Blunderbuss with Cork Mail markings

ChrisPer · 8th September 2016, 10:08 AM

Yes the blunderbuss is real, just not a museum-quality example. Its the others that bother me. In another forum I saw someone post a pic of a 'matchlock pistol' to support the idea that they were used in Europe, but it clearly was a cast-zinc decorator and the very weird stock designed I think so an ordinary piece of 75x42 timber could be used.

Kmaddock · 8th September 2016, 12:23 PM

Hi Chris
The blunderbuss is not real, it not a tourist item though, it is something made to deceive ( my opinion)
But I reckon without the mail stamps and a few other things I am not going to get into on an open forum, this blunderbuss could be made to completely fly under the radar and be purchased for not inconsiderable money as the genuine article.
I have purchased fake items and if is a learning experience
My lesson was not that expensive but we'll learned all the same.
Maybe a thread entitled " my mistake purchases" would be handy as a reference of what is out there.
I am not a regular enough contributer to this forum to start such a thread though as it is not really what the forum is for.
Regards
Ken

Pukka Bundook · 8th September 2016, 03:14 PM

Ken
I appreciate your thoughts on this, and there are all sorts of ways to lose hard earned cash!

Another area to be taken that is not new but shows up quite often, is the case of flint pocket pistols by Nock or Twigg;
These show up not infrequently at auction, nice little pistols, but with Birmingham proofs of the post 1813 type!
Both Twigg and old Henry Nock were dead by then, and should warn us that something is amiss. (!)
All this means is that an arm does not have to be new to deceive us. It has been going on for a Long time and if something is genuinely Old, it does not mean it is genuine as represented.
Both Birmingham and some Belgian shops have been using famous names forever it seems.
The Cork 'buss throws us a bit, as Irish arms need have no proofs at this date. Somewhere I have seen that stamp before & can't think where....but Think it was on another shady piece!

All best,
Richard.

Jim McDougall · 13th September 2016, 11:55 PM

While this fascinating topic has pretty much run its course with the determination that the Cork example may not be authentic, it does bring up interesting details about these rather esoteric weapons.

The use of Royal Mail coaches with blunderbuss armed guards was proposed about 1784 by John Palmer. Only the guards were permitted to be armed, and often had a brace of pistols as well as these type blunderbusses. According to some sources, a highwayman attempted robbery of one of these coaches and was killed, with no further instances of same recorded, as far as is known.
These blunderbuss guns had become popular among civilians during the English Civil War (1642-48) and though sometimes used by troops, they typically were outside the regular military protocols so usually not stamped with acceptance or other government markings.

By the latter 18th century, these guns and pistols for the prestigious Royal Mail coaches were typically well made and by makers intent on good showing with their products. One of the most commonly known makers were the Mortimers.
On these examples, the typical phrase was
FOR HIS MAJESTIES MAIL COACHES
This was around the end of the barrel and there was usually an asterisk amidst the wording.
These words on both blunderbuss and pistols.

The 'coach' guns continued in use well into 19th c about c 1840s
Found no data on names such as 'Cork' or 'York' mail. Mail routes were usually numbered with three numbers (i.e. 209, one of the only routes 'named' as 'Quicksilver') so does not seem such mkgs on barrel
would be usual.

On some other makers, particularly Ketland & Co. the words:
HAPPY IS HE THAT ESCAPETH ME
The same on one by Joseph Sanders c. 1778-1788
Top of barrel: SANDERSBOROUGH LONDON

Some apparently had R.P. (=Royal Post) near trigger guard

I could not find evidence of any FLY OR DIE phrase nor any reference to it.

Other blunderbuss myths:
* the pilgrims did not have blunderbusses, they were far from well known and they had mostly matchlocks and wheellocks,
* the notion of loading detritus such as nails, glass etc. into the barrel
was not good.....these could jam and explode the gun.

The flared barrel on blunderbusses was not to spread shot etc. but for quick and easier loading , i.e. in bounding coach .

It would be great to see some examples of these 'coach guns'

It seems like there was an article on these in "Man at Arms" magazine, but cannot recall issue.

fernando · 14th September 2016, 05:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim McDougall

... It would be great to see some examples of these 'coach guns'...

Interesting question, Jim, starting by sorting it by either typology or coloquial terms ... or even by period.

