Officers fusil?

[Stumpkiller]

As for Mr. Puleo, doesn't his profession require sources and documentation?

I see in later posts this was addressed. The key here is "profession" - paid to take on the burden of hunting up the data and transferring it to the screen. It's a lot of work; and usually it is the honey that gets more flys than the s#it.

Wiki-anything and blogged history is about useless for research as it is all heresay piles of unsubstantiated information with unknown dilligence to accuracy behind it. Basically it's a good start and certainly well worth the price of admission. Statistically, if you visit enough sites you will get the group-think averages and can arrive at good information . . . if you choose the right sites. :wink: But if you poll few sites you might get only the bad data.

And not all books are excellent sources. I have one by Merrill Lindsay that is pretty suspect.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Thank you. I do appreciate that. I do agree that pretty much every officer's fusil I have seen published has a bayonet lug and cutback. The more I learn and look at the gun, the more I am convinced that it was a native-used gun. Almost every native-used trade gun I have come across has been literally beat to hell and converted to percussion. They also have numerous field-type or jury-rigged repairs. This gun seems consistent with heavy native use. I just wonder how it ended up where it ended up. The man who supposedly owned it was documented as owing other guns as well. Maybe he collected it, or maybe a later family member collected it. Or maybe it was a war trophy from the war of 1812 or thereafter. I hope it's okay if I have an opinion. :v

If wishes were fishes we'd all cast nets.....
I see Nothing about this gun that would suggest native usage. Especialy since it has a sling swivel hole in the forestock. Here are some features that suggest a post rev war production with a later than that restock. Most all of this has been stated previously, but you seem to have over looked or forgoten. The buttpate finial is short, the engraving on the buttplate is seen commonly post rev war and used mainly on low end guns. The trigger guard is late, and in fact reflects french styling....I have always been a bit baffled by this guard, but the english used it post rev war o n low end guns. LONDON is stamped instead of engraved, another late feature.
I'd be leary of the source you googled. The gun dealer is trying to sell the gun and has created some ineresting hype to help sell the gun, which you fell for. Common way to sell old guns, tell the buyer what they want to hear... :wink:
Also, I have no idea who you are otgher than "Buffalo" in the Lakota language which is an unforetunate part of the internet. My response may have been different with a real name.

 

[Tatonka]

Whether or not he was trying to sell the gun I tend to believe him more than I would you. Mr. Thayer actively researches and publishes his work. He is also a member of the KRA, which would likely have a problem with him intentionally putting out false information in order to sell a gun. He also provided sources to support his contentions - unlike you. I certainly don't expect anyone to ever completely agree on a native use for any item, as it is almost always debatable. But this is undisputedly trade hardware meant for native use. It is furthermore stocked in the fashion of a trade gun. Lastly, it is beat to smithereens consistent with others like it. Add to this the information provided by Mr. Thayer, as well as the native-esque marks on the buttstock (at least in my opinion - they appear to be campaign marks such as I have seen before), and I see native use.

 

[Stumpkiller]

As to the rather far fetched scenario involving the capture of the gun by a British officer from an Indian after a battle "near Quebec". The last major battle there was the Battle of The Plains of Abraham in 1759 where both commanding Generals were killed.Any Indians present on the French side would likely have been carrying French fusils probably Fusils de traite or de chasse.

In 1775 the U.States got our butts kicked outside Quebec. Col. B. Arnold received his leg wound, General Montgomery was killed and the [later] famous rifle corps. Cap't. Daniel Morgan was captured. Smallpox & other disease claimed something like 40% of the men on the campaign to get to Quebec before the battle.

 

[tg]

"Just look at all the great information which was out there that I was not told here."

Maybe you should take that as a sign you have been looking in the wrong place and quit whining because others here will not do your homework for you, the whining is not at all becoming and is the reason for the reception you have recieved, that is a fact, I am sorry if I cannot give documentation to this for you, ya'll will jist have ta trust me on this one bub.

 

[Okwaho]

I'd go a step further and say this thread had degenerated into pointlessness. It is, however, an excellent illustration of the power of wishful thinking.

Joe,I couldn't agree with you more in your frustration.After reading the diatribes herein and checking out the references submitted by the poster I suspect that a careful rereading of these references would show that there is indeed a difference between the late 18th and 19th century British export guns and the Northwest guns of the Hudsons Bay Company discussed by Jim Gooding.Accordingly I too see no valid purpose in continuing my participation
in the melee :v :bow:
BTW I haven't forgotten the pictures.
Tom Patton

 

[Tatonka]

quit whining because others here will not do your homework for you,

I thought this was a "firearms research" board for such discussion? I have tried to do my own research, but this is not exactly something heavily documented. I have only seen a couple of guns like this, none of which have been in published books that I know of.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Whether or not he was trying to sell the gun I tend to believe him more than I would you.

