Afghan Pistol

[kahnjar1]

Thank you Jim for deciphering the word under DUBLIN. I could not make it out. I note your comments but wonder at the engraving of the words which do not seem to quite fit the space without squeezing up the letters. Not what I would have expected from English engravers..............
Now to the "Liege connection". I am familiar with Leige made copies, but have never seen one WITHOUT the correct Liege Proofs. Remember that Proof is and was governed by Law, and any LEGAL production would have had to abide by the Proof Laws of the time, and carry the relevant stamps.
Stu

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by kahnjar1

Thank you Jim for deciphering the word under DUBLIN. I could not make it out. I note your comments but wonder at the engraving of the words which do not seem to quite fit the space without squeezing up the letters. Not what I would have expected from English engravers..............
Now to the "Liege connection". I am familiar with Leige made copies, but have never seen one WITHOUT the correct Liege Proofs. Remember that Proof is and was governed by Law, and any LEGAL production would have had to abide by the Proof Laws of the time, and carry the relevant stamps.
Stu

Totally agree Stu, this engraving really is substandard for British work, and also agree that Liege work characteristically does carry proof marks. I am not sure how much this was enforced with Liege arms in the 18th century, but 19th century items seem always to have these marks someplace.

As I mentioned, what puzzles me is if this were Afghan, or for that matter to add impetus to the Liege question, is why would that assemblers name be behind the lock? I will say that the terrible execution of letters/serifs and the crowding in the 'CASTLE' word does suggest something like the Khyber work.

Again, it would seem if there were a sudden push to arm all these local volunteers during the Revolution, and the notable volume of pistols being probably farmed out in Ireland for finishing.....the quality of many of these may well have suffered. In the images in Brooker, the DUBLIN CASTLE were in the same configuration, and the crown and GR were positioned the same, partially obscured by the cock.
I agree, the letters are clumsy, and the line seems to be equally clumsy in execution, but work is only as good as the skill of the engraver. It does seem there are required proofs on the barrel here, which suggests that while not prettily done, it was likely functional enough.

While it seems to me virtually all Afghan guns are focused toward copying East India Company arms, and in my admittedly not comprehensive familiarity with these, what I have seen never included these kinds of apparently ersatz weapons. Brooker claims these 'Irish' examples are considered common, so reproductions or possible fakes seem unlikely.

These are just my observations based on references I have, and look forward to other perspectives as I hope to learn more on these firearms. Im glad we seem to be in accord regarding the Liege question, and the notes on the proof situation there, thank you.

[corrado26]

I have in my now more than 55 years of collecting of firearms of the 16th to the 19th century seen lots of pistols and guns made at Liège that have no ELG mark on their barrels.
Here you see two pistols made in the Dublin Castle out of the huge collection of my friend Bob Brooker. As you can see the signatures are the same. So at least the lock of the pistol in question and maybe the barrel has been made in Dublin. But all the rest, the stock, the barrel ring, first of all the eventually French or Belgium sideplate and the far later industrially produced stock are additions of Liège gunmakers.
corrado26

[Kubur]

Hi,
I vote for the English/Irish connections...
Direct trade and copies from English productions are very well known for the khyber pass. Plus Liege as far I know produced guns for the Meditterranean and African markets, as it was said armes de traite or levantines.

Rick, is your barrel the same thickness?
One photo at the muzzle seems to indicate that the barrel might be local...
Kubur

[fernando]

Stu, Liege proof marks with the configuration/s in we usually discuss them, were only implemented with the Napoleonic occupation. The best of Liege (i.e. XVIII century) was not under such compliance ... am i right ?

Udo, is it my (and others) eyes or the Dublin Castle and the King's Crest in the discussed pistol are way to far from the genuine stamps .

[corrado26]

There are clear differences between the crowns and DUBLIN CASTLE signatures on the original pistol of the BROOKER collection and the pistol in question. See the fotos and decide for yourself. Very remarkable is the missing of the Broad Arrow on the llock of the "remake".
corrado26

[fernando]

Originally Posted by corrado26

There are clear differences between the crowns and DUBLIN CASTLE signatures on the original pistol of the BROOKER collection and the pistol in question...

Bur, that is precisely what i was suggesting; maybe i didn't make it clear ...

[corrado26]

Originally Posted by Kubur

Hi,

One photo at the muzzle seems to indicate that the barrel might be local...

Why should this barrel be local? As far as I can see there are the British proofmarks on it!
corrado26

[Jim McDougall]

This has been a great insight into this pistol, thank you guys for your patient explanations. I agree on the Liege notes, the ELG proof marks do not seem implemented on pre Napoleonic period weapons as Fernando has suggested, and I would ask as well if that is correct.

While the horrible execution of the crowned GR and DUBLIN CASTLE very much make me think of Khyber as suggested by Stu the more I think of it....that front piece (holding ramrod and absent on British models) is very French/Belgian, and as Corrado notes points to the Liege theory.

Also, Corrado, I cannot find more on the placing of assembler (?) name behind lock as the 'HERBERT' in this example. If this was an Afghan copy, it does not seem they would include such an obscured detail . ,,,by the same token, in Liege it does not seem they would use that either. However if this was the same of the maker in Liege as suggested it would make sense.


As I have noted, this is far outside my field, but it is great to learn more through this discussion. Also, I have few references on British guns, but Mr. Brooker's reference is outstanding with wonderful details and most helpful, so Corrado, please extend my thanks and compliments to him!! Its so much easier to read than others I have looked through.

[corrado26]

I'd really extend your thanks and compliments to Bob Brooker, but as far as I know he is rather ill and do not know wether my email will reach him or not. I have to thank him too very much because I got from him the fotos of a very big part of his collection of pistols of many countries. This is an inestimable treasure and advantage which helps a lot in identifying unknown military pistols.
corrado26

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... I agree on the Liege notes, the ELG proof marks do not seem implemented on pre Napoleonic period weapons as Fernando has suggested, and I would ask as well if that is correct. ..

I just didn't want to previously enter in such an categorical tone; but here you go:
Liege (much before Belgium) had armor builders since the XIII-XIV century. Circa 1700 was one of the more important world centers in relation with firearms. Political turbulence in the end of the XVIII century and beginning of the XIX, disorganized the profession of gunsmith, corporate regime was suppressed, markets were closed due a state of war, followed by the establishment of a State monopoly on military materials, determining an important crisis in the industry and trade of arms. That is when Monsieur Bonaparte broke in, reestablishing the Proof house, restoring its force of law; and that is as from when 'modern' Liege marks appeared.
Still i am only the piano player .