The Firearms Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.

Plain Jane Flintlock Pistol Real or Fake?

7K views 16 replies 9 participants last post by  Korvet 
#1 ·
This pistol shows lots of wear, hammer spring is not working, there is absolutely no engraving and the only stamps are on the barrel. Two stamps, both with an unrecognizable symbol, one with the letter "P" and the other with the letter "V". Larger images are available if needed. I noticed that the flint is mounted with what looks like a piece of leather around it. Real or Fake? or any other info would be welcome.
 

Attachments

See less See more
3
#5 ·
Flint is difficult to hold firmly in a steel clamp, since neither the flint nor the steel has any give to it. For that reason, a piece of leather or other material was wrapped around three sides of the flint, then the clamp tightened on the leather covered area to hold if firmly.

I agree with hrf, but is there any chance of getting an extreme close-up of those two marks so we can study them more closely?

GREAT piece, I think!
 
#6 · (Edited)
Just looking at the patina it looks like it could be authentic. (Patina can be faked. But, it's not easy to make it look right.)

It's in to good of shape to be original. IMO It looks like it may have been restored at some point in time. (some years ago perhaps)

At any rate, it is a looker!

-
 
#9 ·
Several years back my brother was in Turkey, working as an electrician at an Air Base there. During a break in his work schedule he went into the town close to the base and went into an antique store. While in there he found what looked like an old pepper box revolver, the wood grips had the look of an old firearm, the patina of the mental looked to be genuine for an antique. He brought it back home and took it to a gunsmith to see if it could be safely fired. The first thing the gunsmith did was shine a light into the chambers to look for damage. Then they discovered that none of the chambers were bored more that half the length of the cylinder. Removal of the nipples revealed that no flash hole into the chambers existed either. A little research from my brother, found that there is a huge cottage industry in Turkey that forges antiques for the tourist trade, and he bought one of the fakes. I'm not saying this is what you have, but the possibility exists.
 
#12 ·
First, to BuffaloChip, I have never cleaned, polished, or anything..just held it and mounted it on the wall of my man cave.

Second I have added an enlarged photo of the barrel marks.

I did some research and here are two quotes from an online article published by The Birmingham Gun Museum, Birmingham England:
“English Provincial Makers’ Marks
New thoughts on gun barrel markings of 18th and 19th century Britishfirearms
By Brian Godwin & John Evans”

“As the 18th century progressed, private proof marks became more common. The usual marks are a crowned P and V contained within an oval ”

“The crowned P & V proof marks are generally referred to by collectors and dealers today as “Birmingham private proofs”; this is almost certainly due to the fact that many known Birmingham pieces are found with these marks.”

So, given y'all's very appreciated responses along with this info, I conclude that the pistol is real, especially when considering the following:
I got the pistol from the widow of a good friend who said that he had said that it had been in his family for a very long time. Then, just yesterday I remembered that he was born and raised in Cowpens SC! Bingo! I am going to go out on a limb here and postulate that this pistol was at the Battle of Cowpens January 17, 1781. Further, the Sons of the American Revolution records show a member of the same name as my friend dated in the mid 1800s...Great Grand Father maybe?

But the puzzle is why there is no maker's mark and no engraving whatsoever. Perhaps carried by a British soldier or officer or made in the Colonies for the Continental Army using a British barrel? That's pure guesswork of course.

There may be a mark under the barrel and I am tempted to very very carefully remove the three pins and check.
 

Attachments

#13 ·
Not surprising that it has no marks. A trade quality pistol might be one a maker was not proud of, maybe made by a big name English maker that wouldn't want his name associated with a common piece. Could just as likely have been owned by a colonist as an Englishman. They had to get their guns from somewhere & England most likely for a colonist. It is not a military piece altho could have been carried by a military person. Private purchase of various pistols was common in the Civil War and likely all wars before.
 
#14 ·
Not surprising that it has no marks. A trade quality pistol might be one a maker was not proud of, maybe made by a big name English maker that wouldn't want his name associated with a common piece. Could just as likely have been owned by a colonist as an Englishman. They had to get their guns from somewhere & England most likely for a colonist. It is not a military piece altho could have been carried by a military person. Private purchase of various pistols was common in the Civil War and likely all wars before.
When I was growing up I knew a gentleman by the name of Watson Perrygo who was the head taxidermist at the Natural History Museum in Washington, DC. He had a fine collection of firearms, including an absolutely beautiful silver mounted flintlock Pennslyvania long rifle with curly maple stock.

It was an unsigned piece of art. It did have one stamp on top of barrel in small block letters: "MILITIA". Perrygo explained that gunsmiths weren't sure which way the Revolution would go, so some didn't sign their work.

In the case of your pistol, however, I suspect it was left plain for an importer to mark or not mark as they saw fit.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top