Queene Anne type pistol

Hello everybody,
Could you please help with some coments on this piece ?
Basicaly the Queen Anne type but with a fix barrel and ramrod, instead of the traditional turn off system.
The barrel is 4 1/2" long. No proof marks or maker's mark, other than the word LONDON on the barrel. Somebody sugested me this is a Belgium knock off. Liege proof marks are absent though.Is it possible this piece dates from the 18th century, before proof marks were enforced in Belgim around 1810?
Any references confirming these or other possible observations on this pistol would be so much wellcome.
Kind regards
Fernando

I sure as heck can't see anybody going to that much trouble with a replica. it could be an original. The modern ones are made by Palmetto and might as well be skipped.

I was about to say the frizzen spring is quite unusual and it is, however after looking at ANTIQUE PISTOL BOOK , James Smith and Elmer Swanson, Speedwell Press Hobokem NJ 1948, I find three different pistols which have similar springs.

The closest pistol was made in London by T. Richards, a Queen Anne type .50 cal with a 4 inch cannon shaped barrel. One difference is it does not have a ramrod, and it has a capped grip.
The authors feel it dates to 1739-1750. (p 85)

Page 73 shows a .62 cal pocket screw barrel pistol with a 2 1/2 inch barrel. The frame is marked "H. Nock" which also has a similar frizzen spring, as does a pistol on page 69 made by H.S.Mortimer in England. The latter pistol is quite different without a trigger guard and a folding trigger which extends when the pistol is cocked.

In Pistols of the World , Claude Blair, THE VIKING PRESS- NEW YORK 1968, Pistol #258 and 259 are a pair of pistols similar to yours with a similar frizzen spring and cannon barrels. Although they look like screw barrel pistols, they are not and each has a ramrod.
They do not have the wire inletting and have grip caps. The text on page 103 says they have Silver furniture, Brass barrels and lock castings. The barrels have London proofmarks and the signature BRANDER. They are 13 inches overall length and are thought to have been made in 1760.

Hope this helps you.
zonie

Thanks Mec. I wish you were right. However weapon imitations are made since long time ago.

Thank you ever so much for your input, Zonie.
All the best.

Of course it is just my opinion, and I don't claim to be an expert however, most of the fake guns I've heard about are made using parts which are available and easily obtained.

Your guns frame and frizzen spring are not something that is easily made unless a factory was tooled up to produce it.
Even if it was made somewhere other than London, whoever did make it was, IMO an excellent gunsmith and the pistol is representative of the guns made in the mid to late 18th century.

zonie

"The History Of Weapons Of The American Revolution" by Geo. C. Neumann shows three pistols with similar locks but all are screw-off barrels and have either makers name, proof-marks, or both. Your pistol appears to be of the pocket size and is way too well made to be a modern made piece. Can't speculate about whether it's a Belgium product but it's possible. My money is on an original era piece of unknown origin...almost a lawyer's definition! I'd love to know if there's anything marked under the tang or triggerguard. Good luck with your search.

I would hazard the opinion that it's not a modern fake. Not something that a fake artist would spend time on.

Is the barrel tapered inside? Some, maybe most, of the ones with a fixed barrel were meant for swan shot (thus no point in the turn-off barrel), and were tapered a bit.

The Queen Anne was almost exclusively a British type, but the decoration on this on isn't at all typical (perhaps unique). Possibly it was requested by a non-British person who was impressed with the Queen Anne design but wanted a pistol with a lot more decoration than the usual British taste.

Sweet. I like it.

Someone who might be able to give you a lot more info is John Burgoyne, author of the book "The Queen Anne Pistol". He can be reached through the publisher, Museum Restoration Service. BTW that book is excellent and is still in print.

Zonie said:

The closest pistol was made in London by T. Richards, a Queen Anne type .50 cal with a 4 inch cannon shaped barrel. One difference is it does not have a ramrod, and it has a capped grip.
The authors feel it dates to 1739-1750. (p 85)

zonie

Click to expand...

I have failed to tell you!
Also in a little book i have "SMALL ARMS" by Frederick Wilkinson (1965), i can see a Queen Anne pistol by T.Richards, with a turn off ramrod and capped grip but also with an intense silver wire inlay. Mountings are also in silver.

