Ethnographic Arms & Armour - View Single Post

fernando · 7th August 2007, 09:50 PM

Thank you Berkeley
Your quotations are most interesting, and almost coinciding with the references i read in my little book "The Standard Directory of Proof Marks" by Gerhard Wirnsberger, translated by R.A. Steindler. We can read here that a first Royal edict was issued in 1631 and not in 1637 as often stated, permitting the association or guild of ( seven ) gunsmiths, charging them with the responsability to keep the arms of citizen's militia in shootable condition. They were granted the right of inspection, and each such arm was marked with a crown over "A" stamp. On March 1637 gunsmiths banded together and founded the pompously named "Worshipfull Company of Gunmakers of the City of London", replacing the not less pompously named "The Master, Wardens and Society of the Misterie of Gunmakers of the City of London". The original Worshipfull Company consisted of 125 gun makers, of which 63 were London citizens. They had the powers to search for unproofed firearms, and even confiscate them, in case the owner didn't want to test them. It was also forbidden to sell arms that did not bear the crown over "A" mark.
The obliging mark at this time was the crown over "A" for the Gunmakers Company, as well as the crown over "GP" for the proof mark. In 1670 the Crown over "V" was added. During the 18th century these marks were seen together, with the barrel maker name between them. Crossed scepters, rampart lions and crowns followed as arm and barrel proof marks for long time.
However other countries, Belgium included, have their history on marks, and those should appear according to the same rules. However exceptions make the rules, and there are arms with so many different stories. Somebody has just sugested that my piece could have been made in raw condition in Belgium for a British order, and be decorated and finished at the destination, with the intentional erasing of the original proof marks ... one of so many probabilities. I have meanwhile dismounted the barrel ... not the whole mechanism, which is rather complex for me. No marks in the interior though

.
My dilemma continues.

7th August 2007, 09:50 PM	#17
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Thank you Berkeley Your quotations are most interesting, and almost coinciding with the references i read in my little book "The Standard Directory of Proof Marks" by Gerhard Wirnsberger, translated by R.A. Steindler. We can read here that a first Royal edict was issued in 1631 and not in 1637 as often stated, permitting the association or guild of ( seven ) gunsmiths, charging them with the responsability to keep the arms of citizen's militia in shootable condition. They were granted the right of inspection, and each such arm was marked with a crown over "A" stamp. On March 1637 gunsmiths banded together and founded the pompously named "Worshipfull Company of Gunmakers of the City of London", replacing the not less pompously named "The Master, Wardens and Society of the Misterie of Gunmakers of the City of London". The original Worshipfull Company consisted of 125 gun makers, of which 63 were London citizens. They had the powers to search for unproofed firearms, and even confiscate them, in case the owner didn't want to test them. It was also forbidden to sell arms that did not bear the crown over "A" mark. The obliging mark at this time was the crown over "A" for the Gunmakers Company, as well as the crown over "GP" for the proof mark. In 1670 the Crown over "V" was added. During the 18th century these marks were seen together, with the barrel maker name between them. Crossed scepters, rampart lions and crowns followed as arm and barrel proof marks for long time. However other countries, Belgium included, have their history on marks, and those should appear according to the same rules. However exceptions make the rules, and there are arms with so many different stories. Somebody has just sugested that my piece could have been made in raw condition in Belgium for a British order, and be decorated and finished at the destination, with the intentional erasing of the original proof marks ... one of so many probabilities. I have meanwhile dismounted the barrel ... not the whole mechanism, which is rather complex for me. No marks in the interior though . My dilemma continues. Last edited by fernando; 7th August 2007 at 10:28 PM.