Suhl Wheellock carbin

[Morten]

Thanks, I hope someone have som information about this

[Matchlock]

Hi Morten,


And welcome here.

I can defintely tell you every little detail about your carbine.

1. It was manufactured in Suhl after the Thirty Years War (1618-1648), in the 1660's, as a plain undecorated military saddle carbine.

2. The date 1592 is spurious and a later addition, and so are all the bone inlays in the stock.

3. The original riding bar which attached the carbine safley to the saddle by a leather sling is missing from the opposite side of the lock; formerly, it was fixed by one of the of the sidenails and a forward screw also acting as a transversal pin for the stock and barrel;

Attached, from top, are images of both earlier and later Suhl saddle carbines:

- the forerunner types of your model, from the 1630's, still featuring the sided, edged and figured shape of the butt stock, together with the latest type of wheellock carbines ever made, ca. 1690-1700; note the difference in the butt stocks.

- military wheellock and matchlock muskets showing the stylistic development from ca. 1645 to ca. 1700, the Early Baroque period that followed the Renaissance; note the change of style of the stocks; by ca. 1660, they were shaped exactly like that of your item in discussion reflecting the new sense of style, resulting in bellied and rounded butt stocks;
all guns in The Michael Trömner Collection;

- a military saddle carbine of ca. 1660;

- military saddle carbines of ca. 1670-90, with the characteristic paddle shaped butt stock; note the side bar with the ring for a leather sling.

The stocks of the later guns usually are of beechwood.


Best,
Michael

Photos copyrighted by Thomas Del Mar Ltd., by Armin König, by the Deutsches Historisches Museum Berlin and by the author.

[Marcus den toom]

I once owned a very similar example, yours has more stamps on it though.
My suhl carbine, also inlaid with bone plaques was made for the saxony market or even the Polish nobility. I would date this carbine to 1640-1650s.
I couldn't find the date of 1592 on the barrel in your pictures. The lettering ISE (?) is most likely what you meant?

The pin holding the trigger could be a replacement.

Still a nice gun on its own right.

[Morten]

Thanks for information Michael, I also thought that it was later than the markings. I cant see any of your picyures.
Marcus, it's 1592 no letters there only numbers.

[Marcus den toom]

Please cf this thread
post 12
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...t=suhl+carbine

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Marcus den toom

Please cf this thread
post 12
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...t=suhl+carbine

Thanks for that link, Marcus,

I was just busy searching but you were way too fast for an old man like me ...

Best,
Michl

[Matchlock]

[QUOTE=Morten]Thanks for information Michael, I also thought that it was later than the markings. I cant see any of your picyures.

I was still busy searching my archives for them; a profound reply is bound to take some time.

m

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Marcus den toom

,
I couldn't find the date of 1592 on the barrel in your pictures.

I did some photoshopping on Morten's picture.

Best,
Michl

[Matchlock]

Here are two pictures depicting wheellocks of the 1660's being fired: on top the author firing an original combined wheellock and matchlock musket almost 2o years ago, and a reenactor with his carbine modeled on an original.

Best,
Michael

[Sajen]

Hello,

may I ask when and why the brass and bone inlays added?

Regards,
Detlef

[Morten]

Nice weapons Michael. I should probably start a new thread but I post it here, a frien of mine have wheellock carbine that someday I hope should be mine, but I don't know where it's produced so if someone also can tell me something about this I will be happy. It's not so good pictures of this but you can see the markings and the shape of the stock. It's also have a another shape on the barrel.

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Sajen

Hello,

may I ask when and why the brass and bone inlays added?

Regards,
Detlef

Hi Detlef,

Those plain wheellock and matchlock guns soon became technically outdated by ca. 1700 and were replaced by flintlocks. The obsolete guns were sold off cheaply in large numbers by the city arsenals, and many noblemen bought them and had them "embellished" in late 16th c. style in Poland and Czechia; they then "decorated" their castles with that stuff that now looked much nicer hanging on the walls than it did before.
Such items, of course, are an absolute "no go" for any serious collector.

Best,
Michael

[Sajen]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

Hi Detlef,

Those plain wheellock and matchlock guns soon became technically outdated by ca. 1700 and were replaced by flintlocks. The obsolete guns were sold off cheaply in large numbers by the city arsenals, and many noblemen bought them and had them "embellished" in late 16th c. style in Poland and Czechia; they then "decorated" their castles with that stuff that now looked much nicer hanging on the walls than it did before.
Such items, of course, are an absolute "no go" for any serious collector.