Zonie said:

Of course it is just my opinion, and I don't claim to be an expert however, most of the fake guns I've heard about are made using parts which are available and easily obtained.

Your guns frame and frizzen spring are not something that is easily made unless a factory was tooled up to produce it.
Even if it was made somewhere other than London, whoever did make it was, IMO an excellent gunsmith and the pistol is representative of the guns made in the mid to late 18th century.

zonie

Click to expand...

I see your point of view. However we are talking here about replicating products within the same period of the originals. I would accept that the Liege guys were tooled up enough to produce similar specimens, even sometimes by contract for those countries who owned the invent, by reasons of market over demand or other. I also naturaly accept that the fake in this type of pistol doesn't necessarily imply in (much)lower quality but towards pretending to increase the image of the product by giving it the original aspect. So the fake here functions more in question of price, than in quality substance. Unfortunately my dilemma is precisely on the price. I have paid the equivalent to 2460 U.S. Dollars :cursing:

Wes/Tex said:

"The History Of Weapons Of The American Revolution" by Geo. C. Neumann shows three pistols with similar locks but all are screw-off barrels and have either makers name, proof-marks, or both. Your pistol appears to be of the pocket size and is way too well made to be a modern made piece. Can't speculate about whether it's a Belgium product but it's possible. My money is on an original era piece of unknown origin...almost a lawyer's definition! I'd love to know if there's anything marked under the tang or triggerguard. Good luck with your search.

Click to expand...

This is not at all a modern piece. As i said above, if it is a counterfeit, will be from the period or around it.
But obviously the trouble shooting was the absence of proof marks and maker's marks, which is highly improbable, when you deal with a British piece.
I have dismounted the barrel. I wouldn't dare to dismount the rest pf the parts, as to complex for me to handle; besides the action mechanism, there are also devices that allow for the trigger guard to slide for cocking safety. I found no marks at all.

Thank you so much WRussell.
A couple points right on target :bow: .
I have made some non qualified measurements and i guess that the barrel narrows slightly towards inside ... about one milimeter. Is this what you mean ?
On the other hand, when i browsed the net looking for some track, i have read that a Queen Anne pistol was made by a famous gunsmith ( James Freeman 1710 ), and was referred to as a night pistol, meanning that it was loaded with buck shot, to avoid the need for an accurate aim in the dark of the night.So no screw off barrel but a ramrod instead, precisely as you quote.
I like when you call it sweet ... thank you
I take note of the track on John Burgoyne's book, as well as his contact through the Museum Restoration Service.
I will follow that.
Kind regards
fernando

So what is the dilemma? You have already paid for this item.

The dilemma should have been 'Do I want this somewhat suspect item enough to pay $2460 for it?'

That is now history.

All you can do now is to discover whether or not you were cheated somehow. Obviously, you feel that you were.

That amount of money would have bought you at least two genuine English-made Queen Anne pistols that you would not have to wonder about.

tac

Thanks Tac.
You are what i call a tough guy :applause:
Perhaps your words are intendedly encouraging,but i fail to see how :hmm:
I don't think that picking the word dilemma is an issue for the discussed subject . Neither my acquisition is necessarily history. The seller, a local one, says that if i feel unsatisfyed, i can return the piece, which i actualy don´t intend to do, anyway.
BTW, you could tell the place you buy those ship original Queen Annes :hmm:
It might be a coincidence, but the ones i see in the Net are rather expensive
All the best
fernando

Here are a pair on the net with one-piece brass barrels and ramrods, and flip bayonets. sorry, no wire inlay, but the concept is similar. Out of my price range...
Link

Here's another from the same site, by Waters:
Link

Here's a turn-off style with inlay work. Unfortunately I can't make out the maker...

Link

If you scroll down here, there is a Belgian brass-barrelled non-turn-off with a British turn-off right below. Both have inlay on the grips, much better in the case of the British pistol.

Link

The absence of proof marks or maker's name is an indication that the guns were likely made on the Continent, since I think that British proof marks were standardized early. Here's some info from the London Metropolitan Police:

"Proof in Great Britain dates back to 1637, when the Gunmakers Company of London was granted its Royal Charter. Proof was necessary to protect the public against the many unsound arms then being made and sold, which not only endangered the public but, indirectly brought discredit upon reputable gunmakers.

