Quote:
|
Originally Posted by adrian
I agree with all Fernando K's comments and I would also go further re the original configuration of this pistol to state that I think it has not been converted from flint. I see no sign of the holes that would have been filled on the face, and perhaps inspecting the rear of the lock, as well as the nipple lump attachment etc would determine this for certain. May I suggest that you look closely at the face for evidence, such as seen in the photo below that I have extracted from a book.
|
I must respectfully disagree. If it was made as percussion, why would there be that unmistakable shaped "platform" on the forward end of the lockplate that is of ideal shape to support a frizzen-spring which has since been removed? Also, I see a slight shadow and a partial arc where the frizzen spring screw would have been, it hints that this is a filled screwhole.
A general observation -- the proportions of the gun, and the relative crudity of the foresight and the end of the forestock suggest that the barrel had been shortened, possibly at time of conversion but not necessarily so.
The decoration on the breech and furniture, and the decorative carving on the buttstock, indicate that this pistol was quite a fine thing in its heyday. I agree with the consensus of opinion on the thread so far -- restoring it to flint is probably not a good idea, but a judicious cleaning and overall conservation work will improve it greatly and halt any ongoing deterioration.