916-6-7, and on the tag attached to the trigger guard also has 1916-6-? written on it. This is quite confusing given the 1667 written on the barrel scratch out the 19, and there is your 1667. Could this actually be a date of June 7, 1916? That seems far out there, but why does this possible curator attached number have the same last four digits? Coincidence? 1916 is the year the gun was supposed to have been donated, so maybe it was donated on June 7 of that year, and somebody added the date at that time? Stamping a date in an actual antique would be a serious no-no these days, but what about 100 years ago?
 
That's an interesting line of thinking. I'd certainly hope that wasn't the case, but anything's possible. Generally speaking, techniques were more far more lax a century ago than they are today but they generally weren't that lax at that point.
 
That's an interesting line of thinking. I'd certainly hope that wasn't the case, but anything's possible. Generally speaking, techniques were more far more lax a century ago than they are today but they generally weren't that lax at that point.

The thing is, in 1916, an old beat up flintlock with no particular provenance or display of masterful artistry would not have been worth more than a couple bucks. The phrase "dime a dozen" comes to mind. Make up a story and say it was found in an old house belonging to some person of historic note and suddenly it becomes worthy of hanging in a museum. It would not be like someone marked up a known valuable antique.

I am reminded of a lady I knew who had a large old copper apple butter kettle on her hearth that she claimed had come over on the Mayflower with her ancestor. Her son told me that he had turned it over and found "made in USA" stamped on it, but didn't bother to tell his mom.
 
It definitely is well within the realm of possibility that the donor could have put the inscription on there himself.
 
Back
Top