Djezail With East India company lock

Jens Nordlunde · 6th May 2012, 09:06 PM

Hello Cerjak,
I don't know anything about shooting weapons, but I love your pictures.
Please tell me the screw track on picture five is that screwed or is it a thread attached?
Jens

AJ1356 · 7th May 2012, 02:49 AM

The bottome one look decent to me the lock looks real and so does the rest, the wood looks newer, unless you cleaned it in which case tisk tisk. But the areas where the wood had broken off it looks to be old, anyways the bottome one is nice probably 1800s, I have to look closely at the pics later on when I come back from work. the top one looks new, the wood and "mother of pearl" work seems new, and the rest is very crude, even the lock looks new and fake to me, I'd say that is put together sometime in the past 10 years. One this to look on these is the trigger, if the trigger is crude they are pretty much brand new made for the tourist market and sold as old. So one thing they never pay attention to when making these now a days is the trigger and trigger gaurd, apparently to them it is not important.

Richard G · 7th May 2012, 11:48 AM

Another thing to check is whether or not the touchhole is properly aligned with the flashpan. If it is, it doesn't necessarily mean it is old, but if it isn't you know it was never meant to be fired.
Regards
Richard

AJ1356 · 7th May 2012, 07:19 PM

Upon closer inspection i think the lock on the top one is not original, the bottom seems to have an original lock but the 8 in 1798 does not match the rest, all the real one i've seen that have a date the numbers look the same. so did not, but the one that did, the date was uniform. I'll be home in a week or so I can look and compare it with mine.

RDGAC · 9th May 2012, 11:54 AM

My guess is that both locks are locally made; I don't think the quality looks high enough for a contemporary British lock, to be perfectly honest, though I'm always prepared to be wrong. The names on both are engraved none too carefully, and as AJ1356 remarks, the numbers used for the date look suspect. Also, I can't seem to find a "Loder" listed as a manufacturer of locks in my (very limited) reference material, though there is a Richard Loader working - in 1699. Having said that, the flaunched heart and date look better on #2, and I'd suggest that the cock is a replacement (judging by the peened-over tumbler square). So perhaps that 'un's the real article, with a replacement cock?

I'd also conjecture that the lower gun has the older stock - there looks to be hand polish there, and the cracks look good and nasty, the result of repeated hefty recoil. Pity someone's rubbed it up a bit vigorously. Oddly, both barrels could be old; ISTR that the more ornamented the barrel, the more likely it is to be old, and the chiselled muzzles are both similar (#1 especially) to one of mine, which is currently thought of as an Ottoman barrel of the 19th Century.

Not the most helpful chap, am I?

rickystl · 9th May 2012, 04:31 PM

Hi Cerjak! How have you been?
I'm pretty much in agreement with RDGAC. For sure, both locks were locally made. The markings on the locks are spurious. But, that is the most common for these Jezail's. Also note the quality of the screws. Not to European standards. The most often copied lock by the locals is the British 3rd Model Brown Bess lock, like yours.
The trigger guard on the first one looks like a much later addition. Note the screw heads are later style.
All that said, both barrels seem to be authentic older barrels with Ottoman influence as RDGA mentioned.
Richard G mentions the proper alignment of the vent hole with the pan. This is one of the first things I look for when considering a purchase.
Anyway, just my two cents worth. Thanks for posting these. There are not many of us that collect these type of guns. Rick.

Cerjak · 9th May 2012, 08:30 PM

Hi everbody and thank you for all for your good comments.
In my eyes the second is a good one and not for tourist but the stock had been to much cleaned .
Both have good and serious barrels ,for the lock I will remove and will take some pics from the second side.From the ioder lock the screw from the frizzen is very modern for the date is it strange the 1&7 seems good but I' m Aggree that the 8 is not so nice.
The Ramrod is a modern one and the first stock can't be very old .For the second one I guess it could be from the end of 19 th century.
Again sorry for my poor English I would like to tell more with more precision too..

