On it. I'll take some closer up pics as well.. love the help....makes me think there is hope to solve this mystery 😀

Let me know if you need diff ones

1. The style of the pistol is not the style in use during the living times of Joseph Ebert 1710-1740. This pistol is certainly made far later.

2. The signature of J. Ebert at the front part of the lockplate indicates that this was made after the transfer of the pistol from flintlock to percussion. Would it have been made earlier, the signature, as Fernado already said, would have been hidden by the battery springs and senseless.

3. The style of the letters of the gunmaker's name and the adress "A PRAG" is totally different, so I assume that these have been made in different times by different makers.

4. So I think that the flintlockpistol has been made by an unknown gunmaker of the city of Prag and an also unknown gunmaker J. Ebert transferred it to percussion in the 1830/40s. Don't forget that the Neue Stöckel is not the bible and has lots of gaps. During the last 40 years I myself found more than 200 gunmakers worldwide not mentioned in this opus.

Amen :cool:.

Looking closer around the signature on both sides the letters are greatly worn down where the cut off parts were. To the point of barely carved on one side. Not sure if relevant but thought I'd mention.

I recieved a flinlock gun of possibly Turkish origin at same auction as well as a German police bayonet. Do I post those here too, if I hope to learn more?

Purchased a new magnifier (my eyes I no longer fully trust ☺️) and plan to go over this gun again.

Sure thing Larry; if you take into account the scope of this Euro forum; no modern stuff, like bayonets from the 20th century.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=23414



You have already shown us multiple pictures of this pistol in similar angles ;).

It took me until now to realize that I was the one you were calling Larry 🙂.

Yes I have. 🙄.....guess I was just hoping to get every possible drop of info possible. Was hoping for a more fun story behind the carving and figuring what it meant to someone.

Basically I've learned a time when made. Where it was likely modified and carved. Think that's it?

The initial would have been put into the gun when it was first made? Meaning it was commissioned by someone likely? Was this pretty common back then? Would it have been one person who .ade this gun for MR and it had no carvings and was a flintlock? Then J.Ebert got his hands on it and converted it and carved the pictures and put his name on the gun?

I know little of the customs of gun makers and owners during this period so this is all fascinating. I apologize in advance if my questions are incompetent and thought train WAY off 🙂

This is super frustrating. I asked the Ebert guy about the general consensus and got this. Not sure if it helps or hurts my search. Instead of originally thinking I knew a few facts....I now have 2 similar but very different hypothesise?



"I would say that the initials on the plate on the grip are those of a period owner, probably a gentleman of some status, this is a civilian pistol used for protection, not a military arm. I personally would discount any connection of the pistol with either India or Great Britian during it's time of use. Later anything can and did happen. I will not say that the other gentlemen are wrong as I can not verify that, but I find their reasoning suspect. Good Luck with your search for the truth."
"

Questioning your Genius, prove me wrong:-)
 

1. Would the original configuration, before conversion have been more like the gun style during his era?

2. I took the Turkish flintlock I have and did some measuring. If the connection points lined up before conversion, with nearly identical distance it is likely that the exposed areas would have been the same on both guns? The signature where it would not have been covered is still equal depth and equally worn to all the carvings. The small areas that would have been covered are worn to almost nothing? Why are there only 2 letters of his first name on the one side, if he put his name after the conversion? It looks like when it was converted those letters were on that part.

4. So the gun was converted in early 1800s to percussion? So when would the flintlock version have likely been made? Early 1700s? Lining up with the timeline for Joseph Ebert? That all seems a lot more logical in my mind, but I am just trying to pretend I am Sherlock Holmes :-)