DUELLING PISTOL IDENTIFICATION

[Aprilfoolin]

• Yesterday at 6:09 PM

• Add bookmark
• #1

Flat top has C.MENTHEN EN RENSBURG DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO THIS IS? THANKS FOR YOUR HELP

 

[cositrike]

• Yesterday at 6:09 PM

• Add bookmark
• #1

Flat top has C.MENTHEN EN RENSBURG DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO THIS IS? THANKS FOR YOUR HELP

Yep it’s a guy from Rensburg

 

[user 48679]

Welcome to the forum !

That's a very fine dueller !

Rensburg is a town in Northern Germany, on the Eider river.

I have no clue as to who/what C.Menthen is/does, but is most likely the maker.

I do know that there was a famous gunmaker from Rensburg, Johann Andreas Kuchenreuter (1716-1795) - much too early (75-100 years) for your percussion pistol.

There were many/multiple small (one man) gunmakers in Germany around the time your pistol was made, that not recorded/listed - so, it may be near-impossible to know more about Herr Menthen.

 

[OldSmoky1967]

I will look it up in Der Nue Stockel tonight when I get home.

 

[OldSmoky1967]

I i’m sorry it took me so long to get to it. I actually forgot. There is a GJ Menthen listed in Kiel, Germany ca 1830. Der Neue Stockel volume 2. No other information is listed.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
Why do folks immediately assume it was made for dueling?

dave

 

[user 48679]

Hi,
Why do folks immediately assume it was made for dueling?

dave

No sights, as far as I can see.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
No sights means nothing at all. Pocket pistols, horse pistols, livery pistols were all often made with no sights. Moreover, true dueling pistols, at least British ones, almost always have front and rear sights.

dave

 

[OldSmoky1967]

• Yesterday at 6:09 PM
• Add bookmark
• #1

Flat top has C.MENTHEN EN RENSBURG DOES ANYONE KNOW WHO THIS IS? THANKS FOR YOUR HELP

Check this out. Info about your guy, most probably. The pistol appears to be to be from the 1840's. Great workmanship, but missing the platinum vent disk from the 1830's that were in use in percussion firearms in Germany at that time (very early for percussion in Ge.). That time period fits with what I found on this website.

Just copy this link and paste into your browser... Charles MENTHEN gunsmith from RENSBURG germany - Google Search

 

[Aprilfoolin]

Hi,
No sights means nothing at all. Pocket pistols, horse pistols, livery pistols were all often made with no sights. Moreover, true dueling pistols, at least British ones, almost always have front and rear sights.

dave

It has sights and a single set trigger. Also was 2 of a set by the number on it.

 

[Uncle Miltie]

Fine pistol, not a dueller though. The rear sight is adjustable for elevation with a watch key and there is a safety located on the lock. Fine quality professional workmanship but in no way is it a dueller: and that's just fine! Thanks for sharing it with us!

 

[satwel]

Back in the day, pistols were often made in pairs. Just because there are two of them, it doesn't automatically mean they were built for dueling.

 

[dave_person]

Hi Aprilfoolin,
There is this notion that paired pistols meant they were for dueling. This is rubbish. Most pistols were made in pairs and a pair did not mean dueling at all. The notion is that the pair was shared by the antagonists. That is false. Each participant came with their own pair of pistols because why would you consent to fight a duel with your opponent's pistol? The second gun was for the second shot if needed. Only in cases where the antagonists used third party pistols were the cased set shared. There is a lot of myth and bunk about dueling spread on the internet and very few who actually understand the history. But a story that pistols were for dueling is very attractive to collectors because of the romantic value regardless of their real history.

dave

 

[OldSmoky1967]

Fine pistol, not a dueller though. The rear sight is adjustable for elevation with a watch key and there is a safety located on the lock. Fine quality professional workmanship but in no way is it a dueller: and that's just fine! Thanks for sharing it with us!

Target pistols. Beautiful!

 

[jimhallam]

Yep it’s a guy from Rensburg

The only reference in the 3 volumes of "Stockel" is MENTHEN, GJ., JKiel ca. 1830. Likely to be a retailer rather than a maker???

 

[OldSmoky1967]

The only reference in the 3 volumes of "Stockel" is MENTHEN, GJ., JKiel ca. 1830. Likely to be a retailer rather than a maker???

