Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jean-Marc S.
Hi Michael,
Although the coat-of-arms on the butt stocks are the same, the shapes of these pictured weapons (wooden butt stocks and metal parts) are clearly different...
jm
|
That's exactly what I meant when stating that the Bolk 'musket' was a composite piece, not originally belonging together in its main parts and probably built around an original - and crudely altered! - stock fragment.
Now I feel pressed to get more detailed:
I am convinced that the butt stock has been altered in its original contours; the top end of the butt is obviously replaced, all the worm holes are filled with wax, the originally rough and brown beechwood surface has been inadequately polished up to resemble that of 18th c. sporting guns and the black color is also inadequate and brandnew. All Giech muskets had brown stocks of characteristic shape - see attachments. The shape of the rounded 'belly' butt of that piece did not appear before the 1650's and must have been altered in shape. Otherwise it is impossible that is was branded with a coat-of-arms refererring to a marriage of 1633, provided that the brand is not a fake. The lock plate is of inadequate shape of ca. 1620 (!), the serpentine another inapt replacement of the 1650's (!) and both do not match the barrel regarding the pitting of their surfaces. The barrel bears what seems to be an Austrian
Bindenschild mark - instead of the correct Suhl marks - and most probably does not belong to the stock.
Again, the barrel and stock, at best, have been cut down by some 20 cm and the butt and fore end fore end both are of inadequate shape; the stock should be exactly as long as the barrel.
I know that there were at lot of poorest fragments of stocks and barrels in the Giech armory sales that have not been referred to in the catalogs and that were split up among dealers - of course in order to be 'built up' and form 'complete' new guns.
In short: the 'musket' you posted - though you did not mention it I guess that I am right and it is the one identified by me at first sight and just on the basis of a few close-ups - is
a mere fantasy piece trying to evoque the impression of a 17th c. musket to the inexperienced eye, obviously built around a completely different looking stock fragment branded with the Giech and Könitz arms.
I have recorded literally each and every 16th and 17th c. 'military' arquebus and musket ever published anywhere, and I usually recognize any single piece just by a few details.
I attach photos of two muskets from my collection, the one on top ca. 1630 and the one below ca. 1650, after the Thirty Wars War was over, the latter showing the modern Baroque belly-butt shape resembling the one on the 'musket' in discussion, with no pronounced edges present any longer. Please closely study all details, serpentines etc., and note the original rough beechwood surfaces.
m