1816 Springfield type 3

[63springfield]

Looks to be a pretty nice one but spendy .

North of $9,000 .

 

[Lanyard Puller]

Looks nice, but for 9K you should get 2 1/2 of 'em, and a free lock screw. IMHO

 

[63springfield]

I am completely ignorant on these but it sure looks to be a nice one .

 

[Jobe Holiday]

Personal observation/opinion: Enlarge the second photo, look very carefully at the barrel slightly right of center....where a Cone-in-Barrel alteration would have been done. I see a different color to the iron/steel and what looks like the remnants of a poor welding job that left two low spots. I would want to see this musket first hand.
J.

 

[Lanyard Puller]

Well spotted Jobe,
Now that I've had a good look at the photos; in the 3rd one; the flint hammer front arc shape is not consistent with the color pattern of the lock surface... I was too shocked by the price... My advice to 63springfield is to get an expert to look at this musket, before considering a purchase. It may have been altered to percussion and re-converted back to a flint lock, which would affect it's value, IMHO.

 

[63springfield]

You folks are scary good !!!!!

Wasn't really interested - just thought it looked good .

Now I know better - THANKS

Dave

 

[Lanyard Puller]

You're most welcome.
I was taking some photos for you during your reply... What follows is a look at an 1839 dated Springfield which was altered to percussion, using a type of the cone-in-barrel system, preferred by Federal armories. The Confederate types are down and out funky !!

Coundn't get that one to flip upright.

 

[Southern Articifer]

Besides the over polished weld/fill where the cone used to be and the mismatched patina/color on the lock parts, there's one more major thing they missed. If you look at the wood just ahead of the flint cock, you will see two numbers stamped into the wood. These are the assembly numbers that were applied to all the stocks and the new percussion hammers when these were converted to percussion. The seller may or may not be aware the musket is a re-conversion, and needs to do some research on it.

 

[JOHN42768]

But it sure looks pretty

 

[Mr. King]

When in doubt, don't!

Leave your check book in the car.

 

[Package4]

You're most welcome.
I was taking some photos for you during your reply... What follows is a look at an 1839 dated Springfield which was altered to percussion, using a type of the cone-in-barrel system, preferred by Federal armories. The Confederate types are down and out funky !! View attachment 173905 View attachment 173909
Coundn't get that one to flip upright.

Not going to comment, but I could.........

 

[originalrebelyell]

Personal observation/opinion: Enlarge the second photo, look very carefully at the barrel slightly right of center....where a Cone-in-Barrel alteration would have been done. I see a different color to the iron/steel and what looks like the remnants of a poor welding job that left two low spots. I would want to see this musket first hand.
J.

Yeah I see that spot too

 

[originalrebelyell]

Looks like it has been reworked the metal and wood look a little too good for the age.

 

[mofederal]

I worked on a 16 for a friend once, he wanted to return it to the flintlock configuration. Since we could still get the original parts at Dixie Guns Works, I did the work. It did end up looking pretty good. I switched it over for my friend. He was very happy, otherwise I would not have done it.

 

[originalrebelyell]

I have been told by several reputable CW dealers that it actually lowers the value and collector interest a bit reconverting them. I have never had a reconversion so honestly I really don't know that's just what I was told.

 

[Jobe Holiday]

IMHO, reconversions place an arm in the lower end of true "Collector Value". Why? Because it is now only a representative piece.
J.

 

[drm2m]

I went through this exercise not long ago when I made a trade deal for a M1816 Springfield musket.
I sent photos of the lock and barrel to a fellow that is much smarter than I am to make sure that it was not a reconversion--which I did not want.

I got his blessing and I moved forward.

It does have an Ohio stamp on the stock ????

 

[CowCavalry]

The lock looks color case hardened. Were the locks originally color case hardened? And if so, how common would it be for the color to still be visible? It almost looks too good to be true but I am far from an expert.

 

[originalrebelyell]

That's a good question. I have a 1816 the outside of the lock has a dull worn gray look to it. But when you take the lock off the back side of the lock is bright in the white metal.

 

[James N.]

Personal observation/opinion: Enlarge the second photo, look very carefully at the barrel slightly right of center....where a Cone-in-Barrel alteration would have been done. I see a different color to the iron/steel and what looks like the remnants of a poor welding job that left two low spots. I would want to see this musket first hand.
J.

Absiolutely; this is a preposterous price, and I believe as Jobe is suggesting this musket could well have been "re-converted" at some point back to flint from a so-called Belgian conversion to percussion. Back in the 1970's and 80's when it was recognized that the remaining original flintlocks were few in number, enterprising would-be gunsmiths took these back to their original configuration, not always to deceive but because the flintlocks had become overpriced, but not to this extent!