Fernando K is the man able to distinguish all lock styles at first sight.
In an atempt to 'antecipate' him, i will advance that, the three fashions (a las tres modas) variant, is a mix of all three styles, “a la española”, “a la francesa” y “a la romana”. It may be identified by the safe point of the 'cats foot' being situated in the angle that forms the 'patilla' arm.
Note that the interpretation of lock styles some times differs from diverse writers criteria.

.

Hi machinist

The miquelete "to the three fashions" differs from the classic miquelete. First, from the classic miquelete retains the firing system, the actual spring acting on the heel of the cat's foot, the cat's foot with the pedrero screw with his claqsica argolla. Second The bowl no longer has the false flange as in the classic miquelete, but the flange forms partye of the bowl, and the frizen is curved, as in the French key, although it is scratched, as in the miquelete. Third, by the placement of the spring of the frizen, which is not hidden by the flange, but is in view, as in the Roman lock, in front of the main spring.

Affectionately, Fernando K

Dear tocayo

I differ with you, and with Calvo obviously. The example he has chosen is still a classic miquelete, with its bridle false, although it distances in one thing, the placement of the spring of the frizen, as in the key to the Roman. The fact that the half-mounted chock acts on the internal curve of the pin is not decisive, as there are specimens of pure miquelete with that characteristic.

It differs, of course, from the copy that has gone up dana

A hug. Fernando K

Nothing to say, Fernando; you are the one who knows. But as i previously approached, it is Calvó himself that admits the existence of different interpretations.

http://www.catalogacionarmas.com/public/recuerdos77.pdf

.

Dear namesake

Exactly, the page of Calvo is missing the copy that has been accepted by Dana. The one that has the bowl with its built bridle, and that is the one that refers the document of the real Palace that is reproduced in LAVIN

A hug. Fernando K

Caro tocaio
In what page of LAVIN's book is that reference ?

Here is an example of llave a las tres modas, made by Manuel Sutil in 1741, as illustrated in the Catálogo de arcabuceria madrileña (Real Armeria de Madrid).
Is this the correct style ?

.

Querido tocayo

La mencion esta en pagina239, en el apendice A

Una llave a las tres modas concluida segun se acostumbra, nueve doblones cencillos (sic)

Piezas sueltas
.............................
Plantilla con el Estribillo en la Cazoleta

Fernando K

Dear namesake

The mention is on page239, in appendix A

A key to the three fashions concluded as it is customary, nine doubloon cencillos (sic)

Loose Pieces
.............................
Template with the Chorus in the Bowl

Fernando K

Namesaque

Yes, it is the correct stile

Fernando K

Gracias tocayo.

My 2 cents worth. I agree 100% with K's #33 post. As you said, the man knows his miquelets. :)

Well that was informative, thanks to both of you Fernando, and Fernando K! :)

I've removed the lock to check for additional markings. Unfortunately, there are none.

For clarity on this particular Miquelet Lock, I offer these additional photos.

Always nice to hear from you too Miqueleter.

Hello everyone

Although the lock does not have any inscription, it shows an excellent work in its realization and even the engraving of is of quality

Thanks to Dana for the photos

Affectionately. Fernando K

I assume my limitation and confess my difficulty in discerning some technical details between the various lock variations. This is agravated by the lexicon applied by Fernando K being subject to engine translation ... not the best for converting technical terms. If i try to figure out the meaning of the expression 'bowl with its built bridle', i realize this means 'frizzen fixed in the pan', a detail i find too subtle to distinguish by myself when i look at the different versions; perhaps more visible if i saw these differences well signaled...
But what i think i discern with certainty is how the frizzen spring is situated 'above' or 'in front' of the main spring which, being the Armeria Real example considered correct by Fernando K, doesn't however correspond to that of Dana's example, both assumed as being part of the tres modas version. Would it be that, as Calvo (and not only) notes, Miquelete variants classification is somehow discussable ...

.