Well there you go, you solved your problem all by yourself. :thumbsup:

 

[Tatonka]

BTW I haven't forgotten the pictures.
Tom Patton

I'm not sure what pictures you are speaking of.

 

[Okwaho]

As to the rather far fetched scenario involving the capture of the gun by a British officer from an Indian after a battle "near Quebec". The last major battle there was the Battle of The Plains of Abraham in 1759 where both commanding Generals were killed.Any Indians present on the French side would likely have been carrying French fusils probably Fusils de traite or de chasse.

In 1775 the U.States got our butts kicked outside Quebec. Col. B. Arnold received his leg wound, General Montgomery was killed and the [later] famous rifle corps. Cap't. Daniel Morgan was captured. Smallpox & other disease claimed something like 40% of the men on the campaign to get to Quebec before the battle.

Stump,I'm familiar with that debacle in 1775 but didn't mention it because I got the impression that tatonka was using the scenario that the gun "was captured fom an Indian by a vctorious English officer in a fight near Quebec" That would preclude mention of the 1775 debacle.
Tom Patton

 

[Okwaho]

BTW I haven't forgotten the pictures.
Tom Patton

I'm not sure what pictures you are speaking of.

That'correct,you're not!

 

[Capt. Jas.]

There is really more than citing a book someone has published to solidify information about a gun. Judgement is made based on little things. There may be 20 sources including books, private collections, dug items, archaeological reports, museum items etc. when just discussing a side plate. When basing a conclusion. There is no way anyone in their right mind is going to those extremes on the net when their opinions are met with complete opposition from the start. There is a lot of work involved in doing so and for me personally, you need to be a good friend, establish yourself as such or be willing to pay for research time due to the incredible level of work involved.

No one knows it all and some know more than others. When I first got involved in earlier English guns there were only a few who really knew them. I learned much from them. I also invested a great deal of money in books and travel to get my hands on the real mccoys for study. I have also made many good friends across the pond.

Over the course, I now find that there are some areas of study that I have now superseded the knowledge of some of these guys that helped me. Now I am returning the favor. This came about only after much networking and also effort and dollars of my OWN.This trust does not come about on the net thru threads like these.

I would like to think this may be a big misunderstanding between someone totally unfamiliar with how things go with antique gun people. Some of these guys are just gunshy now as there have been some real idiots trying to argue that which they know nothing about. An example is some guy a few months ago who tried to get into an argument over London proofs vs Birmingham and did not know jack. Instead of further individual study before countering what we had given him (which ba would hand been able to easily see his error), he made a real stink only to be proven clueless.

 

[Okwaho]

WELL SAID,James. I started out with Winchesters {early 60's}and was drifting into Kentuckies.I had one on approval and thought it might be an East Tenn. rifle signed Douglas.Not really knowing any better I stopped by York,Pa.in the hopes that Joe Kindig Jr could help me.He must have taken pity on me in my ignorance and kindly told me I had a Douglas Huntington Co.,Pa. gun worth about $300.00.He then asked what kind of guns I had and I told him Winchesters but was interested in getting into Kentuckies. We were downstairs in the antique shop in a large room with wall to wall Kentuckies. He pulled out a rifle and told me it was an unsigned George Eister and I could have it for around $4 to 6,000.00.I said I didn't have that kind of money and he asked how many guns I had and I told him about 6 or 7. He then told me I should sell all I owned and buy one pearl of great value,great advice that I should have heeded. I now know better and am still collecting though now my interest is in French/Liegeoise trade guns and to some extent British Carolina guns.

By the way that unsigned George Eister gun would be worth about $15-20,000 today. Live and learn.and remember that research is the key as well as trying to see AND HANDLE as many early guns as possible.Most collectors will lean over backwards to help a novice BUT REMEMBER you will catch far more flies with honey than vinegar.I never forgot Mr. Kindig's patience and kindness towards a young neophyte collector and have tried to treat others the same way. :v
Tom Patton

 

[colmoultrie]

Thank you for the knowledge you share, Mr. Patton.

I am not, however, sure that Mr. Kindig was correct from either an investment or an enjoyment point, although enjoyment is entirely subjective.

