Brown Bess

Muzzleloading Forum

Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:

eelclam

32 Cal.
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
62 inches overall from my research I tend to agree except for the date on the lock. I note that the contract dates for Edge would not mean that they didn't exist as a manufacturer before that. to confound things further 1 and the to sevens are un mistakable, but the 0 is less so it is where one grips the musket but legs of the sevens are not worn The image I drew in paint and the grey shows the worn area. the only possibilties other than zero would seem to be 9 and 8. I guess it will remane a mistery as the rest of the musket would place it at a later date.

bob
date2.jpg
 

fluggies4

40 Cal.
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
212
Reaction score
0
eelspike said:
I guess it will remane a mistery as the rest of the musket would place it at a later date.
bob
Thanks for the photos! It's a great looking piece of history. I'm wondering if it could have been made up during the Revolution from salvaged parts. Hard to tell from the photo, but the buttstock seems short. I have also examined a Bess years ago with the same splice in the forestock. The buttplate and triggerguard seem to be an early style. The investigation will continue, I'm sure. :hmm:
 

J.D.

69 Cal.
Joined
Nov 10, 2005
Messages
3,196
Reaction score
7
Wow, that is nice. Thank you for posting those photos. We don't often get to see a piece of history like this one.
 

eelclam

32 Cal.
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
My friend has no interest in selling. It has been past down through so many generations in his family that he would not dream of it. His only interest is to find out more about it, so it could be documented when his son takes it and to establish a value for insurance purposes. My feeling is that while you might get a good idea of value through research, an independent expert appraisal would be the way to establish the value. Also that one ought not rely on an interested buyer for any kind of appraisal: to much conflict of interest.

I would like to thank everyone for their thoughts on this musket. Next time I am at his house I will try to get a better macro of the lock.

Bob
 

Macmac

32 Cal.
Joined
Mar 17, 2008
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
I agree with Va.Manuf.06 , that this is a 1st model long land pattern lock, and not the early type, not banana shape.

I have never seen one of these with the ram rod as shown. I would guess that came at a later date. I see the thimble has come away from the wood as you have shown it. My best guess in the spliced woods is repairs had to be made. I can't see that well.

Looking at the pics I would have to say the piece is authentic. The shrinking in the lock mortice pretty well covers that.

Somewhere there is an error in the date. What you take for a 0 can't be..

You missed getting a shot of the brass lock plate. I can see one is there but not well. Is that flat, or rasied and how many screws are there? or if any are missing how many screws should there be there.

I don't see the butt stock being any to short either. The butt plate is correct, and the most common type thank the stars...

Oh yes, what you call a front site isn't any kind of site at all. I can see how you might think so however; and what that is, Is a bayonett lug. (Please don't tell Bill Clinton)

Aiming a musket in those days would get you flogged.

What if anything, is on the wrist escushion? Typically there are regimental markings.I would think something visable might still be there.
 

PvtC

40 Cal.
Joined
Sep 8, 2005
Messages
218
Reaction score
0
This appears to be a spot on 1756 pattern long land service musket in accordance with DeWitt Bailey's pattern dates. It was probably produced by the British ordnance system after 1756. I don't see anything in Bailey's book that indicates when the production of long land muskets was halted. He does say that Grenadier companies carried them for the duration of the American War. This is a wonderful artifact you have shared with us. Thx.
 

B. Miller

40 Cal.
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Your pictures are excelent. Here is a link to an article that was in The American Rifleman called the Readcoat's Brown Bess. http://www.11thpa.org/Bess.html
There are several copies on the internet but I think the pictures are easier to see on this one. The article goes through the development and changes made and provides dates. It should be enjoyable compairing what your friend has with the pictures. Good excuse to crack a couple of cold ones anyway.
Bruce
 
Last edited by a moderator:

TFoley

62 Cal.
Joined
Aug 6, 2005
Messages
5,743
Reaction score
3,040
As a professional consultant imagery analyst I applied my trained eye trumpet to the image of the lock and by golly it reads 1767 to me, with a long top tail, too.

Am I seeing something that you guys are not seeing? I DO have a VERY high definition screen...

tac
 
Joined
Dec 28, 2004
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
I read it as 1767 also, though admittedly the picture could be sharper. But beyond that, we've been ignoring the crown stamp. It says "GR" for King (Rex) George. King George I wasn't king until 1717, so which ever George it refers to, it has to be later than that. I don't know how long after the manufacture year a lock might receive its proof stamp, but I would think that would be done shortly after manufacture of the lock, even though it might then sit in storage for years until built into a musket.
 

fluggies4

40 Cal.
Joined
Sep 12, 2005
Messages
212
Reaction score
0
PvtC said:
This appears to be a spot on 1756 pattern long land service musket in accordance with DeWitt Bailey's pattern dates.
I just looked through my copy of "A Soldier-Like Way", and the pattern 1756 Bess on pages 17-18 does look right. The photos in the book are very clear, and the lock profile is the same.
 

Parzifal

45 Cal.
Joined
Oct 24, 2006
Messages
523
Reaction score
1
Its almost IDENTICLE to my Loyalist 1st mod long land.."except the lock on mine is the long bananna style" What you have there is a amazing , and beautiful piece of history.

WOW WOW WOW


Rob
 

gundog99

32 Cal.
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
It looks like 1757, in H.L. BLACKMORE'S (British Military Firearms 1650 - 1850)page 60 "All the locks are engraved with the names of lock contractors (...Edge.......) and are dated frome 1757 -62." "On the 29th June 1764 the Clerk of small gun Office reported to the Board :............."he therefore proposed that all new Locks should be engraved with the word TOWER only, and that all Old Locks, now in the hands of Mr Grace to be repaired should be altered in the same manner and likewise all Small Arms which are sett up or repaired at the Small Gun Office."
 

eelclam

32 Cal.
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
Based on comments and further evaluation of the photos I think that the date on the lock must be 1767. The photo here shows the form used on our own Declaration of Independence. The tail of the 6 clearly rises above the top of the sevens, something I had not thought of. this in conjunction with the hardware on the musket make 1767 seem correct. Again thanks for the information.

Bob
declaration_independence.jpg
 
Top