Initials "Pinned" into Stock

[Package4]

There are many different inspector's stamps with a crown over top of some letters or numbers, and they are to identify the viewer who inspected the arm, such as crown over SHC for Sinclair Hamilton, crown over B for Barnett, crown over FP for Francis Preston, but I've never heard such a mark was ever used to mark a second quality enfield.
One question is whether that is really a 2 on its side, or whether that bottom base of the two is just grain in the wood, and the mark is something else.

I just blew it up and I agree it could be something else, as you say the base of the 2 looks to be part of the grain, but still may be a 2, as to 2nd quality Enfields I will always defer to Tim and the Enfield guru (Lanyard Puller). Tim has handled thousands of Enfields and is one of those responsible for getting the "English Connection" published. @Lanyard Puller has the most incredible Enfield collection I have ever seen and they all are Confederate, many of which are in the afore mentioned tome. Unfortunately Corky is no longer around to ask, so Tim is the go-to guy. Many of the Enfield markings that we now know more about, are as a result of a small group, who rescued the Caleb Huse papers, Tim & Puller among them.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

It is true that the Whitfield target / sniper rifles bought by the confederacy had "2nd Quality" engraved in the metal of the tang, but I have never heard of Birmingham Enfields so marked on metal or wood - I suppose partly because ALL the Birmingham Enfields were considered 2nd Quality because the parts were hand fitted and not interchangeable.
If you were a manufacturer and you wanted to mark a product as not being up to your usual standards, possible defective, you would want to mark it clearly, and this is not a clear mark.

 

[Package4]

It is true that the Whitfield target / sniper rifles bought by the confederacy had "2nd Quality" engraved in the metal of the tang, but I have never heard of Birmingham Enfields so marked on metal or wood - I suppose partly because ALL the Birmingham Enfields were considered 2nd Quality because the parts were hand fitted and not interchangeable.
If you were a manufacturer and you wanted to mark a product as not being up to your usual standards, possible defective, you would want to mark it clearly, and this is not a clear mark.

Well, none of the exterior markings in the wood are clear, one would expect to see the round Birmingham Trade marking on the stock and as far as 2nd quality Enfields I'll go with what Tim Prince says, if he says he has seen a 2 and it stands for 2nd Quality on Enfields well...…..

 

[ConfederateCanuck]

There are many different inspector's stamps with a crown over top of some letters or numbers, and they are to identify the viewer who inspected the arm, such as crown over SHC for Sinclair Hamilton, crown over B for Barnett, crown over FP for Francis Preston, but I've never heard such a mark was ever used to mark a second quality enfield.
One question is whether that is really a 2 on its side, or whether that bottom base of the two is just grain in the wood, and the mark is something else.

Its definitely a 2, trust me on that (download the picture I posted on page 1 of this thread, then zoom in on it). It's quite clear when you are looking at it with your own eyes. The font style is distinct and wouldn't be mimicked by the wood grain (its not a wonky 2, it has a very sharp transition at the base of the 2 that simply could not be a wood grain effect...its a distinctive font style).

Also, in another thread, somebody posted a "Crown/9". I'd hate to have been the owner of a "9th quality" Enfield! In other words, I am not convinced the "Crown/2" means it is second quality. If only the #@(&ing Brits had left us some notes, eh?

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

I agree none of us would want to have a 9th quality arm.
As to the circular mark that is "missing" on the side of the buttstock, these were only put onto some arms made during some dates by members of a group of some Birmingham gunmakers, who had organized as the "Birmingham Small Arms Trade"
Not all members so marked their stocks. Not all makers were members and authorized to use that mark.
Those marks were deep, and it would take a good bit of scraping or sanding to remove such a mark if it had been present.

 

[Package4]

Its definitely a 2, trust me on that (download the picture I posted on page 1 of this thread, then zoom in on it). It's quite clear when you are looking at it with your own eyes. The font style is distinct and wouldn't be mimicked by the wood grain (its not a wonky 2, it has a very sharp transition at the base of the 2 that simply could not be a wood grain effect...its a distinctive font style).

Also, in another thread, somebody posted a "Crown/9". I'd hate to have been the owner of a "9th quality" Enfield! In other words, I am not convinced the "Crown/2" means it is second quality. If only the #@(&ing Brits had left us some notes, eh?View attachment 351378

Since your 2 is perpendicular to the usual markings and obviously not the same stamp and Tim has seen these before, I would go with 2nd quality. Again, it is not a knock against your arm, as previously stated, 2nd Quality Whitworths were fully functional, just stock finish was lacking.

 

[Package4]

I agree none of us would want to have a 9th quality arm.
As to the circular mark that is "missing" on the side of the buttstock, these were only put onto some arms made during some dates by members of a group of some Birmingham gunmakers, who had organized as the "Birmingham Small Arms Trade"
Not all members so marked their stocks. Not all makers were members and authorized to use that mark.
Those marks were deep, and it would take a good bit of scraping or sanding to remove such a mark if it had been present.

I completely disagree as to the BSA mark, I have three Enfields where you can barely see small remnants of the roundel.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

I completely disagree as to the BSA mark, I have three Enfields where you can barely see small remnants of the roundel.