What is precisely a coach gun ?
Does a coach gun have to be the blunderbuss type ?
Do navy blunderbusses have something to distinguish them from those used in coaches ... or those used afoot ... let alone the bronze barrel version ?

How would you classsify the following examples ?

.

Jim McDougall · 14th September 2016, 06:42 PM

Excellent questions Fernando! Thank you.
My use of the term 'coach gun' was inadvertent in this case, as that particular term was not coined until 1858 with the well known Wells Fargo & Co. stagecoaches. While popularly associated with 'riding shotgun' as to the guard with shotgun in the seat next to the driver, these guards were actually referred to as 'shotgun messengers' . An odd term, the message must have been, '...don't even think about it!"

The blunderbuss enigma is complicated by the fact that these odd early 'shotguns' were actually in varying forms closely related, with different terms and characters in degree. The most significant of course was the shorter barrel and flared bell muzzle . The 'musketoon' was a closely related type but I cannot specify exactly what the differences are.

While the blunderbuss originated around second half of 16thc.it did not become widely known until mid century 17th. Its use militarily seems sketchy until military pattern of 1715 was established. Even then, its use seems limited.
The use of these aboard vessels appears more substantiated, and examples often used the 'pintle' swivel strapping them to the deck rails to absorb some of the notable recoil. These so equipped were termed 'boat guns' .

While the use of brass/brnze barrel would presume naval use, that feature seems characteristic of many of these guns, most notably of course, the Royal Coach blunderbusses (and accompanying pistols). There are many examples of naval blunderbusses with iron barrel.

Naval use of blunderbusses appears to have faltered c. 1810, with general military use slightly after.
However, the Royal Coach mail were still ordering and using these through mid 19th c.

I think that classification of most of these guns would be better done by those here with firearms expertise and they would be likely denoted by ignition system (i.e. flintlock, miguelet etc.) and as mentioned, they may fall into musketoon type vs. blunderbuss.

Thank you Fernando for the questions and I hope this might bring more dialogue to this topic. There is clearly a lot to learn and most of what I have added is purely from on call research I did before writing .

machinist · 14th September 2016, 08:32 PM

Such a beautiful set of guns Fernando, thank you for posting them, they really brighten my day!
They look very stylistically from the peninsula, are there any you think are Portuguese ?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Switch to Linear Mode Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

8th September 2016, 10:08 AM	#1
ChrisPer Member Join Date: Sep 2014 Posts: 35	Yes the blunderbuss is real, just not a museum-quality example. Its the others that bother me. In another forum I saw someone post a pic of a 'matchlock pistol' to support the idea that they were used in Europe, but it clearly was a cast-zinc decorator and the very weird stock designed I think so an ordinary piece of 75x42 timber could be used.

8th September 2016, 12:23 PM	#2
Kmaddock Member Join Date: May 2014 Location: Ireland Posts: 543	Hi Chris The blunderbuss is not real, it not a tourist item though, it is something made to deceive ( my opinion) But I reckon without the mail stamps and a few other things I am not going to get into on an open forum, this blunderbuss could be made to completely fly under the radar and be purchased for not inconsiderable money as the genuine article. I have purchased fake items and if is a learning experience My lesson was not that expensive but we'll learned all the same. Maybe a thread entitled " my mistake purchases" would be handy as a reference of what is out there. I am not a regular enough contributer to this forum to start such a thread though as it is not really what the forum is for. Regards Ken

8th September 2016, 03:14 PM	#3
Pukka Bundook Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Posts: 803	Ken I appreciate your thoughts on this, and there are all sorts of ways to lose hard earned cash! Another area to be taken that is not new but shows up quite often, is the case of flint pocket pistols by Nock or Twigg; These show up not infrequently at auction, nice little pistols, but with Birmingham proofs of the post 1813 type! Both Twigg and old Henry Nock were dead by then, and should warn us that something is amiss. (!) All this means is that an arm does not have to be new to deceive us. It has been going on for a Long time and if something is genuinely Old, it does not mean it is genuine as represented. Both Birmingham and some Belgian shops have been using famous names forever it seems. The Cork 'buss throws us a bit, as Irish arms need have no proofs at this date. Somewhere I have seen that stamp before & can't think where....but Think it was on another shady piece! All best, Richard.

