Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Can Anyone Make Any Sense or Decipher the Bottom Line of this Branded on a Stock

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Huntingdon
    Posts
    9,253
    [QUOTE=Fronteria;6403220]
    Quote Originally Posted by tacfoley View Post
    'Tower' was not a proof-house, but an assembly point where all the many components came together. It was, after all, THE armoury for London.


    Hi. Tac
    The facility for the “Private Proof” of gun barrels at the Tower was available until about 1810, so the crossed sceptre & crown mark can be found on civilian firearms made until this date.
    Tower Private Proof marks – the crossed sceptres and crown stamped twice was used from c1740 until c1810.
    My India Pattern Musket was made in 1799 as it was purchased from Robert Wheeler who made it as a private purchase musket it bears the crossed sceptre & crown mark proof marks stamped twice.

    From about 1751 the Ordnance proof house, which was situated on Tower Wharf close to the Tower of London, started proving privately made civilian firearms.
    To differentiate between the Ordnance and civilian markings, the mark chosen for civilian or “Private Proof” was the crossed sceptres & crown, struck twice, one mark above the other - but without the Royal Cypher mark.
    This service had the added attraction of being available, at no extra cost, to “foreigners”, i.e., those gunmakers who did not work in London and were not bound by the membership rules of the London Gunmakers Company. As a consequence, the London Gunmakers Company lost revenue and eventually had to adjust its prices for proving arms.
    Thank you for that information.

    tac

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Chelmsford
    Posts
    1,351
    Hi


    A possibility for this gun was that it was owned by one of those trading companies that operated like private armies in America and Canada , they went out to discover trade routes and supplies looking for the indigenous people of the region to trade with .
    So Simpson could be a company name or the name of the company owner / financer , 188 could be the number of the gun issued , and the other bit may be a county in the UK .
    Just a thought .

    Dave

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Simpson
    Last edited by Dave 101; 01-07-2014 at 02:32 PM.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Chelmsford
    Posts
    801
    Quote Originally Posted by Dave 101 View Post
    Hi


    A possibility for this gun was that it was owned by one of those trading companies that operated like private armies in America and Canada , they went out to discover trade routes and supplies looking for the indigenous people of the region to trade with .
    So Simpson could be a company name or the name of the company owner / financer , 188 could be the number of the gun issued , and the other bit may be a county in the UK .
    Just a thought .

    Dave

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Simpson
    Hi. Dave
    That has got some substance as (Robert Wheeler Gunmaker, became Wheeler and Son after 1808) they were known to have supplied trade guns to The Hudson Bay Company and Robert and his son became arms dealers rather than gunmakers as they purchased 39,000 obsolete flintlock muskets which were sold in the colonies from Tower Armouries around 1839 when the percussion cap superseded the flintlock weapons.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •