Jackrabbit1957
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2018
- Messages
- 2,876
Hi Johnm 1, bench should be clear in about a week. Will be happy to give it a try.
Oldest Firearm I own. Queen Anne Turn Off Pistol
- Thread starter Johnm1
- Start date
armoredman
Member
I know someone you need to meet, a black powder enthusiast, actual gunsmith, retiree, and lives very near you off the 202.
armoredman
Member
Oh,, jackrabbit is here to? Imagine the three of you working together on this conundrum! Jackrabbit did a FANTASTIC job getting my 1860 in tip top shape. LAGS makes things work that everyone else has given up on.
Jackrabbit1957
Member
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2018
- Messages
- 2,876
Hi Armoredman, yep I'm here, we need to get Lags to come over as well. I think there's a lot more common sense here on the High Road. Been seeing some rather peculiar ideas floated on the other forum. Thanks for the mention on your 1860!
armoredman
Member
hawg
Member
Nice one.
Sometimes life truly sucks. Several surgeries later and I just sent off the Cerrosafe to Collectors Firearms in Houston.
@armoredman I didn't realize you were in Arizona. I'm game for meeting anyone new that you and @ jackrabbit1957 might know more than I about this pistol. I'm about to send off for the articles on Ketland and then contact Joe Puelo to see if he can enlighten us on the history of Ketland.
Last edited:
As I mentioned in the thread titled 'Hand Engraved or Stamped' I'm going to merge the discussion from that thread, this thread and the thread about Silver Mounted Pistol into this thread.
I received an e-mail response from the expert on Ketland firearms and I have learned a lot about this pistol.
My pistol is not a trade gun. It was made for the domestic British market or at least to the quality of the domestic British market.
The engraving is mostly hand engraved, except for the border and possibly the words 'Ketland & Co.'
The pistol was originally silver mounted and upon very close inspection we can find traces of silver plating in the most protected areas (I really need to confirm the silver mounted as that was a passing statement and not a direct question/answer).
The 'Ketland & Co.' definitely dates it after 1776. So not revolutionary era.
So I'm still in the market for a firearm from the revolution. But I'm darned happy with this Queen Anne.
I received an e-mail response from the expert on Ketland firearms and I have learned a lot about this pistol.
My pistol is not a trade gun. It was made for the domestic British market or at least to the quality of the domestic British market.
The engraving is mostly hand engraved, except for the border and possibly the words 'Ketland & Co.'
The pistol was originally silver mounted and upon very close inspection we can find traces of silver plating in the most protected areas (I really need to confirm the silver mounted as that was a passing statement and not a direct question/answer).
The 'Ketland & Co.' definitely dates it after 1776. So not revolutionary era.
So I'm still in the market for a firearm from the revolution. But I'm darned happy with this Queen Anne.
armoredman
Member
I told the fine gentleman about it and I believe he is quite interested in seeing your beautiful antique, sir.
Then we should get together. I’ll send you a PM for contact information.
although I haven’t heard back from Collectors Firearms yet there is another decision to make. Once we have confirmation of the angle of the thread and shape, what hardness should the replacement screw be. Using mine and the example at the Met Museum, both appear To use a screw that is softer than the Threads in the bottom of the top jaw. I have modern replacements that are either slightly too small in diameter or slightly too large in diameter. Basically either 10z24 or 12x24. Either could me modified once we know the correct angle and shape. The 10x24 would need material added and the 12x24 would need material removed. Should we even concern ourselves with how hard the replacement screw is? I suppose we could add material to the original screw screw and rethread it. But being iron instead of steel makes welding problematic. Plus my gut tells me to keep the original screw as found.
keeping in mind the “Do no harm” theory, what are your thoughts.
although I haven’t heard back from Collectors Firearms yet there is another decision to make. Once we have confirmation of the angle of the thread and shape, what hardness should the replacement screw be. Using mine and the example at the Met Museum, both appear To use a screw that is softer than the Threads in the bottom of the top jaw. I have modern replacements that are either slightly too small in diameter or slightly too large in diameter. Basically either 10z24 or 12x24. Either could me modified once we know the correct angle and shape. The 10x24 would need material added and the 12x24 would need material removed. Should we even concern ourselves with how hard the replacement screw is? I suppose we could add material to the original screw screw and rethread it. But being iron instead of steel makes welding problematic. Plus my gut tells me to keep the original screw as found.
keeping in mind the “Do no harm” theory, what are your thoughts.
JN01
Member
The hostilities continued until 1781, so you still have a window there.