13th September 2016, 11:55 PM	#4
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,193	While this fascinating topic has pretty much run its course with the determination that the Cork example may not be authentic, it does bring up interesting details about these rather esoteric weapons. The use of Royal Mail coaches with blunderbuss armed guards was proposed about 1784 by John Palmer. Only the guards were permitted to be armed, and often had a brace of pistols as well as these type blunderbusses. According to some sources, a highwayman attempted robbery of one of these coaches and was killed, with no further instances of same recorded, as far as is known. These blunderbuss guns had become popular among civilians during the English Civil War (1642-48) and though sometimes used by troops, they typically were outside the regular military protocols so usually not stamped with acceptance or other government markings. By the latter 18th century, these guns and pistols for the prestigious Royal Mail coaches were typically well made and by makers intent on good showing with their products. One of the most commonly known makers were the Mortimers. On these examples, the typical phrase was FOR HIS MAJESTIES MAIL COACHES This was around the end of the barrel and there was usually an asterisk amidst the wording. These words on both blunderbuss and pistols. The 'coach' guns continued in use well into 19th c about c 1840s Found no data on names such as 'Cork' or 'York' mail. Mail routes were usually numbered with three numbers (i.e. 209, one of the only routes 'named' as 'Quicksilver') so does not seem such mkgs on barrel would be usual. On some other makers, particularly Ketland & Co. the words: HAPPY IS HE THAT ESCAPETH ME The same on one by Joseph Sanders c. 1778-1788 Top of barrel: SANDERSBOROUGH LONDON Some apparently had R.P. (=Royal Post) near trigger guard I could not find evidence of any FLY OR DIE phrase nor any reference to it. Other blunderbuss myths: * the pilgrims did not have blunderbusses, they were far from well known and they had mostly matchlocks and wheellocks, * the notion of loading detritus such as nails, glass etc. into the barrel was not good.....these could jam and explode the gun. The flared barrel on blunderbusses was not to spread shot etc. but for quick and easier loading , i.e. in bounding coach . It would be great to see some examples of these 'coach guns' It seems like there was an article on these in "Man at Arms" magazine, but cannot recall issue.

14th September 2016, 06:42 PM	#6
Jim McDougall Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 Posts: 10,193	Excellent questions Fernando! Thank you. My use of the term 'coach gun' was inadvertent in this case, as that particular term was not coined until 1858 with the well known Wells Fargo & Co. stagecoaches. While popularly associated with 'riding shotgun' as to the guard with shotgun in the seat next to the driver, these guards were actually referred to as 'shotgun messengers' . An odd term, the message must have been, '...don't even think about it!" The blunderbuss enigma is complicated by the fact that these odd early 'shotguns' were actually in varying forms closely related, with different terms and characters in degree. The most significant of course was the shorter barrel and flared bell muzzle . The 'musketoon' was a closely related type but I cannot specify exactly what the differences are. While the blunderbuss originated around second half of 16thc.it did not become widely known until mid century 17th. Its use militarily seems sketchy until military pattern of 1715 was established. Even then, its use seems limited. The use of these aboard vessels appears more substantiated, and examples often used the 'pintle' swivel strapping them to the deck rails to absorb some of the notable recoil. These so equipped were termed 'boat guns' . While the use of brass/brnze barrel would presume naval use, that feature seems characteristic of many of these guns, most notably of course, the Royal Coach blunderbusses (and accompanying pistols). There are many examples of naval blunderbusses with iron barrel. Naval use of blunderbusses appears to have faltered c. 1810, with general military use slightly after. However, the Royal Coach mail were still ordering and using these through mid 19th c. I think that classification of most of these guns would be better done by those here with firearms expertise and they would be likely denoted by ignition system (i.e. flintlock, miguelet etc.) and as mentioned, they may fall into musketoon type vs. blunderbuss. Thank you Fernando for the questions and I hope this might bring more dialogue to this topic. There is clearly a lot to learn and most of what I have added is purely from on call research I did before writing .

14th September 2016, 08:32 PM	#7
machinist Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 93	Such a beautiful set of guns Fernando, thank you for posting them, they really brighten my day! They look very stylistically from the peninsula, are there any you think are Portuguese ?