View Single Post
Old 22nd December 2014, 05:20 AM   #15
Matchlock's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Bavaria, Germany - the center of 15th and 16th century gunmaking
Posts: 4,310

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.

Matchlock is offline   Reply With Quote