Best,
Michael

Hi Michael,

thank you very much for the full description.

Best regards,
Detlef

[Marcus den toom]

Originally Posted by Matchlock

I did some photoshopping on Morten's picture.

Best,
Michl

Thank you Michl, but i still have doubts about the interpretation of this mark. It might just be my perspective beeing a bit off.. but i can see either a crude 1592 (especially the 5 and 9 are vague) or ISE with the E not in good shape.
The question is if you should read this as other mark SUL? The SUL are stamped within a square and are raised, the ISE is in the same manner. 1592 would be stamped without a boarder/sqaure around it and stamped inwards.

I have no knowledge (beeing 0-5%) on how stamps where made in those days.. i do know it is more common for dates to be stamped inwards without a boarder to highlight them.
Tomorrow there will be a good day to learn a new fact on firearms i feel... Michl, fire away

ps is that musket you fired/flashed by any chance the Montecuccoli?

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Marcus den toom

Thank you Michl, but i still have doubts about the interpretation of this mark. It might just be my perspective beeing a bit off.. but i can see either a crude 1592 (especially the 5 and 9 are vague) or ISE with the E not in good shape.
The question is if you should read this as other mark SUL? The SUL are stamped within a square and are raised, the ISE is in the same manner. 1592 would be stamped without a boarder/sqaure around it and stamped inwards.

I have no knowledge (beeing 0-5%) on how stamps where made in those days.. i do know it is more common for dates to be stamped inwards without a boarder to highlight them.
Tomorrow there will be a good day to learn a new fact on firearms i feel... Michl, fire away

ps is that musket you fired/flashed by any chance the Montecuccoli?

Good morning, Marcus,

The thing about that spurious date 1591 is dead easy: it was done very dilettantely by some fool who neither knew what cyphers looked like 400 years ago nor could he strike them with a sure hand; all that obviously happened only in the 20th century.

Morten, leave that wheellock carbine of your friend's alone. It is complete rubbish: the lock, stock and trigger guard all are modern replicas ; such wheellocks were built in large numbers in Spainfrom the 1970's-1980's:




One certain Spanish guy still produces them.

The barrel of the specimen on your photos is just some old flintlock barrel.


Best,
Michl

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Marcus den toom

Tomorrow there will be a good day to learn a new fact on firearms i feel... Michl, fire away

ps is that musket you fired/flashed by any chance the Montecuccoli?

No Marcus,

The gun I fired on that photo is my combined wheellock and matchlock musket, made in Suhl, and in large numbers, for Austria from the 1660's until ca. 1690.

Please see my thread:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...k+Suhl+Austria

It is #4 fr0m the right on the images of my chronological row of the development of muskets from ca. 1570 to ca. 1700, to the left of the Montecuccoli, and the one on top of the bottom atts. depicting it together with another specimen from the same series.


Best, Michl

[Morten]

Good morning and thanks again Michael, I will stay away from that one. I also have a wheellock pistol I meen should be from around the 1630's. It has no visible marks , but are marks with a flower and IR (støkel no.3556-3558) on the inside of the lock. It has spring loaded pan cover.
I can see that one of the musket you post a picture of has a similar shape of the lock.

[Matchlock]

Originally Posted by Morten

Good morning and thanks again Michael,
I also have a wheellock pistol I meen should be from around the 1630's. It has no visible marks , but are marks with a flower and IR (støkel no.3556-3558) on the inside of the lock. It has spring loaded pan cover.
I can see that one of the musket you post a picture of has a similar shape of the lock.

Hi Morten,

That wheellock saddle pistol of yours can be dated to ca. 1625-35, and the type of the lock with that bar fixing the wheel centered denotes that it was a very solid construction; I am convinced that it was produced in Suhl, and when you take out the barrel you should detect the Suhl hen and the letters SVL, most probably on the left side of the rear section of the barrel, which is covered by the forestock now.
That pistol survived the Thirty Years War and has doubtlessly seen various battles.
The ramrod does not belong; I will post samples what the original ramrod looked like.
Your pistol still features the longer form, so I dated it pre-1635; from the 1630's, most pistols were notably shorter.

The outline of the lock on your sample is much like the locks of the pair of - shorter! - pistols used by the Swedish King Gustavus Adolphus on the battlefield of Lützen in 1632; a musket ball blew him off his horse but he got killed by rapiers .

See attachments, including the perfect and firing copies of Gustavus Adolphus's pair of pistols wrought by Armin König


Best,
Michael