Although I'm still verifying things, I think the early window for manufacture is still 1790. Possibly as early as 1785. I'm gathering my thoughts for another round of questions for Joe. But he is an active author only about halfway through is research on Ketland. I'm trying to narrow down the time manufacturing began. Joe phrased it as if domestic grade guns were exported but exporting couldn't have occurred before 1794. But avdomestic pistol manufactured earlier could have been btought over earlier. He may not know the answer to the earliest date of domestic manufacture. None of the companies records survive.
While we're waiting for the information on the top jaw screw to come back, I thought I'd find the scene from Last of the Mohicans showing a Queen Anne (I think) being used in the correct time period and intended use. The below screen shot is from around 1:40 into this clip:
the last of the mohicans battle - Bing video
The earliest Queen Anne Pistols were side locks and existed between 1650 through probably the late 1700's. It wasn't until the Box Lock action was invented around 1730 that the Turn Off Barrel pistol adopted the Box Lock Action. There isn't a lot of detail in the short clip, and the bore seems quite large for a Queen Anne, but it does appear that there is no Ram Rod and that could confirm it as a Queen Anne. Just fun fodder for now.
the last of the mohicans battle - Bing video
The earliest Queen Anne Pistols were side locks and existed between 1650 through probably the late 1700's. It wasn't until the Box Lock action was invented around 1730 that the Turn Off Barrel pistol adopted the Box Lock Action. There isn't a lot of detail in the short clip, and the bore seems quite large for a Queen Anne, but it does appear that there is no Ram Rod and that could confirm it as a Queen Anne. Just fun fodder for now.
hawg
Member
According to IMFDB this is what she used.
forward observer
Member
I thought you guys might be interested in this set that has been discussed before, but one that I just scored a few days ago. They are reproductions of a set of box lock screw barrels owned by Thomas Jefferson and issued by the US Historical society circa 1979--1981. There were a few cast balls in the case that averaged .407 so 41 cal I guess.
I have an American Rifleman magazine from 1966 talking about the restoration of the originals. It looked as though they had been in a fire with one sustaining minor damage to the cock and the other missing the barrel and grip frame. They were restored to like new and put on display at Monticello. However, there is no mention of them now as still being on display so I have no idea if they are still there.
The USHS used its imagination to create the case and accessories.
Supposedly the originals were manufactured in 1767 but Jefferson acquired them in 1786
The London maker's name on the other side is "Dealtry". I checked and the upper cock jaw screw has the threads of a #10-32 machine screw.
I have no idea who made these. They are stamped on the trigger guard strap with a hallmark that is supposed to be the Williamsburg Manufactury but I'm pretty sure that was a US cover name set up by the US Historical Society. All their previous pistol issues were made by Uberti but on those more traditional wood stock pistols the information is hidden by the wooden forearms
Cheers
I have an American Rifleman magazine from 1966 talking about the restoration of the originals. It looked as though they had been in a fire with one sustaining minor damage to the cock and the other missing the barrel and grip frame. They were restored to like new and put on display at Monticello. However, there is no mention of them now as still being on display so I have no idea if they are still there.
The USHS used its imagination to create the case and accessories.
Supposedly the originals were manufactured in 1767 but Jefferson acquired them in 1786
The London maker's name on the other side is "Dealtry". I checked and the upper cock jaw screw has the threads of a #10-32 machine screw.
I have no idea who made these. They are stamped on the trigger guard strap with a hallmark that is supposed to be the Williamsburg Manufactury but I'm pretty sure that was a US cover name set up by the US Historical Society. All their previous pistol issues were made by Uberti but on those more traditional wood stock pistols the information is hidden by the wooden forearms
Cheers
Correspondence with Joe P. has expanded the date range that this pistol could have been manufactured. Though it does lower the earliest date it also expands the latest date. Based on the company name 'Ketland & Company' it could have been manufactured any time between 1776 and 1815. The proof marks are from London but provide no additional information regarding date of manufacture. I have begun research on the silver butt cap. Great Britan has required silver to be 'Hallmarked' since the 1400's. A modern hallmark would contain 5 marks. City Mark, Assay Mark, Maker's Mark, Duty Mark, and Year Mark. Unfortunately my butt cap only has the City, Maker, and Assay Mark. All from Birmingham where the pistol was made. So far I have been unable to find a silversmith in Birmingham with the initials CF (or GF) that appears to be the maker's mark on the butt cap. The London proof marks were required to sell the pistol in London. Some had Birmingham private proof marks including the guns made for export. One thing that might help is that the Duty Mark was not required until 1784 and mine doesn't have a duty mark. Of course date marks were required since the 1400's and mine doesn't have one of those either.