Speaking of patilla lock variations, and if Dana doesn't mind, i here upload an example of Portuguese 'patilha de invenção' lock, made by master Bartholomeu Gomes, dated 1781.

.

I certainly don't mind fernando. Collectively we have access to many wonderful examples of Miquelet Lock styles. The forum gives us a good opportunity to examine any unique differences.

Hola, tocayo

A pesar de las dificultadees de la traducion, respondo a tu inquietud

Primero. La gran diferencia con la llave "a las tres modas" esta en la brida del rastrillo, que en el miquelete es postiza (debajo de la calzoleta) y en la llave a la tres modas, como en la llave francesa, la brida forma parte integral de la cazoleta (Estrivillo, dice el documento del Palacio reproducido por LAVIN)

Segundo. El resorte del rastrillo esta a la vista, y no oculto como en el miquelete, debajo de la brida y oculto por este, y el vetice apunta en la misma direccion que el resorte mayor, y no como en el miquelte, que tiene el vetice hacia el pie de gato y el extremo aapuntando al extremo delantero de la platina. El echo de que el resorte del rastrillo este situado arriba o delante del resorte mayor, es intrascendente, y depende del constructor de la llave, y del largo que le quiso dar a la platina de la llave.

Tercero. A veces, el resorte no es plegado, sino que es curvo, como sucede en algunos ejemplares de miquelete, pero sigue estando a la vista (aunque la cazoleta tenga una brida postiza, como en ejemplar mostrado por Calvo) pero sigue la misma orientacion que en la llave a la romana

Cuarto Se puede notar que la posicion del calzo de media monta difiere en los dos ejemplares, pero no es definitorio.

Creo que es todo

Un anrazo. Fernando K

Hello, namesake

In spite of the difficulties of the translation, I respond to your concern

First. The big difference with the key "to the three fashions" is in the flange of the rake, that in the miquelete is false (under the knob) and in the key to the three fashions, as in the French key, the flange forms part Integral of the cup (Estrivillo, says the document of the Palace reproduced by LAVIN)

Second. The spring of the rake is visible, and not concealed as in the miquelete, under the flange and concealed by it, and the vetice points in the same direction as the major spring, and not as in the miquelte, which has vetice Towards the cat's foot and the end pointing to the front end of the platen. The fact that the spring of the rake is located above or in front of the major spring is inconsequential, and depends on the builder of the key, and the length that he wanted to give to the stage of the key.

Third. Sometimes, the spring is not bent but curved, as is the case with some examples of miquelete, but it is still visible (although the cup has a flange, as in an example shown by Calvo), but it follows the same orientation as In the key to the Roman

Fourth It may be noted that the position of the half-mounted chock differs in the two exemplars, but is not definitive.

I think that's all

Thanks for caring, tocayo :cool:

fernando, do you have a photo of the Bartholomeu Gomes lock at half-cock?

No ... but i can take one.

.

Thanks. That makes the half-cock sear obvious.

... And the frizzen spring so hidden behind the pan base decor.

For comparison this Patilla style miquelet lock is by Armanguer, a gun-lock maker who worked in Ripoll circa 1675

In this case the half and full cock sears working in a different order position, right ?
BTW, is this one yours ?

That is right fernando. In the case of the lock by Armanguer, the half-cock sear is below the full-cock sear. For your Gomes lock it is above and doesn't engage the toe.

Hello everyone
Although a bit redundant and obvious, I upload a scheme of the rake bridle in the miquelete. It is an insert, independent of the bowl, and I have drawn two methods of fixing to the platinum. The false bridle is placed on its flare and comes to be retained by the frizen screw.

In the three primitive miquelete specimens photographed by LAVIN (pages 156, 173, 174) the method of sjecion can be clearly seen. Who has not had a copy in the hands, and is guided only by the photographs, can be confused, and think that is part of the bowl.

Below is the outline of a French bowl, with the bridle forming part of the piece.

Affectionately. Fernando K

I must be missing it. :shrug: