Djezail With East India company lock

[Cerjak]

hello

Here some pics from 2 JETZAILS from my collection.I Guess that the locks are originals and the barels too and of course older than stocks.
I would like to know in which period those guns were assembled.
Any comment on it will be welcome

Regards
Cerjak

[Cerjak]

MORE PICS

[Jens Nordlunde]

Hello Cerjak,
I don't know anything about shooting weapons, but I love your pictures.
Please tell me the screw track on picture five is that screwed or is it a thread attached?
Jens

[AJ1356]

The bottome one look decent to me the lock looks real and so does the rest, the wood looks newer, unless you cleaned it in which case tisk tisk. But the areas where the wood had broken off it looks to be old, anyways the bottome one is nice probably 1800s, I have to look closely at the pics later on when I come back from work. the top one looks new, the wood and "mother of pearl" work seems new, and the rest is very crude, even the lock looks new and fake to me, I'd say that is put together sometime in the past 10 years. One this to look on these is the trigger, if the trigger is crude they are pretty much brand new made for the tourist market and sold as old. So one thing they never pay attention to when making these now a days is the trigger and trigger gaurd, apparently to them it is not important.

[Richard G]

Another thing to check is whether or not the touchhole is properly aligned with the flashpan. If it is, it doesn't necessarily mean it is old, but if it isn't you know it was never meant to be fired.
Regards
Richard

[AJ1356]

Upon closer inspection i think the lock on the top one is not original, the bottom seems to have an original lock but the 8 in 1798 does not match the rest, all the real one i've seen that have a date the numbers look the same. so did not, but the one that did, the date was uniform. I'll be home in a week or so I can look and compare it with mine.

[RDGAC]

My guess is that both locks are locally made; I don't think the quality looks high enough for a contemporary British lock, to be perfectly honest, though I'm always prepared to be wrong. The names on both are engraved none too carefully, and as AJ1356 remarks, the numbers used for the date look suspect. Also, I can't seem to find a "Loder" listed as a manufacturer of locks in my (very limited) reference material, though there is a Richard Loader working - in 1699. Having said that, the flaunched heart and date look better on #2, and I'd suggest that the cock is a replacement (judging by the peened-over tumbler square). So perhaps that 'un's the real article, with a replacement cock?

I'd also conjecture that the lower gun has the older stock - there looks to be hand polish there, and the cracks look good and nasty, the result of repeated hefty recoil. Pity someone's rubbed it up a bit vigorously. Oddly, both barrels could be old; ISTR that the more ornamented the barrel, the more likely it is to be old, and the chiselled muzzles are both similar (#1 especially) to one of mine, which is currently thought of as an Ottoman barrel of the 19th Century.

Not the most helpful chap, am I?

[rickystl]

Hi Cerjak! How have you been?
I'm pretty much in agreement with RDGAC. For sure, both locks were locally made. The markings on the locks are spurious. But, that is the most common for these Jezail's. Also note the quality of the screws. Not to European standards. The most often copied lock by the locals is the British 3rd Model Brown Bess lock, like yours.
The trigger guard on the first one looks like a much later addition. Note the screw heads are later style.
All that said, both barrels seem to be authentic older barrels with Ottoman influence as RDGA mentioned.
Richard G mentions the proper alignment of the vent hole with the pan. This is one of the first things I look for when considering a purchase.
Anyway, just my two cents worth. Thanks for posting these. There are not many of us that collect these type of guns. Rick.

[Cerjak]

Hi everbody and thank you for all for your good comments.
In my eyes the second is a good one and not for tourist but the stock had been to much cleaned .
Both have good and serious barrels ,for the lock I will remove and will take some pics from the second side.From the ioder lock the screw from the frizzen is very modern for the date is it strange the 1&7 seems good but I' m Aggree that the 8 is not so nice.
The Ramrod is a modern one and the first stock can't be very old .For the second one I guess it could be from the end of 19 th century.
Again sorry for my poor English I would like to tell more with more precision too..

Cerjak

[RDGAC]

Cerjak, photos of the insides of the locks would be great. I have been working on one of my Afghan locks recently, and even though the outside had spurious markings, they were so well done, I wasn't sure they were spurious until I got a good look at the inside. Pity they were, since I thought I might have some new and exciting transitional gun lock!

