Djezail With East India company lock

[RDGAC]

Cerjak, photos of the insides of the locks would be great. I have been working on one of my Afghan locks recently, and even though the outside had spurious markings, they were so well done, I wasn't sure they were spurious until I got a good look at the inside. Pity they were, since I thought I might have some new and exciting transitional gun lock!

I agree about the barrels. Maybe it's just me, but I tend to reckon the heavier the better with jezail barrels, simply because I have read that this was exactly what their traditional barrel suppliers thought. Presumably it's thus more likely that a jezail with a big heavy tube has a real, old barrel.

I get the impression that newer jezail stocks are a bit thicker and heavier than the older ones, too, maybe to fit the inlays. I have 3 of my own, as you may know; all 3 have pretty thin stocks beyond the lock, mostly thinner than a contemporary European gun, but they also don't have any inlays. Anyway, that might suggest that #2's is the older again. The trouble is, of course, than #1 just might have been a good, thick stock that's recently been sanded.

These inlays, mind, can look very nice indeed. For instance: http://www.armscollectors.com/darra/afghanold.htm (scroll down to the bottom!)

Edited to add: And no apologies for the poor English. My French extends as far as "excuser-moi s'il-vous plait, do you speak English?" Better with German, though: "Entschuldigen Sie, bitte, mein Herr; sprechen Sie Englisch?"

[Jim McDougall]

Interesting jezails, and as far as I can see the markings on the locks are indeed spuriously applied locally, however aside from from the poorly executed '8' and some other rather minor flaws they seem fairly well copied. The local artisan, quite probably from the Darra Khel region in Khyber or surrounding areas, even followed the characteristic long tail on the '7' typical of 18th century dates on these locks.
I would point out that the EIC heart is actually quartered not flaunched, as that feature is two semicircles opposed rather than the quartering. I recall discussions we had trying to determine more on these heart variations of the EIC, and the idea that perhaps the type of separation used with the letters might indicate time frame for these balemarks. It would appear that this was not the case necessarily in comparing with the nusimatic evidence which of course carries good examples of these on the coins.

It seems that the lack of incised border around the lock might be a consideration as well, as it seems this feature was typically seen on British locks. I am not really too sure about that detail on some of the India pattern or Windus muskets though, and am still trying to learn more on these fascinating guns.

As far as the jezails, regardless if rather newly made or not, they represent intriguing and exotic ethnographic weapons still carrying wonderful history in thier ancestry.

[RDGAC]

Jim, we did indeed. Temporary brain failure managed completely to miss the fact, as well as the difference between quartered and flaunched. I confess I'm still at sea when it comes to markings, to a great extent; guess that's the penalty of youth for you.

I agree that these aren't badly done duplications, especially around the tails. The problem area seems more the names than anything else. They look very much cruder than even the cheapest of European locks from the 18th Century that I've seen. Added to which, the screws are almost always a giveaway with these Afghan locks, as Rick noted.

Still, they can be very good. My latest has a very nicely replicated lock, the only problem being that it carries a rampant lion and a date stamp of 1811. The engraved border is very well done and the rampant lion itself, despite heavy pitting, is still quite clear and looks good. I find myself wondering if our friends in the Khyber have acquired a set of old EIC stamps from somewhere!

[Jim McDougall]

Thank you RDG!! and its great talking again. Im glad you keep these jezail mysteries coming. Frankly speaking of mysteries, Ive been adrift on the seven seas of markings mysteries for more years than I care to say, and for every remotely possible answer there are about a dozen more questions.

This thread got me going on these British locks and it seems that a lot of the complexities are addressed in a book by Goldstein and Mowbray titled "The Brown Bess" which covers them in great detail (I havent seen it but would love to have it if I could smuggle it into the Bookmobile). I think that the identification and authentication of these is plagued by the many rifts between the Board of Ordnance and the contractors for the East India Co. in administrative issues and the numbers involved. It certainly does seem possible that actual stamps used by these contractors might have ended up with some of these makers in Afghan regions, or may have been well duplicated. Some of the markings stamped in North African weapons can be pretty convincing, and incongruent contexts are the only giveaway often.

In the marks here, as mentioned the long tail 7 nicely complies with those typically seen on English locks, and actually even the oddly made 8 looks like one found on an authentically marked English lock. The only real test is probably to locate the makers initials on the inside of the lock. Apparantly these can often vary from the name on the outside as well.

Fascinating guns these jezails!!! and the mysteries in these locks.

All the best,
Jim

[AJ1356]

The East India Company locks were mostly sub par and and were made specifically for sale to colonial regions. That is why they did not pay as much attention to them as they would to ones made for the Royal troops mostly marked Tower. Today I asked some dealers about where the fake guns are made and this was the answer I got: The ones that are really hard to identify as fake are made in Darra (pakistan) and the one that are much easier to identify are made in Kabul (Afghanistan) and then they are these 2 brothers in Kabul who made these realllllly nice pistols that are super hard to identify as fake. I have seen their work and it was really nice.

[Cerjak]

This is the photos from inside ( gun number 2) ,in my eyes this one from HIRST could be a good one but the other one seems to be a realy bad work ,
HIRST was Contractor to the East India Co and the crown" over "2" is well made.
So for me the second djezail could stay in my collection..

[Cerjak]

pics from the top one.
I need your opinions

Regards

CERJAK

[RDGAC]

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

It certainly does seem possible that actual stamps used by these contractors might have ended up with some of these makers in Afghan regions, or may have been well duplicated.

I had a thought a couple of weeks ago, regarding how that might have happened; namely, that when the Crown took over/absorbed the UEIC following the Mutiny, all EIC stamps, dies etc were pretty much obsolete as of that moment; the former EIC gun foundries, small-arms works, lock-makers et al now came under the auspices of the Crown, and would be stamped accordingly. I wonder if, once they were useless, any EIC stamps extant in British India at that point (and there might have been a few - I was under the impression the EIC did some gun-making in India) would be throw in the skip, or words to that effect. Perhaps, in such a scenario, a wandering Afghan comes to town, has a rummage, and thinks, "those'll look nice on my locks!"

[Cerjak]

A LOCK FROM HIRST

[RDGAC]

Well, IMO the "Hirst" lock is far the better of the two. Its markings are still spurious, but it's not a badly made lock, I'd say; the fit of the parts and overall quality of manufacture all seem consistent with other Afghan locks I've seen, and the lack of patina suggests it's all pretty new. How strong is the mainspring, and do you have any flints with which to test its ability to throw a spark?

The second one, the "Ioder" lock, is pretty bad, I must say. I've not yet seen a flintlock without a tumbler bridle. It seems that the end of the tumbler square has been peened over on the outside of the cock, which is a common enough method of holding it all in place, but the square of the shaft has been peened over on the inside of the lock; to what end I have no idea. Perhaps the square isn't actually attached to the tumbler at all, and this is an unusually sophisticated, "floating-square" flintlock! The whole thing looks extremely crude; I'm surprised if the sear nose will actually engage any of the notches. Actually, I'd be quite surprised if it works at all.

What gun is that other "Hirst" lock, in your most recent post, installed in?

Best,

Meredydd