I have contacted the Birmingham Assay office to see if they can help me narrow down the date of manufacture of the butt cap.
Here are the marks on the butt cap:
Birmingham City Mark
Sterling Assay Mark
I'll report the findings after (if) I hear back from the Birmingham Assay Office. In the meantime I'll be looking for the Maker CF or GF that worked between 1776 and 1815.
I have contacted the Birmingham Assay office to see if they can help me narrow down the date of manufacture of the butt cap.
Here are the marks on the butt cap:
Birmingham City Mark
Sterling Assay Mark
I'll report the findings after (if) I hear back from the Birmingham Assay Office. In the meantime I'll be looking for the Maker CF or GF that worked between 1776 and 1815.
Although I can't find a silversmith maker's mark from Birmingham in the correct time period the pistol was made, there are a couple of possibilities in London. Ketland & Co. started a sales office in London around 1785 that exported more than just firearms. So it is possible that the butt caps were contracted in London and Hallmarked in Birmingham. Unfortunately none of the maker's mark's that could be correct date back to the revolution.
As much as I want this pistol to be from the time of the revolution, it likely was made in the 1790's or later. Even though it was made to the quality of the domestic London market and was proofed in London, it is just as likely that it was made for export as they not only exported 'Trade' quality firearms but also top quality firearms. Export couldn't have occurred until approximately 1794 or so when the Privy Council issued licenses for export to America.
The question of when this pistol was manufactured is still open, but if the below silversmiths are responsible for the butt cap then the butt cap was made after 1792. Crispin Fuller, Charles Fox, and GF are potential makers. I actually can't be sure if the maker's mark is a CF or a GF due to size/wear. But their timeline isn't when I want it to be.
I suppose if we consider contracting out to a Lodon silversmith is possible, then other cities could be considered as well.
As much as I want this pistol to be from the time of the revolution, it likely was made in the 1790's or later. Even though it was made to the quality of the domestic London market and was proofed in London, it is just as likely that it was made for export as they not only exported 'Trade' quality firearms but also top quality firearms. Export couldn't have occurred until approximately 1794 or so when the Privy Council issued licenses for export to America.
The question of when this pistol was manufactured is still open, but if the below silversmiths are responsible for the butt cap then the butt cap was made after 1792. Crispin Fuller, Charles Fox, and GF are potential makers. I actually can't be sure if the maker's mark is a CF or a GF due to size/wear. But their timeline isn't when I want it to be.
I suppose if we consider contracting out to a Lodon silversmith is possible, then other cities could be considered as well.
The silversmith has been tentatively identified as Charles Freeth. According to Joe he provided most of the firearm furniture to Ketland. I have found that sellers of firearms of the time period have noted Charles Freeth as a silversmith who supplied gun furniture to the trade. I also learned that there were two classes of silversmiths. Plate workers that made platters, tankards, silverware and the like and 'small workers' that would make smaller things. Apparently they were treated as different trades and I'm surmising had different rules governing their work. I can find no reference to a Charles Freeth in the hallmark registries I can find online. Note to self, the internet is not the best place to find detailed information from over 200 years ago.
I was able to find another almost identical butt cap reportedly made by Freeth and showing the date mark. Unfortunately mine doesn't have that fourth date mark.
Here is a picture of a butt cap made for Grice and this seller was kind enough to identify the touchmarks they found. Basically this one has the 3rd touchmark for the date on the forehead of the grotesque where mine only has the two (city and assay).
Pair of Silver Mounted Pocket Pistols by Grice c1779 (collegehillarsenal.com)
The description in the above link describes the butt cap as being made by Freeth and further indicates that he registered his CF maker's mark on 9/14/1773 with the Birmingham Assay office. With such detailed reference, I sent an e-mail to the people over at College Hill and asked where they got their reference to Charles Freeth but haven't heard back from them yet. In the end, without an actual date mark on the piece, all I'm going to be able to determine is when Freeth was active. That may narrow down the potential manufacture date. But it might not. Also, I haven't heard back from the Birmingham Assay office. If they do respond I will ask them about Freeth.
@Odd Job gave me another reference that I'll also follow up on.
I have searched the grotesque at very high magnification and the date mark just doesn't exist. There are no damaged areas that could conceal another touchmark. By law at the time, it has to be there. But it isn't.
When it is all said and done, I suspect I won't know any more than I do right now. It could have been made anywhere between 1776 and 1815 with the highest likely hood it was made in the 1790's.