Cerjak

6th May 2012, 09:06 PM	#1
Jens Nordlunde Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Europe Posts: 2,718	Hello Cerjak, I don't know anything about shooting weapons, but I love your pictures. Please tell me the screw track on picture five is that screwed or is it a thread attached? Jens

7th May 2012, 02:49 AM	#2
AJ1356 Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Nashville Posts: 317	The bottome one look decent to me the lock looks real and so does the rest, the wood looks newer, unless you cleaned it in which case tisk tisk. But the areas where the wood had broken off it looks to be old, anyways the bottome one is nice probably 1800s, I have to look closely at the pics later on when I come back from work. the top one looks new, the wood and "mother of pearl" work seems new, and the rest is very crude, even the lock looks new and fake to me, I'd say that is put together sometime in the past 10 years. One this to look on these is the trigger, if the trigger is crude they are pretty much brand new made for the tourist market and sold as old. So one thing they never pay attention to when making these now a days is the trigger and trigger gaurd, apparently to them it is not important. Last edited by AJ1356; 7th May 2012 at 01:28 PM.

7th May 2012, 11:48 AM	#3
Richard G Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Posts: 409	Another thing to check is whether or not the touchhole is properly aligned with the flashpan. If it is, it doesn't necessarily mean it is old, but if it isn't you know it was never meant to be fired. Regards Richard

7th May 2012, 07:19 PM	#4
AJ1356 Member Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Nashville Posts: 317	Upon closer inspection i think the lock on the top one is not original, the bottom seems to have an original lock but the 8 in 1798 does not match the rest, all the real one i've seen that have a date the numbers look the same. so did not, but the one that did, the date was uniform. I'll be home in a week or so I can look and compare it with mine.

9th May 2012, 11:54 AM	#5
RDGAC Member Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: York, UK Posts: 167	My guess is that both locks are locally made; I don't think the quality looks high enough for a contemporary British lock, to be perfectly honest, though I'm always prepared to be wrong. The names on both are engraved none too carefully, and as AJ1356 remarks, the numbers used for the date look suspect. Also, I can't seem to find a "Loder" listed as a manufacturer of locks in my (very limited) reference material, though there is a Richard Loader working - in 1699. Having said that, the flaunched heart and date look better on #2, and I'd suggest that the cock is a replacement (judging by the peened-over tumbler square). So perhaps that 'un's the real article, with a replacement cock? I'd also conjecture that the lower gun has the older stock - there looks to be hand polish there, and the cracks look good and nasty, the result of repeated hefty recoil. Pity someone's rubbed it up a bit vigorously. Oddly, both barrels could be old; ISTR that the more ornamented the barrel, the more likely it is to be old, and the chiselled muzzles are both similar (#1 especially) to one of mine, which is currently thought of as an Ottoman barrel of the 19th Century. Not the most helpful chap, am I?

9th May 2012, 04:31 PM	#6
rickystl Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Location: St. Louis, MO area. Posts: 1,630	Hi Cerjak! How have you been? I'm pretty much in agreement with RDGAC. For sure, both locks were locally made. The markings on the locks are spurious. But, that is the most common for these Jezail's. Also note the quality of the screws. Not to European standards. The most often copied lock by the locals is the British 3rd Model Brown Bess lock, like yours. The trigger guard on the first one looks like a much later addition. Note the screw heads are later style. All that said, both barrels seem to be authentic older barrels with Ottoman influence as RDGA mentioned. Richard G mentions the proper alignment of the vent hole with the pan. This is one of the first things I look for when considering a purchase. Anyway, just my two cents worth. Thanks for posting these. There are not many of us that collect these type of guns. Rick.

9th May 2012, 08:30 PM	#7
Cerjak Member Join Date: Jan 2012 Location: FRANCE Posts: 1,065	Hi everbody and thank you for all for your good comments. In my eyes the second is a good one and not for tourist but the stock had been to much cleaned . Both have good and serious barrels ,for the lock I will remove and will take some pics from the second side.From the ioder lock the screw from the frizzen is very modern for the date is it strange the 1&7 seems good but I' m Aggree that the 8 is not so nice. The Ramrod is a modern one and the first stock can't be very old .For the second one I guess it could be from the end of 19 th century. Again sorry for my poor English I would like to tell more with more precision too.. Cerjak