I think that is very possibly Charles Menthen's father. He was also a gunsmith that emigrated from Germany in 1850. Reference above.

 

[mkabe]

Hi Aprilfoolin,
There is this notion that paired pistols meant they were for dueling. This is rubbish. Most pistols were made in pairs and a pair did not mean dueling at all. The notion is that the pair was shared by the antagonists. That is false. Each participant came with their own pair of pistols because why would you consent to fight a duel with your opponent's pistol? The second gun was for the second shot if needed. Only in cases where the antagonists used third party pistols were the cased set shared. There is a lot of myth and bunk about dueling spread on the internet and very few who actually understand the history. But a story that pistols were for dueling is very attractive to collectors because of the romantic value regardless of their real history.

dave

Possibly there is not a lot of information about dueling because one didn’t survive to give information and the other kept their mouth shut for fear of legal ramifications.

 

[dave_person]

Hi mkabe,
You may be more right than you realize. I can only speak about the history of dueling in Britain. Dueling was illegal. Invoices from pistol makers indicated "braces (pairs) of pistols" and never dueling pistols. Virtually all pistols were sold as pairs at that time. However, by 1780, purpose built dueling pistols had fully evolved and they almost all had swamped octagon barrels, front and rear sights, single set triggers, and bolted locks (locks with safety slides). When discussing dueling pistols, inevitably somebody brings up the "Code Duello" (Irish, English, whatever). Sights and deliberate aiming were prohibited, rifling prohibited, blah, blah, blah because it was against the "Code" as if anyone involved in the illegal activity ever cared about sticking to the "Code". Kind of like that scene in Pirates of the Caribbean when Keith Richards brings out the "Code by Morgan and Bartholomew" and yet everyone violates it saying "well they are more like guidelines, ya know'. Those Code Duellos were written by early 19th century scribblers capitalizing on the public's fascination with duels and they describe (as rules) the common practices they observed. There was no panel of "experts" convened to write them and regulate the events. Duels were illegal. What was important was after the duel, the seconds were expected to write an after action report and both sign it. By signing they verified the duel was fair. If they disagreed about events and one did not sign, then the duel was considered suspect and the families of the antagonists might take action. These reports only went to those families and were never published, however, some describing events between prominent men were leaked to the public broadsheets and journals. Those are largely the only reports that survived over time. The duelists could fight in any way they desired as long as they and their seconds agreed.

dave

 

[mkabe]

Hi mkabe,
You may be more right than you realize. I can only speak about the history of dueling in Britain. Dueling was illegal. Invoices from pistol makers indicated "braces (pairs) of pistols" and never dueling pistols. Virtually all pistols were sold as pairs at that time. However, by 1780, purpose built dueling pistols had fully evolved and they almost all had swamped octagon barrels, front and rear sights, single set triggers, and bolted locks (locks with safety slides). When discussing dueling pistols, inevitably somebody brings up the "Code Duello" (Irish, English, whatever). Sights and deliberate aiming were prohibited, rifling prohibited, blah, blah, blah because it was against the "Code" as if anyone involved in the illegal activity ever cared about sticking to the "Code". Kind of like that scene in Pirates of the Caribbean when Keith Richards brings out the "Code by Morgan and Bartholomew" and yet everyone violates it saying "well they are more like guidelines, ya know'. Those Code Duellos were written by early 19th century scribblers capitalizing on the public's fascination with duels and they describe (as rules) the common practices they observed. There was no panel of "experts" convened to write them and regulate the events. Duels were illegal. What was important was after the duel, the seconds were expected to write an after action report and both sign it. By signing they verified the duel was fair. If they disagreed about events and one did not sign, then the duel was considered suspect and the families of the antagonists might take action. These reports only went to those families and were never published, however, some describing events between prominent men were leaked to the public broadsheets and journals. Those are largely the only reports that survived over time. The duelists could fight in any way they desired as long as they and their seconds agreed.

dave

Your comment contains very informative and very interesting information. Dueling is romantic from a literary stand point but few actually understand its history or practices.
As I learned repeatedly in defensive hand gun classes, (I’m on our church’s security team), if you find yourself in a fair fight you’ve done something terribly wrong. NO DUELING FOR ME!

 

[Aprilfoolin]

I have gained a lot of knowledge from all your responses. Thanks so much.