Ethnographic Arms & Armour
 

Go Back   Ethnographic Arms & Armour > Discussion Forums > European Armoury

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 31st August 2021, 07:53 PM   #31
tscheidt
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fernando View Post
Can you show us a picture of the hammer in the full-cock position ?
On it. I'll take some closer up pics as well.. love the help....makes me think there is hope to solve this mystery 😀
tscheidt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31st August 2021, 08:15 PM   #32
tscheidt
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fernando View Post
Can you show us a picture of the hammer in the full-cock position ?
Let me know if you need diff ones
Attached Images
           
tscheidt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st September 2021, 07:30 AM   #33
corrado26
Member
 
corrado26's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Black Forest, Germany
Posts: 967
Default

1. The style of the pistol is not the style in use during the living times of Joseph Ebert 1710-1740. This pistol is certainly made far later.

2. The signature of J. Ebert at the front part of the lockplate indicates that this was made after the transfer of the pistol from flintlock to percussion. Would it have been made earlier, the signature, as Fernado already said, would have been hidden by the battery springs and senseless.

3. The style of the letters of the gunmaker's name and the adress "A PRAG" is totally different, so I assume that these have been made in different times by different makers.

4. So I think that the flintlockpistol has been made by an unknown gunmaker of the city of Prag and an also unknown gunmaker J. Ebert transferred it to percussion in the 1830/40s. Don't forget that the Neue Stöckel is not the bible and has lots of gaps. During the last 40 years I myself found more than 200 gunmakers worldwide not mentioned in this opus.
corrado26 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st September 2021, 01:33 PM   #34
fernando
Lead Moderator European Armoury
 
fernando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 8,553
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corrado26 View Post
... So I think that the flintlockpistol has been made by an unknown gunmaker of the city of Prag and an also unknown gunmaker J. Ebert transferred it to percussion in the 1830/40s...
Amen .
fernando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2021, 02:55 AM   #35
tscheidt
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by corrado26 View Post
1. The style of the pistol is not the style in use during the living times of Joseph Ebert 1710-1740. This pistol is certainly made far later.

2. The signature of J. Ebert at the front part of the lockplate indicates that this was made after the transfer of the pistol from flintlock to percussion. Would it have been made earlier, the signature, as Fernado already said, would have been hidden by the battery springs and senseless.

3. The style of the letters of the gunmaker's name and the adress "A PRAG" is totally different, so I assume that these have been made in different times by different makers.

4. So I think that the flintlockpistol has been made by an unknown gunmaker of the city of Prag and an also unknown gunmaker J. Ebert transferred it to percussion in the 1830/40s. Don't forget that the Neue Stöckel is not the bible and has lots of gaps. During the last 40 years I myself found more than 200 gunmakers worldwide not mentioned in this opus.
Looking closer around the signature on both sides the letters are greatly worn down where the cut off parts were. To the point of barely carved on one side. Not sure if relevant but thought I'd mention.

I recieved a flinlock gun of possibly Turkish origin at same auction as well as a German police bayonet. Do I post those here too, if I hope to learn more?

Purchased a new magnifier (my eyes I no longer fully trust ☺️) and plan to go over this gun again.
tscheidt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd September 2021, 11:30 AM   #36
fernando
Lead Moderator European Armoury
 
fernando's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portugal
Posts: 8,553
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tscheidt View Post
... I recieved a flinlock gun of possibly Turkish origin at same auction as well as a German police bayonet. Do I post those here too, if I hope to learn more? ...
Sure thing Larry; if you take into account the scope of this Euro forum; no modern stuff, like bayonets from the 20th century.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=23414



Quote:
Originally Posted by tscheidt View Post
... Purchased a new magnifier (my eyes I no longer fully trust ☺️) and plan to go over this gun again.
You have already shown us multiple pictures of this pistol in similar angles .
fernando is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd September 2021, 12:23 AM   #37
tscheidt
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fernando View Post
Sure thing Larry; if you take into account the scope of this Euro forum; no modern stuff, like bayonets from the 20th century.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=23414




You have already shown us multiple pictures of this pistol in similar angles .
It took me until now to realize that I was the one you were calling Larry 🙂.

Yes I have. 🙄.....guess I was just hoping to get every possible drop of info possible. Was hoping for a more fun story behind the carving and figuring what it meant to someone.

Basically I've learned a time when made. Where it was likely modified and carved. Think that's it?

The initial would have been put into the gun when it was first made? Meaning it was commissioned by someone likely? Was this pretty common back then? Would it have been one person who .ade this gun for MR and it had no carvings and was a flintlock? Then J.Ebert got his hands on it and converted it and carved the pictures and put his name on the gun?

I know little of the customs of gun makers and owners during this period so this is all fascinating. I apologize in advance if my questions are incompetent and thought train WAY off 🙂
tscheidt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd September 2021, 09:11 PM   #38
tscheidt
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by fernando View Post
Sure thing Larry; if you take into account the scope of this Euro forum; no modern stuff, like bayonets from the 20th century.

http://www.vikingsword.com/vb/showthread.php?t=23414




You have already shown us multiple pictures of this pistol in similar angles .
This is super frustrating. I asked the Ebert guy about the general consensus and got this. Not sure if it helps or hurts my search. Instead of originally thinking I knew a few facts....I now have 2 similar but very different hypothesise?



"I would say that the initials on the plate on the grip are those of a period owner, probably a gentleman of some status, this is a civilian pistol used for protection, not a military arm. I personally would discount any connection of the pistol with either India or Great Britian during it's time of use. Later anything can and did happen. I will not say that the other gentlemen are wrong as I can not verify that, but I find their reasoning suspect. Good Luck with your search for the truth."
"
tscheidt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19th September 2021, 09:26 PM   #39
tscheidt
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2021
Posts: 23
Default Questioning your Genius, prove me wrong:-)

Quote:
Originally Posted by corrado26 View Post
1. The style of the pistol is not the style in use during the living times of Joseph Ebert 1710-1740. This pistol is certainly made far later.

2. The signature of J. Ebert at the front part of the lockplate indicates that this was made after the transfer of the pistol from flintlock to percussion. Would it have been made earlier, the signature, as Fernado already said, would have been hidden by the battery springs and senseless.

3. The style of the letters of the gunmaker's name and the adress "A PRAG" is totally different, so I assume that these have been made in different times by different makers.

4. So I think that the flintlockpistol has been made by an unknown gunmaker of the city of Prag and an also unknown gunmaker J. Ebert transferred it to percussion in the 1830/40s. Don't forget that the Neue Stöckel is not the bible and has lots of gaps. During the last 40 years I myself found more than 200 gunmakers worldwide not mentioned in this opus.



1. Would the original configuration, before conversion have been more like the gun style during his era?

2. I took the Turkish flintlock I have and did some measuring. If the connection points lined up before conversion, with nearly identical distance it is likely that the exposed areas would have been the same on both guns? The signature where it would not have been covered is still equal depth and equally worn to all the carvings. The small areas that would have been covered are worn to almost nothing? Why are there only 2 letters of his first name on the one side, if he put his name after the conversion? It looks like when it was converted those letters were on that part.

4. So the gun was converted in early 1800s to percussion? So when would the flintlock version have likely been made? Early 1700s? Lining up with the timeline for Joseph Ebert? That all seems a lot more logical in my mind, but I am just trying to pretend I am Sherlock Holmes :-)
tscheidt is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Posts are regarded as being copyrighted by their authors and the act of posting material is deemed to be a granting of an irrevocable nonexclusive license for display here.