BLUNDERBUSS FROM YORK MAIL

gbxfb · 23rd February 2012, 07:37 PM

Any blunderbuss displaying supposed Royal Mail ownership markings has to
be viewed with a large degree of scepticism, due to the significant boost
to its value granted by an authentic association. I am afraid that I don't
think that the Mail related script on this piece is remotely genuine, being
quite wrong stylistically and not particularly well executed.

The highly respected London gunmaker H. W. Mortimer was an early
contractor supplying arms for guards on Royal Mail Coaches circa 1783.
An example garniture of arms supplied by Mortimer can be viewed at the
National Postal Museum. Mortimer was a top quality gunmaker, and this
is reflected in the standard of the guns he supplied to the Crown, the
better to withstand the rigours of the Coaching service. I don't feel that this
blunderbuss exhibits the high standards of manufacture that would be
expected in a Government contract piece. The better quality English
makers from this period were justifiably proud of their workmanship and
took pains to carefully mark their products, and clear British proofs would
be present too.

Perhaps removing the lock and barrel from the stock as suggested
in an earlier post will shed some light on this gun's origins. Whilst the
general appearance suggests an English blunderbuss dating from the
1780s, I'm a little concerned about the the signs of artificial ageing
on the handrail stock and what looks like cold blue wash on the lockplate.
It's an uncomfortable fact that blunderbusses because of their value
and popularity are frequently spuriously marked and faked.

I hope that this has not disheartened you too much, but if you paid
a premium for this gun as a genuine Royal Mail piece you have good
grounds for the return of your money if it was auction or dealer purchased.

Best regards,Simon.

23rd February 2012, 07:37 PM	#11
gbxfb Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 11	Blunderbuss Any blunderbuss displaying supposed Royal Mail ownership markings has to be viewed with a large degree of scepticism, due to the significant boost to its value granted by an authentic association. I am afraid that I don't think that the Mail related script on this piece is remotely genuine, being quite wrong stylistically and not particularly well executed. The highly respected London gunmaker H. W. Mortimer was an early contractor supplying arms for guards on Royal Mail Coaches circa 1783. An example garniture of arms supplied by Mortimer can be viewed at the National Postal Museum. Mortimer was a top quality gunmaker, and this is reflected in the standard of the guns he supplied to the Crown, the better to withstand the rigours of the Coaching service. I don't feel that this blunderbuss exhibits the high standards of manufacture that would be expected in a Government contract piece. The better quality English makers from this period were justifiably proud of their workmanship and took pains to carefully mark their products, and clear British proofs would be present too. Perhaps removing the lock and barrel from the stock as suggested in an earlier post will shed some light on this gun's origins. Whilst the general appearance suggests an English blunderbuss dating from the 1780s, I'm a little concerned about the the signs of artificial ageing on the handrail stock and what looks like cold blue wash on the lockplate. It's an uncomfortable fact that blunderbusses because of their value and popularity are frequently spuriously marked and faked. I hope that this has not disheartened you too much, but if you paid a premium for this gun as a genuine Royal Mail piece you have good grounds for the return of your money if it was auction or dealer purchased. Best regards,Simon.