BLUNDERBUSS FROM YORK MAIL

fernando · 22nd February 2012, 07:56 PM

... And i am no linguist but, i guess it should be either His Majesty or Their Majesties, right ?

Probably the phrase was not written by an english speaking person ?

A nice blunderbuss, in any case

fernando · 22nd February 2012, 07:57 PM

... And the lock doesn't have the slightest mark

Cerjak · 22nd February 2012, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fernando

... And i am no linguist but, i guess it should be either His Majesty or Their Majesties, right ?

Probably the phrase was not written by an english speaking person ?

A nice blunderbuss, in any case

Fernando see this link his majesties seems to be a correct english or was a correct expression long time ago
http://www.lukehistory.com/resources/yorkdec.html
Regards
Cerjak

Cerjak · 22nd February 2012, 10:23 PM

http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitize...t/reasons.html

fernando · 22nd February 2012, 10:45 PM

Yes, you are right.
It is old english for the possessive case; in the new morphology the ' replaced the e.

spiral · 22nd February 2012, 11:17 PM

Interesting piece Fernando, The font used on the end of the muzle, bieng totaly sans serif dates post late 1870s when it first started to be used, as far as my observations have taken me. {other than on fake markings of course.} {But such font was still rare untill the 20th century.}.}

The "perhaps" older font used on top of the barrel is clearly done with individual stamps,

i have no evidence otherwise for york mail but as the average wood worker could afford stamps cut by an engineer of there entire name, I suspect York Mail could as well. {Especialy as many such stamps were actualy made in Sheffield, Yorkshire.}

I vote XXI century For the markings, I am not capable of dating the piece itself.

Spiral

kahnjar1 · 23rd February 2012, 12:48 AM

A very nice and interesting piece, BUT those marks bother me. IF it is truely an English piece then it SHOULD BY LAW have English Proof marks unless it was made prior to 1630ish. The official Proof House was established around then and official marks started to appear.
The marks on this Blunderbus are not English IMHO unless they are some sort or local Armorers mark. Also it is unusual for the lock not to be marked.
Have you given any thought to this not being YORK UK, but (New)York USA? Don't forget that the Brits held sway there until 1776,and would no doubt have run some sort of mail service to their troops. British Proof laws did not (and still don't) have any meaning in the US.
Hopefully someone can identify the marks as I for one would like to know more about this piece.
As an aftertought, have you checked UNDER the barrel for marks? If you can safely remove it, then it might possibly give up some secrets. The other thing which concerns me a bit is the relatively unblemished lock. A look at the inside of that might also give up some secrets.
Regards Stuart.

gbxfb · 23rd February 2012, 07:37 PM

Any blunderbuss displaying supposed Royal Mail ownership markings has to
be viewed with a large degree of scepticism, due to the significant boost
to its value granted by an authentic association. I am afraid that I don't
think that the Mail related script on this piece is remotely genuine, being
quite wrong stylistically and not particularly well executed.

The highly respected London gunmaker H. W. Mortimer was an early
contractor supplying arms for guards on Royal Mail Coaches circa 1783.
An example garniture of arms supplied by Mortimer can be viewed at the
National Postal Museum. Mortimer was a top quality gunmaker, and this
is reflected in the standard of the guns he supplied to the Crown, the
better to withstand the rigours of the Coaching service. I don't feel that this
blunderbuss exhibits the high standards of manufacture that would be
expected in a Government contract piece. The better quality English
makers from this period were justifiably proud of their workmanship and
took pains to carefully mark their products, and clear British proofs would
be present too.

Perhaps removing the lock and barrel from the stock as suggested
in an earlier post will shed some light on this gun's origins. Whilst the
general appearance suggests an English blunderbuss dating from the
1780s, I'm a little concerned about the the signs of artificial ageing
on the handrail stock and what looks like cold blue wash on the lockplate.
It's an uncomfortable fact that blunderbusses because of their value
and popularity are frequently spuriously marked and faked.

I hope that this has not disheartened you too much, but if you paid
a premium for this gun as a genuine Royal Mail piece you have good
grounds for the return of your money if it was auction or dealer purchased.

Best regards,Simon.

laEspadaAncha · 24th February 2012, 07:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spiral

Interesting piece Fernando, The font used on the end of the muzle, bieng totaly sans serif dates post late 1870s when it first started to be used, as far as my observations have taken me. {other than on fake markings of course.}

FWIW, I've seen examples of English-made knives dating to 1850-1860 with stamps using sans serif fonts (and have at least one I can think of), and have seen a file conversion with a similar stamp I would date a little earlier to ca. 1830.

