Joseph Ebert gun early 18th century, made in Czechoslovakia
 

First, I am super excited to be here. I have been looking at how helpful everyone is to each other here, and any arguments are just fact based and intellectual instead of what I find on Reddit:-).

I have desperately tried to figure this gun and carvings out but I just can't crack it....it is also possible I am 100% the wrong direction etc.......But any help I would appreciate.

APRAG on banner, in Hindi it is something old. The direct English translation is Standpat, to rebel authority.

LAKSHMIBAI is likely the person carved in an authority position?

MR built into the hilt? Marital Race was the only initials matching in found anywhere.

Joseph Ebert? There is a famous German gun maker from this time with the same last name and nearly identical work.

Why would a Rebellion supporting gun have English translations and English letters, with an unknown German name.

The dragon symbol?

The two rebels tied to a post? Or are they British Raj maybe?

Cross in the circle with arrow through it on the trigger guard. The whole carving in a mystery.

Maybe it all has an easy explanation but I have not been able to find it and I have fallen down many many rabbit holes:-). I also have a turkish gun I will post later but there are a few almost identical ones here in a forum and that is how I ended up here:-)

While, sadly, I can't help with your question, it would be of interest to see photos of the other side of the pistol, and a top, bottom and front view as well. (That might also be of some use to those here who might be in a better position to help with identification.)

I'll do that right away. I had to shrink them quite a bit so I'll figure out and upload shortly I had it all on Google drive at 108 mp so it's been a challenge to shrink 🙂

more pics
 

Here are more detailed pics. Sorry for the original post. Hope someone can help.


.

As soon as I have editing permission I can fix it. Uploaded a bunch more.

Ebert Gun . Please seehttps://lsbauctions.com/954/beautiful-pair-of-p-ebert-sohne-suhl-pistols-50-caliber-percussion-target-pistols-antique/ for a pair of target pistols of P.Ebert Your exhibit could be an Ebert...and I noted looking at the web quite a variety of work by that gunmaker. I agree that a useful photo shot may be over the top of the breach where many gun smiths placed their names etc. I have never fired a 50 cal piston but imagine quite a recoil !!
Peter Hudson

Thanks Pete. There are so many striking similarities but then so many questions?

Who is Joseph. MR initials etc. New pics have greater detail. I screwed up my photo sizing and it made copies instead of shrinking .

Not sure if drive posts are allowed when not main thread but here.. if you don't want to wait for the admin approval of my pics. Also, I purchased these at the auction. They are not still for sale.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?...wv01WLxtOlWDRh

In these pics you can see the name etc.

The pistol appears to have a depiction of Britannia and forward of the trigger guard is the typical British pineapple design. If not British made then was made for the British market.

Hello tscheidt, Meanwhile I have a possible maker see https://www.olympiaauctions.com/sale.../view-lot/291/ Note that this item 291 is sold thus is ok to look at for forum purposes...There you can see the maker German ... KEHLNER etc etc and with PRAG inscribed.
Regards Peter Hudson

iN ADDITION THE PLATE SEEMS TO BE INSCRIBED IN CAPITAL LETTERS ...JOSEF EBERT...???

Regards, Peter Hudson.

would be nice to see this pistol in its original flintlock configuration.

Interesting you say that. I recieved this reply from someone who specializes in Ebert guns.


My first impression of the gun is that it was originally a Flintlock (notice the root of the cut off pan still remining below the percussion drum), converted to Percussion, secondly that the lock design does not say to me that it is central Germany but further east. Eugene Heer's book-Der Neue Stockel cites-"Joseph Ebert, Prag (Praha)/CS, ca. 1710-1740. I believe that the "APRAG" means "at Prag". Similarly some early guns are found marked ASUHL which can be read as made "AT SUHL". The engraving is very interesting but I don't think the gun has any connection to India. The engraving may refer to events happening in the late 17th or early 18th Century.

With Best Regards;

Larry B.Schuknecht

That's where I got lost. I originally thought it was a depiction of England in a power position over India etc. But the Aprag sent me to the rebellion. However, if the Aprag means where it was made?.....Then that makes the questions of who are the initials? Etc.

