Djezail With East India company lock

Cerjak · 6th May 2012, 07:37 PM

hello

Here some pics from 2 JETZAILS from my collection.I Guess that the locks are originals and the barels too and of course older than stocks.
I would like to know in which period those guns were assembled.
Any comment on it will be welcome

Regards
Cerjak

Cerjak · 6th May 2012, 07:42 PM

MORE PICS

Jens Nordlunde · 6th May 2012, 09:06 PM

Hello Cerjak,
I don't know anything about shooting weapons, but I love your pictures.
Please tell me the screw track on picture five is that screwed or is it a thread attached?
Jens

AJ1356 · 7th May 2012, 02:49 AM

The bottome one look decent to me the lock looks real and so does the rest, the wood looks newer, unless you cleaned it in which case tisk tisk. But the areas where the wood had broken off it looks to be old, anyways the bottome one is nice probably 1800s, I have to look closely at the pics later on when I come back from work. the top one looks new, the wood and "mother of pearl" work seems new, and the rest is very crude, even the lock looks new and fake to me, I'd say that is put together sometime in the past 10 years. One this to look on these is the trigger, if the trigger is crude they are pretty much brand new made for the tourist market and sold as old. So one thing they never pay attention to when making these now a days is the trigger and trigger gaurd, apparently to them it is not important.

Richard G · 7th May 2012, 11:48 AM

Another thing to check is whether or not the touchhole is properly aligned with the flashpan. If it is, it doesn't necessarily mean it is old, but if it isn't you know it was never meant to be fired.
Regards
Richard

AJ1356 · 7th May 2012, 07:19 PM

Upon closer inspection i think the lock on the top one is not original, the bottom seems to have an original lock but the 8 in 1798 does not match the rest, all the real one i've seen that have a date the numbers look the same. so did not, but the one that did, the date was uniform. I'll be home in a week or so I can look and compare it with mine.

RDGAC · 9th May 2012, 11:54 AM

My guess is that both locks are locally made; I don't think the quality looks high enough for a contemporary British lock, to be perfectly honest, though I'm always prepared to be wrong. The names on both are engraved none too carefully, and as AJ1356 remarks, the numbers used for the date look suspect. Also, I can't seem to find a "Loder" listed as a manufacturer of locks in my (very limited) reference material, though there is a Richard Loader working - in 1699. Having said that, the flaunched heart and date look better on #2, and I'd suggest that the cock is a replacement (judging by the peened-over tumbler square). So perhaps that 'un's the real article, with a replacement cock?

I'd also conjecture that the lower gun has the older stock - there looks to be hand polish there, and the cracks look good and nasty, the result of repeated hefty recoil. Pity someone's rubbed it up a bit vigorously. Oddly, both barrels could be old; ISTR that the more ornamented the barrel, the more likely it is to be old, and the chiselled muzzles are both similar (#1 especially) to one of mine, which is currently thought of as an Ottoman barrel of the 19th Century.

Not the most helpful chap, am I?

7th May 2012, 02:49 AM	#4
AJ1356 Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Nashville Posts: 314	The bottome one look decent to me the lock looks real and so does the rest, the wood looks newer, unless you cleaned it in which case tisk tisk. But the areas where the wood had broken off it looks to be old, anyways the bottome one is nice probably 1800s, I have to look closely at the pics later on when I come back from work. the top one looks new, the wood and "mother of pearl" work seems new, and the rest is very crude, even the lock looks new and fake to me, I'd say that is put together sometime in the past 10 years. One this to look on these is the trigger, if the trigger is crude they are pretty much brand new made for the tourist market and sold as old. So one thing they never pay attention to when making these now a days is the trigger and trigger gaurd, apparently to them it is not important. Last edited by AJ1356; 7th May 2012 at 01:28 PM.

6th May 2012, 07:37 PM	#1
Cerjak Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: FRANCE Posts: 1,065	Djezail With East India company lock hello Here some pics from 2 JETZAILS from my collection.I Guess that the locks are originals and the barels too and of course older than stocks. I would like to know in which period those guns were assembled. Any comment on it will be welcome Regards Cerjak Attached Images

6th May 2012, 07:42 PM	#2
Cerjak Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: FRANCE Posts: 1,065	More pics MORE PICS Attached Images

6th May 2012, 09:06 PM	#3
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hello Cerjak, I don't know anything about shooting weapons, but I love your pictures. Please tell me the screw track on picture five is that screwed or is it a thread attached? Jens

7th May 2012, 11:48 AM	#5
Richard G Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 405	Another thing to check is whether or not the touchhole is properly aligned with the flashpan. If it is, it doesn't necessarily mean it is old, but if it isn't you know it was never meant to be fired. Regards Richard

7th May 2012, 07:19 PM	#6
AJ1356 Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Nashville Posts: 314	Upon closer inspection i think the lock on the top one is not original, the bottom seems to have an original lock but the 8 in 1798 does not match the rest, all the real one i've seen that have a date the numbers look the same. so did not, but the one that did, the date was uniform. I'll be home in a week or so I can look and compare it with mine.

9th May 2012, 11:54 AM	#7
RDGAC Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: York, UK Posts: 167	My guess is that both locks are locally made; I don't think the quality looks high enough for a contemporary British lock, to be perfectly honest, though I'm always prepared to be wrong. The names on both are engraved none too carefully, and as AJ1356 remarks, the numbers used for the date look suspect. Also, I can't seem to find a "Loder" listed as a manufacturer of locks in my (very limited) reference material, though there is a Richard Loader working - in 1699. Having said that, the flaunched heart and date look better on #2, and I'd suggest that the cock is a replacement (judging by the peened-over tumbler square). So perhaps that 'un's the real article, with a replacement cock? I'd also conjecture that the lower gun has the older stock - there looks to be hand polish there, and the cracks look good and nasty, the result of repeated hefty recoil. Pity someone's rubbed it up a bit vigorously. Oddly, both barrels could be old; ISTR that the more ornamented the barrel, the more likely it is to be old, and the chiselled muzzles are both similar (#1 especially) to one of mine, which is currently thought of as an Ottoman barrel of the 19th Century. Not the most helpful chap, am I?