1576 dated musket - unknown marking

[adrian]

I am hoping that someone here can identify this stamp for me please, I think that it is distinct enough to be a gunmaker's mark, rather than some sort of decoration.

It is on the breech of a 1576 dated Matchlock musket, it is quite a weighty piece, in 10 bore. All the provenance I have is that it was part of the Apethorpe Hall arms & armour that was auctioned in 1978.

The barrel, once about 48" has been cut down to 39.25" - whether to lighten it for use in the Civil War is a matter of speculation. It has, in modern times, been restocked and restored, some of the lock parts are perhaps original - but mainly the barrel is of historic interest.

[Raf]

Presumably you are aware that the Apethorpe arms and armour were in part from the collection of the mid nineteenth century collector Sir Samuel Rush Meyrick, Bart. via Dr. William Meyrick, and Leonard Brassey, Esq., MP.
Adds interest.

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Raf

Presumably you are aware that the Apethorpe arms and armour were in part from the collection of the mid nineteenth century collector Sir Samuel Rush Meyrick, Bart. via Dr. William Meyrick, and Leonard Brassey, Esq., MP.
Adds interest.

MOST salient addition Raf!!! Meyrick was one of the key sages of arms and armor study whose venerable writings were the foundation of the Kernoozers
and DeCossey, Dean, Laking et al.

The very notion that this example was from these esteemed collection would suggest that more on these markings must exist in the notes and works of these gentlemen. It seems as if I have seen this very arrangement, if not even the date or close to it in similar fashion on another gun.

How I miss Michael (Matchlock).

[Jim McDougall]

Just realized where I'd seen that serpent mark...it was a guild oriented marking used by armorers in Milan, and seems to have been used in some variation. In some references it is suggested to be a 'makers' mark, however I think that is an assumption rather than to a recorded maker.

It seems that when a date is applied to a sword blade openly, without other lettering, marks etc. that perhaps it is a commemorative, possibly placed to recall an important event date to the owner (this 1576 date seems scratched in by the owner with the erratic scripting).

[fernando]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

...How I miss Michael (Matchlock)...

Indeed Jim !

[fernando]

The catalogue:

[adrian]

Thank you gentlemen, I had encountered mention of Sir Samuel Rush Meyrick in connection with the Apethorpe Hall collection but had no realised that in itself was significant. I will get in touch with the Royal Armouries, later this year, to request a search of the catalogue they hold of that collection.

[Marcus den toom]

For a similar dating style on a barrel, see:
http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showth...highlight=Graz

[Jim McDougall]

Finally found it!
In Gyngell p.75 ("Armorers Marks", 1959), listed as a 16th c Milanese swordmakers mark c.1600.
This of course does not limit to sword makers as armorers handled all forms of weaponry, and as earlier noted, this marking may well simply apply to some sort of guild representation or simply be intended as to quality etc.

The snake symbol as I earlier noted was from Milanese heraldry in the city arms and derives from such a device from Constantinople in 11th c. becoming adopted in Milan as the 'biscione' (grass snake?) as a heraldic charge.
By 16th century, the Sforza dynasty had the allegoric device in their arms.

These stylized and simpler versions of the snake seem to have been used in variation rather in the manner of the 'Passau wolf', or the 'sickle marks' og Genoa, but are by no means apparently as ubiquitous.

In "European Makers of Edged Weapons, Their Marks" Staffan Kinman, 2015, p.106 this very snake mark (from Gyngell) is shown attributed to the famed Ferara brothers, of Belluno. That city was under Milanese jurisdiction then.

In the entry with similar date markings on the barrel, 1581 and 1583 it is noted by the mark the barrel was by Georg LAMPL (?) of Graz (Styria).
In Styrian references I can only find a George LINL working 1577-1608.

It would seem that guns from various provenance were stored in the Styrian armory at Graz (built 1642-1645) in remarkable quantity. This would seem to impair my earlier suggestion that perhaps these dates added to the barrels were added at the Styrian armory.....UNLESS these were applied later of course as they entered the armory.

While the Milanese snake mark noted here with the Gyngell entry as well as the Kinman, both to swordsmiths are with the serpent straight.......and the example in discussion has a coiled tail, this may suggest an armorer perhaps indeed in Graz, using his interpretation of the snake as a quality indicator. This would be in the same manner that Styrian blade makers so often used the so called "Genoan' sickle marks. or Solingen used the Passau wolf.

As always, like to keep it brief

[Tordenskiold1721]

Nice composite, with a 16th century barrel with late 17th century stock and mounts. Period composite or decorative composite made up of a mix of 16th century and 17th century parts ?

[Jim McDougall]

Originally Posted by Tordenskiold1721

Nice composite, with a 16th century barrel with late 17th century stock and mounts. Period composite or decorative composite made up of a mix of 16th century and 17th century parts ?

Most weapons were in effect 'composite' in these times whether swords or guns. Barrels were made by those who specialized in them, just as lock makers, stock makers, and they were assembled by artisans and armorers who were the final purveyors of these weapons.

Through their working lives, weapons were often refurbished as parts failed or to the preference of the owner. Obviously with guns, with the advent of the percussion system lock, flintlocks were replaced etc.

It is often surprising just how long the 'working lives' of weapons often were, and as seems to be the case, gun barrels or entirely assembled guns as these often were long held in armories or other until required. It would not be unusual for 'old guns' like this to be held in an armory for 100 years or more.
As noted in the original post however, this example was clearly assembled in modern times, with the barrel, which has indeed been shortened, being the most important element of the gun as it is presently.

[adrian]

Thank you Jim for your suggestion of a connection to the Milanese serpent mark, I have that reference book and had looked carefully through it and although I had seen vague similarities with some stamp styles I had not recognized the possibility that you have pointed to.

The gun is certainly a composite with the stock, clearly not the original one, coming to it so late that it was in a period where there was very limited understanding about matchlock mechanisms because the craftsman who made that stock fitted that lock in a 'back-action' position and was unconcerned that it did not function. Clearly his job was merely to get it looking complete for an armorial display, probably in the mid to late Victorian period when such displays were very popular.

The lock was 'restored' to a more correct position and to working order several decades ago, which was arranged by the collector from whom I acquired it. A look at the full length photo will detect evidence of the site of where the lock was when erroneously set-up as 'back-action'.

[Tordenskiold1721]

Thank you Adrian ! I thought I observed "something" but could not be sure as I don't have your interesting barrel in my hands

[adrian]

The Catalogue - Catalogue of the Meyrick Arms & Armour

This firearm is not in that catalogue, the Royal Armouries very kindly looked through it, three times apparently, and report that there is not one firearm in the catalogue, it is mostly rapiers and armour with a few glaives.