On both sides of the weapon. But I've seen that kehlner wording or name somewhere in relation to the Ebert name I think. ?

I think you are trying to read too much into some aspects of the gun, the early engravers were very creative but their goal was to decorate not record historical events particularly although that did occasionally happen on guns dedicated to an individual for heroism. Many of the old guns had markings which are now of no known meaning. Knowing that it was made by Joseph Ebert of Prag, Checkoslavakia in the first half of the 18th Century is more than we can come up with in may instances.

I have attached a scann of the Eberts in the Heer's Der Neue Stockel so you can see that there were quite a few Eberts spread all over Europe and these are the recorded ones so it was a somewhat prolific gunmaking family

This is from the guy who had the site dedicated to the Ebert's line of gun makers.

Still leaves me with more questions than answers. Who's initials? There has to be a reason for the initials. As well as 2 people tied to a pole doesn't feel like artistic expression.

Apparently a part of the line of Ebert gun makers

Can I somehow change the title to
Joseph Ebert gun early 18th century, made in Czechoslovakia.

Done ... :)

I am curious on the definitions of the word APRAG. What source describes this word in Hindi? also how is this word translated to STANDPAT in English?
I do appreciate the inclusion of this research, but am unable to locate corroboration.

As far as the pistol being German made, and in English context that is quite understandable. English officers, who of course provided their own weapons, often commissioned custom inscriptions.
It is indeed compelling to consider these bound, turbaned figures as rebels of the 1857 insurrection in India, but puzzling why such a patriotic slogan and these figures would be on an English gun (though German made).

I cannot see the name or term Lakshmibai on the gun, where is it located?
The 'dragon' on the hammer arms seems to be a dog rather than dragon.

Perhaps this gun was for someone who remained allied to the British?
but then why celebrate the act of rebelling with the term 'standpat'?
The idea of a Hindu leader or person of status having such a pistol seems rather unlikely.

Perhaps there were British who opposed the actions to suppress the rebellion? It's not as if we dont have such opposition against war or authoritarian control these days. Perhaps a pacifist in this case?
Just thoughts on the perplexing motif on this pistol, and not meant to stir editorial reactions.

For me this "APRAGA" is wrongly written and should to be read as "A PRAGA" the French version of "in the city of Prag", what is fitting to Joseph Ebert. who has been working at Prag.
corrado26

Moving this one over to the European Arms and Armoury Forum where there may be further people interested in the discussion.

https://dict.hinkhoj.com/aprag-meaning-in-hindi.words

I could be off on all that translation and have now seen numerous reasons why it is likely made in Prague. The Ebert timeline etc. So it looks more and more the Indian rebellion is a dead end.

Lakshmibai was the symbol of the Rebellion. With the Hindi track someone noticed that the depictions of her looked similar.

So we are looking at the above timeline in Prague by the looks of it.

So it seems this is pretty much 99% confirmed that it is made between 1710 and 1740 by Joseph Ebert of the Ebert gunmaker family.

So the initials in the hilt?

The depiction of the two people tied to a pole and the symbol of authority with the dagger?

The dog/dragon/pointy nosed thingy with the wavy things behind it?;-)

The cross/two lines in the circle with a flaming? arrow? on trigger guard?

If A Prag is a french depiction of the word does that have any meaning to the mystery at all? I am grasping at straws here:-)

I looked in better lighting and it appears that the people tied to the pole are wearing some sort of turban with feathers? coming from the center above the forehead.

Pictures upright now, Larry ;)-

Are you guys considering that, once this gun was originally a flintlock, the hammer would not have been that of the spitfire dog but something different ? And, for the same reason, even the Ebert name would have not originally been there, as it would be senselessly hidden under the frizzen spring ?
And so was part of the front decoration ?
I know all this is foolish but ... don't tie me to the whipping post :o.


.

The city ... yes
 

Gun smith PAUL POSER marked after his name A PRAG, or IN PRAG. And he did work in Prague.

Larry, i would have no doubt that those are the initials of the gun owner's name ... which picture you forgot to upload ;).


.

By the way ...
 

Can you show us a picture of the hammer in the full-cock position ?

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 :-)