I was able to find another almost identical butt cap reportedly made by Freeth and showing the date mark. Unfortunately mine doesn't have that fourth date mark.
Here is a picture of a butt cap made for Grice and this seller was kind enough to identify the touchmarks they found. Basically this one has the 3rd touchmark for the date on the forehead of the grotesque where mine only has the two (city and assay).
Pair of Silver Mounted Pocket Pistols by Grice c1779 (collegehillarsenal.com)
The description in the above link describes the butt cap as being made by Freeth and further indicates that he registered his CF maker's mark on 9/14/1773 with the Birmingham Assay office. With such detailed reference, I sent an e-mail to the people over at College Hill and asked where they got their reference to Charles Freeth but haven't heard back from them yet. In the end, without an actual date mark on the piece, all I'm going to be able to determine is when Freeth was active. That may narrow down the potential manufacture date. But it might not. Also, I haven't heard back from the Birmingham Assay office. If they do respond I will ask them about Freeth.
@Odd Job gave me another reference that I'll also follow up on.
I have searched the grotesque at very high magnification and the date mark just doesn't exist. There are no damaged areas that could conceal another touchmark. By law at the time, it has to be there. But it isn't.
When it is all said and done, I suspect I won't know any more than I do right now. It could have been made anywhere between 1776 and 1815 with the highest likely hood it was made in the 1790's.
I had to travel to Houston for a short trip and stopped by Collectors Firearms to pick up the top jaw screw casting.
I suspect all I’ll get out of it is the shape of the threads and possibly the minor dimension. The shape will be observed at high magnification while the minor diameter will hopefully be measured directly from the major diameter. I have not figured out how I’m going to measure that yet.
Collectors Firearms was a great place to visit and the manager was very helpful. I was treated like a gust in someone’s home. I spent over 3 hours going over their antique firearms. I put my hands on my ultra-grail guns. A Charleville musket with the US surcharge marking identifying it as being purchased by the Continental Congress from France for use in the war for independence. For a 69 caliber it was oddly sleek.
Now I have to figure out how to drum up the funds.
Today is a travel day so I’ll update this thread when I get home later today.
I suspect all I’ll get out of it is the shape of the threads and possibly the minor dimension. The shape will be observed at high magnification while the minor diameter will hopefully be measured directly from the major diameter. I have not figured out how I’m going to measure that yet.
Collectors Firearms was a great place to visit and the manager was very helpful. I was treated like a gust in someone’s home. I spent over 3 hours going over their antique firearms. I put my hands on my ultra-grail guns. A Charleville musket with the US surcharge marking identifying it as being purchased by the Continental Congress from France for use in the war for independence. For a 69 caliber it was oddly sleek.
Now I have to figure out how to drum up the funds.
Today is a travel day so I’ll update this thread when I get home later today.
Last edited:
I have no idea what one of these are worth. I wouldn’t go to Collectors Firearms expecting a screaming deal. Their inventory alone has a significant cost to them. But even at $15K it isn’t completely out of reach.
I have an 1842 that is a copy of the Charleville (several generations later) and it is functional but Carries like a 2x4. The Charleville is just so svelte in comparison.
https://www.collectorsfirearms.com/...d-charleville-flintlock-musket-69-al8031.html
I had thought that there was no way to confirm use in the revolutionary war until I learned about the surcharge US marking. I have a lot of research to do but this, meaning a revolutionary war musket not necessarily this one though, may be my next purchase.
there are a lot of 1808 type muskets put together with parts from the earlier 1766 Charliville in preparation for the war of 1812 that are a third of the cost. Many of them carry the surcharge marking as well. I’ll have to think about that Though.
I’m still traveling and I think I’ll start a new thread on the Charleville when I can use a keyboard larger than my phone’s.
I have an 1842 that is a copy of the Charleville (several generations later) and it is functional but Carries like a 2x4. The Charleville is just so svelte in comparison.
https://www.collectorsfirearms.com/...d-charleville-flintlock-musket-69-al8031.html
I had thought that there was no way to confirm use in the revolutionary war until I learned about the surcharge US marking. I have a lot of research to do but this, meaning a revolutionary war musket not necessarily this one though, may be my next purchase.
there are a lot of 1808 type muskets put together with parts from the earlier 1766 Charliville in preparation for the war of 1812 that are a third of the cost. Many of them carry the surcharge marking as well. I’ll have to think about that Though.
I’m still traveling and I think I’ll start a new thread on the Charleville when I can use a keyboard larger than my phone’s.
Last edited:
