SCAMS AND FAKES

Fernando K · 7th January 2014, 03:18 PM

Hello:
Referring to blunderbuss wheel (wheelock), D. R. Baxter, in his "Blunnderbusses", page 11:
Fernando K

Matchlock · 7th January 2014, 03:24 PM

Thank you so much, Fernando, you're just great:

Yes, this is the one I was talking about!

And here is the original Österreichisches Kürassier-Tromblon M 1759, the very model that the barrel was taken from.
Barrel length 65.6 cm, bore at muzzle 44 mm, at tang 26 mm.

I hope that Tobias Capwell has fun taking the measurements of the barrel of the Wallace 'wheellock blunderbuss' ...

Scanned from Peter Krenn, Die Handfeuerwaffen des österreichischen Soldaten, Graz, 1985

I deaccessioned Baxter's Blunderbusses a few years ago from my library just because there was not one single honest and early piece in it.

Best,
Michael

Marcus den toom · 7th January 2014, 04:19 PM

I noticed that the double barrel pistol (.no. A1135 in the Wallace Collection) as described by Michael, shows that the lock isn't in its original place either.
There is a space between the wood en the lock and the place where the pancover slides does not line up with the wood (running horizontally to the barrel) either.
Is this because of aging, the wood shrinking or is there something else going on?

Fernando K · 7th January 2014, 04:59 PM

Marcus:

In any case, the difference may be due to a photo effect: the outer surface of the key is closer to the focus, and everything seems fallen behind.

Affectionately. Fernando K

Matchlock · 7th January 2014, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus den toom

I noticed that the double barrel pistol (.no. A1135 in the Wallace Collection) as described by Michael, shows that the lock isn't in its original place either.
There is a space between the wood en the lock and the place where the pancover slides does not line up with the wood (running horizontally to the barrel) either.
Is this because of aging, the wood shrinking or is there something else going on?

Hi Marcus,

Very well observed!

I'm afraid I cannot solve that problem without handling and dismantling the piece.
Again, the single picture on the USB stick (screenshot attached) showing the lock recess, with the locks turned inside out, is not good enough and in too low resolution to discern that question.
Btw, that item was totally neglected in the book ...

I guess we also should understand the crucial position of the Wallace curators though, who must feel torn between two feelings and desires ...

Best,
Michael

Marcus den toom · 7th January 2014, 06:45 PM

Thank you Michael,
I uncovered my own Walllace (and gromit) USB stick and looked the pistol up.
The buttstock seems weird indeed, there where the bone begins. The wood surrounding the locks is bigger (wider) and all the sudden, when the bone "ring" starts, the wood has a very weird/steep rounding to it?

the green lines show how the stock, in my opnion, should have progressed (with of course some degree of curvatude). The red circle shows the area i am concerned about. The bone plaque of the trigger is also not smoothly lining up with the "ring" of bone.
And to be honest, i find the whole bone "ring" somewhat large? It doesn't look proportioned to all the other subtle ornaments and engravings. But i lake the knowledge to make a well founded argument (currently reading baxters superimposed loads firearms book though, so some knowledge should be sinking in)

Matchlock · 7th January 2014, 07:04 PM

Hi Marcus,

That's exactly the point that I meant when I said in post #15 that the long engraved bone sleeve of the grip is not original either; also the style of engraving on the grip differs drastically from the early style on the rest of the - relatively few, which is absolutely correct! - bone inlays.
The style of engraving on the rest of the pistol is consistent withs its early date of mid-16th c. manufacture, 1554, but the bone sleeve on the grip and the inlay to its right all of a sudden change to the Nuremberg foliage style of ca. 1600!!! The alarm is ringing!

Best,
m

Matchlock · 8th January 2014, 05:09 PM

Here is a long Nuremberg-style Alsatian double wheellock wender pistol of about 1610; the lemon-shaped butt of such a type of pistol was used to crudely transform the Wallace pistol dated 1554 (A1135).

You can also identify the wrong-style engraved bone inlays on that pistol; attached please find two close-ups of the correct ca. 1610 Nurembeg foliage engravings which of course are inapt for 1554: the short (!) round sleeve in front of the pommel and the side plaques in front of the double muzzle.

The images are from James D. Julia's auction held 14-16 October 2013, lot 2486.

m

7th January 2014, 03:24 PM	#2
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Thank you so much, Fernando, you're just great: Yes, this is the one I was talking about! And here is the original Österreichisches Kürassier-Tromblon M 1759, the very model that the barrel was taken from. Barrel length 65.6 cm, bore at muzzle 44 mm, at tang 26 mm. I hope that Tobias Capwell has fun taking the measurements of the barrel of the Wallace 'wheellock blunderbuss' ... Scanned from Peter Krenn, Die Handfeuerwaffen des österreichischen Soldaten, Graz, 1985 I deaccessioned Baxter's Blunderbusses a few years ago from my library just because there was not one single honest and early piece in it. Best, Michael Attached Images Last edited by Matchlock; 7th January 2014 at 04:43 PM.

8th January 2014, 05:09 PM	#8
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Here is a long Nuremberg-style Alsatian double wheellock wender pistol of about 1610; the lemon-shaped butt of such a type of pistol was used to crudely transform the Wallace pistol dated 1554 (A1135). You can also identify the wrong-style engraved bone inlays on that pistol; attached please find two close-ups of the correct ca. 1610 Nurembeg foliage engravings which of course are inapt for 1554: the short (!) round sleeve in front of the pommel and the side plaques in front of the double muzzle. The images are from James D. Julia's auction held 14-16 October 2013, lot 2486. m Attached Images

7th January 2014, 03:18 PM	#1
Fernando K Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 672	Hello: Referring to blunderbuss wheel (wheelock), D. R. Baxter, in his "Blunnderbusses", page 11: Fernando K Attached Images

7th January 2014, 04:19 PM	#3
Marcus den toom Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Netherlands Posts: 543	I noticed that the double barrel pistol (.no. A1135 in the Wallace Collection) as described by Michael, shows that the lock isn't in its original place either. There is a space between the wood en the lock and the place where the pancover slides does not line up with the wood (running horizontally to the barrel) either. Is this because of aging, the wood shrinking or is there something else going on?

7th January 2014, 04:59 PM	#4
Fernando K Member Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 672	Marcus: In any case, the difference may be due to a photo effect: the outer surface of the key is closer to the focus, and everything seems fallen behind. Affectionately. Fernando K

7th January 2014, 06:45 PM	#6
Marcus den toom Member Join Date: Jun 2013 Location: Netherlands Posts: 543	Thank you Michael, I uncovered my own Walllace (and gromit) USB stick and looked the pistol up. The buttstock seems weird indeed, there where the bone begins. The wood surrounding the locks is bigger (wider) and all the sudden, when the bone "ring" starts, the wood has a very weird/steep rounding to it? the green lines show how the stock, in my opnion, should have progressed (with of course some degree of curvatude). The red circle shows the area i am concerned about. The bone plaque of the trigger is also not smoothly lining up with the "ring" of bone. And to be honest, i find the whole bone "ring" somewhat large? It doesn't look proportioned to all the other subtle ornaments and engravings. But i lake the knowledge to make a well founded argument (currently reading baxters superimposed loads firearms book though, so some knowledge should be sinking in)

7th January 2014, 07:04 PM	#7
Matchlock (deceased) Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking Posts: 4,310	Hi Marcus, That's exactly the point that I meant when I said in post #15 that the long engraved bone sleeve of the grip is not original either; also the style of engraving on the grip differs drastically from the early style on the rest of the - relatively few, which is absolutely correct! - bone inlays. The style of engraving on the rest of the pistol is consistent withs its early date of mid-16th c. manufacture, 1554, but the bone sleeve on the grip and the inlay to its right all of a sudden change to the Nuremberg foliage style of ca. 1600!!! The alarm is ringing! Best, m