The Gunmakers Company secured its Ordinances in 1670 and from that time was enabled to enforce proof in and around London. The original proof marks are still in use today.

The Birmingham Proof House was established for public security in 1813 by Act of Parliament, requested and obtained by the Birmingham Gun Trade at its own expense. At a considerably earlier date private Proof Houses were in use in Birmingham. Marks similar to those used at one of them controlled by the gunmaker "Ketland", became the first proof mark of the officially established Birmingham Proof House.

Since 1813 it has been an offence to sell or offer for sale an unproved arm anywhere in the United Kingdom."

Metropolitan Police - proof

It's possible that an unproven gun could have been made and sold in London before 1813, but it would be a rare exception.

No matter who made the gun, however, you have a nice piece. I'm not at all sure on the values of these pieces, but it looks well-made, and it's certainly more interesting than a lot of mass-produced Colt revolvers that sell for the kind of price that you mention. Thanks for showing it!

Thanks a lot Kevin,
I am out visiting my daughter in Lisbon.
When i am back home, i will come back here and thank you more in detail.
fernando

Viana - yes, that small taper, as I understand it, makes it a swan shot pistol or 'night pistol'. I read that they were popular as coach guns, especially if you intended to blaze away before the coach stopped bouncing around.

We're getting into the definition of the term "Queen Anne" in this thread. It's one of those terms that runs the price up, so dealers tend to use it to refer to anything resembling one. It is even used to describe any pistol, even a clunky military lump, that was built during the reign of Queen Anne.

The Queen Anne, for purists, has a lockplate made integral with the breech and the trigger plate. This makes an open three sided 'box', and the cock is on the outside. This was the first step toward the concept of the 'action' of today's guns. The wood was no longer a structural element, it was just something to hang onto. The design is probably one of the most elegant of any firearm. The look (as well as the function) appealed to the aristocracy, and most were built with that market in mind.

It evolved into the box lock, which has a top plate and a side plate, making it a closed box (except for the back end of course). The cock is mounted in the center, in line with the barrel. These were very popular and were cranked out in great numbers for rock-bottom prices. That's why you can buy a nice boxlock today for less than a thousand dollars, while a Queen Anne will usually run over three thousand.

I don't think you paid too much for yours, even though it is probably a Belgian knock-off. Few were made after the boxlock became popular.

Thank you Bill
I'll be back.
fernando

Hi Kevin
Thank you so much for the links. Those prices encouraged me a lot :thumbsup:

Hi Bill
Thanks a lot for your teachings on the Queen Anne pistol


I had meantime(re)read a few topics on proof marks, in a little book i have, written by Gerhard Wirnsberger, translated by R.A.Steindler.
It says there that, contrary to what is often stated, it was in 1631 and not in 1637 that first guild of ( seven only )gunsmiths was allowed by royal edict.
I was amazed by the name given to the company when all gunsmiths banded together in 1637,"Worshipfull Company of Gunmakers of the VCity of London". Actually and according to historians, the little known original name was even more amazing,"The Master, Wardens and Society
of the Misterie of Gunmakers of the City of London" :snore:

On the other hand, although proof marks in the then Bishopric of Liege were edicted in 1672, they were largely ignored, and were only actually enforced in Belgium and France by Napoleon in 1810. This would mean that my pistol,having been made in Liege, should have been produced prior to 1810.
In fact i have just visited in Lisbon a qualified seller and collector of antique weapons and he has dated it as from around the second half 18th century. Also judging by the decorations, he says that this piece was made by the Flemish. The frizen and breech tang engravings are their typical work. Some details like the one behind the trigger guard are of the British type,but the inlay on the stock is not so fine as the British do it.
I didn't feel confortable to ask him to coment on the price.
I also didn't ask him to coment on the ramrod instead of turn off barrel, but neither he found it comentable, although he spent some time observing the pistol. Besides, i am content with Bill's explanation on this detail, besides what i had read on it. This to say that a certain source, wanting to empoverish the value of this specimen, has comented that this particularity was due to saving costs in its production :yakyak:
Thank you all for the help, and in case some of you feel like posting further coments on this theme, i will be much obliged.
All the best.
fernando