I agree about the barrels. Maybe it's just me, but I tend to reckon the heavier the better with jezail barrels, simply because I have read that this was exactly what their traditional barrel suppliers thought. Presumably it's thus more likely that a jezail with a big heavy tube has a real, old barrel.

I get the impression that newer jezail stocks are a bit thicker and heavier than the older ones, too, maybe to fit the inlays. I have 3 of my own, as you may know; all 3 have pretty thin stocks beyond the lock, mostly thinner than a contemporary European gun, but they also don't have any inlays. Anyway, that might suggest that #2's is the older again. The trouble is, of course, than #1 just might have been a good, thick stock that's recently been sanded.

These inlays, mind, can look very nice indeed. For instance: http://www.armscollectors.com/darra/afghanold.htm (scroll down to the bottom!)

Edited to add: And no apologies for the poor English. My French extends as far as "excuser-moi s'il-vous plait, do you speak English?" Better with German, though: "Entschuldigen Sie, bitte, mein Herr; sprechen Sie Englisch?"

[Jim McDougall]

Interesting jezails, and as far as I can see the markings on the locks are indeed spuriously applied locally, however aside from from the poorly executed '8' and some other rather minor flaws they seem fairly well copied. The local artisan, quite probably from the Darra Khel region in Khyber or surrounding areas, even followed the characteristic long tail on the '7' typical of 18th century dates on these locks.
I would point out that the EIC heart is actually quartered not flaunched, as that feature is two semicircles opposed rather than the quartering. I recall discussions we had trying to determine more on these heart variations of the EIC, and the idea that perhaps the type of separation used with the letters might indicate time frame for these balemarks. It would appear that this was not the case necessarily in comparing with the nusimatic evidence which of course carries good examples of these on the coins.

It seems that the lack of incised border around the lock might be a consideration as well, as it seems this feature was typically seen on British locks. I am not really too sure about that detail on some of the India pattern or Windus muskets though, and am still trying to learn more on these fascinating guns.

As far as the jezails, regardless if rather newly made or not, they represent intriguing and exotic ethnographic weapons still carrying wonderful history in thier ancestry.

[RDGAC]

Jim, we did indeed. Temporary brain failure managed completely to miss the fact, as well as the difference between quartered and flaunched. I confess I'm still at sea when it comes to markings, to a great extent; guess that's the penalty of youth for you.

I agree that these aren't badly done duplications, especially around the tails. The problem area seems more the names than anything else. They look very much cruder than even the cheapest of European locks from the 18th Century that I've seen. Added to which, the screws are almost always a giveaway with these Afghan locks, as Rick noted.

Still, they can be very good. My latest has a very nicely replicated lock, the only problem being that it carries a rampant lion and a date stamp of 1811. The engraved border is very well done and the rampant lion itself, despite heavy pitting, is still quite clear and looks good. I find myself wondering if our friends in the Khyber have acquired a set of old EIC stamps from somewhere!

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you RDG!! and its great talking again. Im glad you keep these jezail mysteries coming. Frankly speaking of mysteries, Ive been adrift on the seven seas of markings mysteries for more years than I care to say, and for every remotely possible answer there are about a dozen more questions.

This thread got me going on these British locks and it seems that a lot of the complexities are addressed in a book by Goldstein and Mowbray titled "The Brown Bess" which covers them in great detail (I havent seen it but would love to have it if I could smuggle it into the Bookmobile). I think that the identification and authentication of these is plagued by the many rifts between the Board of Ordnance and the contractors for the East India Co. in administrative issues and the numbers involved. It certainly does seem possible that actual stamps used by these contractors might have ended up with some of these makers in Afghan regions, or may have been well duplicated. Some of the markings stamped in North African weapons can be pretty convincing, and incongruent contexts are the only giveaway often.

In the marks here, as mentioned the long tail 7 nicely complies with those typically seen on English locks, and actually even the oddly made 8 looks like one found on an authentically marked English lock. The only real test is probably to locate the makers initials on the inside of the lock. Apparantly these can often vary from the name on the outside as well.