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was just saying that not all the Birmingham made Enfields had that roundel stamped in the first place and so the lack of a roundel on a Birmingham Enfield does not mean it was worn off, but could mean it was never so stamped.

I've owned more than a hundred Birmingham Model 1853s over the years, and looked at hundreds more. I think that less than a third had that roundel. As always, the Birmingham Enfields another person has looked at may not have this ratio at all.

I also intended to just point out that the BSA roundels I have seen (and owned) are struck deeper in the wood than the other maker or viewer marks I've seen in the wood of these muskets.

This is for arms still in good shape, not heavily used or sanded down. Different areas of everything get different amounts of wear and use and some parts seem to get more scraping or sanding when they are "prettied up."

But those roundels of the BSAT and of Barnett are both deeper than most. I suppose this was seen as a prestige mark by the maker, and that's why it is much larger than other marks on the wood - they were proud of being a member of the Birmingham Small Arms Trade.

 

[ConfederateCanuck]

Since your 2 is perpendicular to the usual markings and obviously not the same stamp and Tim has seen these before, I would go with 2nd quality. Again, it is not a knock against your arm, as previously stated, 2nd Quality Whitworths were fully functional, just stock finish was lacking.

No offence taken. What you said re the stock finishing.....hmmmm...i wonder if that explains the really poor quality ugly varnish mine had on it. I had assumed it was applied post-war. Whoever applied it had a lot of brass dust/filings lying around cuz there was a lot of it glittering in the varnish when examined closely. So the 2nd quality theory may be valid.

I see no issues whatsoever with any of the metal components. Everything solid and as it should be. The lock is excellent mechanically.

All very interesting and I appreciate the input and the efforts you went to get it.

 

[Package4]

No offence taken. What you said re the stock finishing.....hmmmm...i wonder if that explains the really poor quality ugly varnish mine had on it. I had assumed it was applied post-war. Whoever applied it had a lot of brass dust/filings lying around cuz there was a lot of it glittering in the varnish when examined closely. So the 2nd quality theory may be valid.

I see no issues whatsoever with any of the metal components. Everything solid and as it should be. The lock is excellent mechanically.

All very interesting and I appreciate the input and the efforts you went to get it.

No, I think your weapon was refinished at some juncture post war, it appears to show light and areas of aggressive sanding, if you look at the flat, but not enough to significantly round the sharp edges. Maybe what I view as sanding could be handling marks, but I have rarely seen scratching like that on a well used weapon.

You have a very nice and representative weapon, that heavily leans Southern, but there is no way to be certain without subsequent research and findings.

 

[Jeff in Ohio]

No, I think your weapon was refinished at some juncture post war, it appears to show light and areas of aggressive sanding, if you look at the flat, but not enough to significantly round the sharp edges. Maybe what I view as sanding could be handling marks, but I have rarely seen scratching like that on a well used weapon.

You have a very nice and representative weapon, that heavily leans Southern, but there is no way to be certain without subsequent research and findings.

I once saw a stand up comic routine about how men soap up and scrub in the shower. The basic point was that we all lather up where it is easy to reach, and so the chest gets a good soaping, but the backs of the knees, for example, get pretty much untouched.

I always think of this when I see a Colt percussion revolver with no scene left on it - when someone is cleaning off a rusty revolver, it is just all-too-easy to put that cylinder on a revolving spindle and using a piece of emery cloth or sandpaper against that spinning cylinder. The hard to reach parts get neglected. The result is a bright, smooth clean cylinder with enough metal removed to take off the markings. Sometimes you will have a seller claim that the workers at the Colt factory were just so busy when that revolver was made, and just slapped it in there even though it had not gone through the process of rolling the scene or stamping the serial number. That just didn't happen.

I judge wear to a musket with this idea of selective cleaning / sanding / polishingn in mind!

 

[Package4]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear. I was just saying that not all the Birmingham made Enfields had that roundel stamped in the first place and so the lack of a roundel on a Birmingham Enfield does not mean it was worn off, but could mean it was never so stamped.

I've owned more than a hundred Birmingham Model 1853s over the years, and looked at hundreds more. I think that less than a third had that roundel. As always, the Birmingham Enfields another person has looked at may not have this ratio at all.

I also intended to just point out that the BSA roundels I have seen (and owned) are struck deeper in the wood than the other maker or viewer marks I've seen in the wood of these muskets.

This is for arms still in good shape, not heavily used or sanded down. Different areas of everything get different amounts of wear and use and some parts seem to get more scraping or sanding when they are "prettied up."

But those roundels of the BSAT and of Barnett are both deeper than most. I suppose this was seen as a prestige mark by the maker, and that's why it is much larger than other marks on the wood - they were proud of being a member of the Birmingham Small Arms Trade.

I am humbled, I've owned maybe 20 through the years, but most of those and my M1855 collection went in trade for ACW cloth, which is more my niche these days. I still retain a few Southern I'd Enfields. My long arm knowledge is usually bolstered by hanging with Lanyard Puller, Tim Prince and a very good buddy whom is obsessed with Confederate Enfields. He is now actually going through his collection looking for #2 marks, which he knows about and has seen, but can't remember if he has one. I know that the broad arrow marks pointing at each other and an S on the barrel are also 2nd Quality or reject marks (British Army), but the 2 was new to me.