The definition of what is a pearl - and how great is "great price" - varies to some degree with the market. Had you bought 100 Springfield 1861 Rifled Muskets in the early '60s for $25 - $50 each, and of course, while nice, they're hardly a pearl of great price, they would now be worth perhaps $100,000 - $150,000. As for enjoyment, I would enjoy an Eister, but I believe I would have enjoyed owning, shooting, and accumulating the Winchesters even more, particularly as numbers give me an opportunity to trade for, sell, or acquire more, all while constantly learning something new.

Perhaps you disagree, and you are, of course, correct for you. I am, however, offering a different - and I hope, "responsible" perspective.

 

[Stumpkiller]

". . . was captured fom an Indian by a vctorious English officer in a fight near Quebec" That would preclude mention of the 1775 debacle.

Gotcha. :hatsoff: Both sides used Indian allies, though from what I could dig up the Americans besieging Quebec had a total of four (Abenakis from New England). That should help narrow it down tremendously. :wink:

Martin, James Kirby (1997). Benedict Arnold: Revolutionary Hero (An American Warrior Reconsidered). New York University Press. ISBN 0-8147-5560-7.

 

[Okwaho]

You do ,of course, raise an interesting point. This was in the early 60's when Winchester yellow boys were bringing under $200.00,trap doors were bringing around $20.00 and Confederate revolvers about $150,00.. Another major point was that I had begun to be more interested in Kentuckies as opposed to factory made weapons and liked Tennessee rifles in particular. These were generally around $200.00 IF they were really nice.Mr. Kindig had just written his monumental book and suddenly prices were on the up swing.Yes $4 to 6,000 was a lot but he brought the Kentucky into the lime light with more realistic values.Later the early {pre-Revolutionary War}guns came into their own superseding the Golden Age guns and were bringing astronomical prices.Today there are a number of Kentuckies in low to medium six figures.It's really a manure shoot.I have been studying early French/Liegeoise trade guns for sometime now and I believe they are a coming group of guns.Time will tell.
Tom Patton

 

[Zonie]

It seems that you came here wanting opinions of what your gun was.

You have received a number of opinions, many by individuals who have studied firearms for years and are recognized by many both in and outside this Forum as being knowledgeable of the subject.

They have taken their own time to write this information at no cost to you.

Some of our other members have taken a great amount of time searching the internet and finding things that could shed some light on your gun and its possible history, all at no cost to you.

You say you want written evidence supporting their opinions? On the first page of this topic there is a button at the bottom which says, "Print Topic". Use it and you will then have a copy of their printed information.

As these people are giving this information for free and they have other things to do in their lives I feel it is a bit pretentious to repeatedly ask them to dig thru their books and data to provide you with more information.
I'm sure if it was at their fingertips they would be happy to supply you with it.

You say you are finding more information on Google? That's fine. Just remember that much of it is written by people who may be totally unqualified to give correct answers and many of them create their own history of their firearms to enhance their value. Simply put, many of them are selling the item without reguard to its true history or worth.
You can undoubtedly print that information out too to increase your written evidence.

All in all although some of your questions have merit your general demeanor has been somewhat antagonistic towards those wishing to help answer your questions.

I believe our members have earned and deserve more respect from you for their services.

 

[Okwaho]

BTW I haven't forgotten the pictures.
Tom Patton

I'm not sure what pictures you are speaking of.

 

[vtbuck223]

As an impartial observer to this post I would say this....I think the vitriol was from many directions. I also appreciate the incredible amount of knowledge on this forum...and I believe everybody here has something to offer. I thought Tatonka asked some good follow up questions as well. I remember taking a history course in college in which the professor thought that he was the only one in the room that knew anything...you couldn't even ask him a challenging question...needless to say...it was a painful course...and a waste of time as nobody learned anything. That is almost never the case on this forum...this post definitely could have been handled better in my opinion. It is very obvious that we all come at this from different perspectives. The above references to $$$ value as the primary consideration for collecting is a good example. For me personally...that is always the last consideration.
Tatonka...thank you for sharing the really cool items you have on this forum...I hope you continue to do so...and ask questions....

 

[Claude Mathis]

"Just look at all the great information which was out there that I was not told here."

Maybe you should take that as a sign you have been looking in the wrong place and quit whining because others here will not do your homework for you, the whining is not at all becoming and is the reason for the reception you have recieved, that is a fact, I am sorry if I cannot give documentation to this for you, ya'll will jist have ta trust me on this one bub.

I've learned a lot of stuff over the years and I pass that information on to others. Can I give a written source for everything I know? Certainly not. Nor am I going to look for documentation every time I pass on some info. At some point, after listening to the opinions of others, people have to do their own research.