Not that it makes that big of a difference, though I guess it would move a hypothetical window for the origin of the stamps a little closer to the age of the gun...

spiral · 24th February 2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by laEspadaAncha

FWIW, I've seen examples of English-made knives dating to 1850-1860 with stamps using sans serif fonts (and have at least one I can think of), and have seen a file conversion with a similar stamp I would date a little earlier to ca. 1830.

Interesting if there genuine pieces! Can you share Photos of the knives & close ups of markings please!

Spiral

22nd February 2012, 10:23 PM	#4
Cerjak Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: FRANCE Posts: 1,065	See this other link it is old English ? http://www.bl.uk/learning/histcitize...t/reasons.html

23rd February 2012, 12:48 AM	#7
kahnjar1 Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: CHRISTCHURCH NEW ZEALAND Posts: 2,802	A very nice and interesting piece, BUT those marks bother me. IF it is truely an English piece then it SHOULD BY LAW have English Proof marks unless it was made prior to 1630ish. The official Proof House was established around then and official marks started to appear. The marks on this Blunderbus are not English IMHO unless they are some sort or local Armorers mark. Also it is unusual for the lock not to be marked. Have you given any thought to this not being YORK UK, but (New)York USA? Don't forget that the Brits held sway there until 1776,and would no doubt have run some sort of mail service to their troops. British Proof laws did not (and still don't) have any meaning in the US. Hopefully someone can identify the marks as I for one would like to know more about this piece. As an aftertought, have you checked UNDER the barrel for marks? If you can safely remove it, then it might possibly give up some secrets. The other thing which concerns me a bit is the relatively unblemished lock. A look at the inside of that might also give up some secrets. Regards Stuart. Last edited by kahnjar1; 23rd February 2012 at 04:07 AM.

23rd February 2012, 07:37 PM	#8
gbxfb Member Join Date: Nov 2011 Posts: 11	Blunderbuss Any blunderbuss displaying supposed Royal Mail ownership markings has to be viewed with a large degree of scepticism, due to the significant boost to its value granted by an authentic association. I am afraid that I don't think that the Mail related script on this piece is remotely genuine, being quite wrong stylistically and not particularly well executed. The highly respected London gunmaker H. W. Mortimer was an early contractor supplying arms for guards on Royal Mail Coaches circa 1783. An example garniture of arms supplied by Mortimer can be viewed at the National Postal Museum. Mortimer was a top quality gunmaker, and this is reflected in the standard of the guns he supplied to the Crown, the better to withstand the rigours of the Coaching service. I don't feel that this blunderbuss exhibits the high standards of manufacture that would be expected in a Government contract piece. The better quality English makers from this period were justifiably proud of their workmanship and took pains to carefully mark their products, and clear British proofs would be present too. Perhaps removing the lock and barrel from the stock as suggested in an earlier post will shed some light on this gun's origins. Whilst the general appearance suggests an English blunderbuss dating from the 1780s, I'm a little concerned about the the signs of artificial ageing on the handrail stock and what looks like cold blue wash on the lockplate. It's an uncomfortable fact that blunderbusses because of their value and popularity are frequently spuriously marked and faked. I hope that this has not disheartened you too much, but if you paid a premium for this gun as a genuine Royal Mail piece you have good grounds for the return of your money if it was auction or dealer purchased. Best regards,Simon.

22nd February 2012, 07:56 PM	#1
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	... And i am no linguist but, i guess it should be either His Majesty or Their Majesties, right ? Probably the phrase was not written by an english speaking person ? A nice blunderbuss, in any case

22nd February 2012, 07:57 PM	#2
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	... And the lock doesn't have the slightest mark

22nd February 2012, 10:45 PM	#5
fernando (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Portugal Posts: 9,694	Yes, you are right. It is old english for the possessive case; in the new morphology the ' replaced the e.

22nd February 2012, 11:17 PM	#6
spiral Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,712	Interesting piece Fernando, The font used on the end of the muzle, bieng totaly sans serif dates post late 1870s when it first started to be used, as far as my observations have taken me. {other than on fake markings of course.} {But such font was still rare untill the 20th century.}.} The "perhaps" older font used on top of the barrel is clearly done with individual stamps, i have no evidence otherwise for york mail but as the average wood worker could afford stamps cut by an engineer of there entire name, I suspect York Mail could as well. {Especialy as many such stamps were actualy made in Sheffield, Yorkshire.} I vote XXI century For the markings, I am not capable of dating the piece itself. Spiral