Fascinating guns these jezails!!! and the mysteries in these locks.

All the best,
Jim

[AJ1356]

The East India Company locks were mostly sub par and and were made specifically for sale to colonial regions. That is why they did not pay as much attention to them as they would to ones made for the Royal troops mostly marked Tower. Today I asked some dealers about where the fake guns are made and this was the answer I got: The ones that are really hard to identify as fake are made in Darra (pakistan) and the one that are much easier to identify are made in Kabul (Afghanistan) and then they are these 2 brothers in Kabul who made these realllllly nice pistols that are super hard to identify as fake. I have seen their work and it was really nice.

[Cerjak]

This is the photos from inside ( gun number 2) ,in my eyes this one from HIRST could be a good one but the other one seems to be a realy bad work ,
HIRST was Contractor to the East India Co and the crown" over "2" is well made.
So for me the second djezail could stay in my collection..

[Cerjak]

pics from the top one.
I need your opinions

Regards

CERJAK

[RDGAC]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It certainly does seem possible that actual stamps used by these contractors might have ended up with some of these makers in Afghan regions, or may have been well duplicated.

I had a thought a couple of weeks ago, regarding how that might have happened; namely, that when the Crown took over/absorbed the UEIC following the Mutiny, all EIC stamps, dies etc were pretty much obsolete as of that moment; the former EIC gun foundries, small-arms works, lock-makers et al now came under the auspices of the Crown, and would be stamped accordingly. I wonder if, once they were useless, any EIC stamps extant in British India at that point (and there might have been a few - I was under the impression the EIC did some gun-making in India) would be throw in the skip, or words to that effect. Perhaps, in such a scenario, a wandering Afghan comes to town, has a rummage, and thinks, "those'll look nice on my locks!"

[Cerjak]

A LOCK FROM HIRST

[RDGAC]

Well, IMO the "Hirst" lock is far the better of the two. Its markings are still spurious, but it's not a badly made lock, I'd say; the fit of the parts and overall quality of manufacture all seem consistent with other Afghan locks I've seen, and the lack of patina suggests it's all pretty new. How strong is the mainspring, and do you have any flints with which to test its ability to throw a spark?

The second one, the "Ioder" lock, is pretty bad, I must say. I've not yet seen a flintlock without a tumbler bridle. It seems that the end of the tumbler square has been peened over on the outside of the cock, which is a common enough method of holding it all in place, but the square of the shaft has been peened over on the inside of the lock; to what end I have no idea. Perhaps the square isn't actually attached to the tumbler at all, and this is an unusually sophisticated, "floating-square" flintlock! The whole thing looks extremely crude; I'm surprised if the sear nose will actually engage any of the notches. Actually, I'd be quite surprised if it works at all.

What gun is that other "Hirst" lock, in your most recent post, installed in?

Best,

Meredydd

[Cerjak]

Meredydd

Thank you for your comments ,yes for me too the first one seems good and in working condition but I still not test it with a flint ,I always afraid to damage a old gun !
I don't think that the second one will stay in my collection you are right too crude !
Regards

Cerjak

[Cerjak]

Originally Posted by RDGAC

Well, IMO the "Hirst" lock is far the better of the two. Its markings are still spurious, but it's not a badly made lock, I'd say; the fit of the parts and overall quality of manufacture all seem consistent with other Afghan locks I've seen, and the lack of patina suggests it's all pretty new. How strong is the mainspring, and do you have any flints with which to test its ability to throw a spark?

The second one, the "Ioder" lock, is pretty bad, I must say. I've not yet seen a flintlock without a tumbler bridle. It seems that the end of the tumbler square has been peened over on the outside of the cock, which is a common enough method of holding it all in place, but the square of the shaft has been peened over on the inside of the lock; to what end I have no idea. Perhaps the square isn't actually attached to the tumbler at all, and this is an unusually sophisticated, "floating-square" flintlock! The whole thing looks extremely crude; I'm surprised if the sear nose will actually engage any of the notches. Actually, I'd be quite surprised if it works at all.

What gun is that other "Hirst" lock, in your most recent post, installed in?

Best,

Meredydd

This pic is not from me I found it when I was looking for information about HIRST