Proof mark's on 1863 tower

[Chad78]

I purchased this 1863 tower musket. The guy had no information about it. I was curious to see if it was really from 1863 but the markings on it don't seem to add up. Anybody ever seen these markings and can tell me what I have?

 

[JOHN42768]

Welcome, enjoy. Not an expert , but Crown doesn't look correct. The other proof marks don't appear to be English . I'll did in books later. Mr. Barry or others will have your answer when they check in.

 

[Chad78]

Welcome, enjoy. Not an expert , but Crown doesn't look correct. The other proof marks don't appear to be English . I'll did in books later. Mr. Barry or others will have your answer when they check in.

Thank you for your reply. I was thinking the same thing but I don't know enough about proof marks. I was curious if it is something or nothing

 

[JOHN42768]

I looked thru "The Standard Directory of Proof Marks" and found nothing that looked like the cross for any country. The Tower would have double proof and double 24or 25 for bore size.

 

[Package4]

The underside barrel marking is correct as a British Barrel Maker from Rose Brothers, the lock markings are consistent with a typical Tower of 1863. The markings on the upper barrel are puzzling and do not appear as made for the US/CS market due to the lack of gauge markings of 25 or 24. No broad arrow markings for the British army........

The G in a box was indicative of an exporter to the Confederacy, William Grazebrook, of Liverpool, but he was denied additional business after his first contract in 1861 for unscrupulous practices. The marking was typically not on the barrel, but on shipping cases.

Stock markings may be able to help as well, are there any?

 

[Package4]

Oh and welcome to CWT from Maryland!

 

[Chad78]

Thanks for the reply, Im not aware of anymore markings but i will check

 

[JOHN42768]

The underside barrel marking is correct as a British Barrel Maker from Rose Brothers, the lock markings are consistent with a typical Tower of 1863. The markings on the upper barrel are puzzling and do not appear as made for the US/CS market due to the lack of gauge markings of 25 or 24. No broad arrow markings for the British army........

The G in a box was indicative of an exporter to the Confederacy, William Grazebrook, of Liverpool, but he was denied additional business after his first contract in 1861 for unscrupulous practices. The marking was typically not on the barrel, but on shipping cases.

Stock markings may be able to help as well, are there any?

Package4 The bottom of the Crown on the lock plate appears to have an oval under the crown. All the photos in "The English Connection" it shows as straight across ??

 

[Chad78]

I agree that it does not look like the marking's of the period. The only other marking was at the front of the stock.

 

[Package4]

Package4 The bottom of the Crown on the lock plate appears to have an oval under the crown. All the photos in "The English Connection" it shows as straight across ??

They could have added a new chapter about the various "Crown" markings alone; the 1863 Enfields that I have seen, have a more pronounced oval, in fact page 189 of that wonderful work shows the oval on the Wilson rifle (Tower 1863)

I have also attached a picture of an identified Enfield with the oval underneath the crown:

I spoke to Tim Prince, one of the contributors to the "English Connection" and asked about the barrel markings; he said that he would have guessed a European contract piece, if it wasn't for the Rose Brother's stamp on the underside. The Birmingham Trade Arms were very strict about proofing and unless the proofs have been obliterated, the barrel is a mystery.

 

[kel1985]

Welcome from Pittsburgh.

 

[Package4]

I agree that it does not look like the marking's of the period. The only other marking was at the front of the stock.

So no marks in ram rod channel or on underside of stock either by trigger guard or butt flat? Look in the barrel channel as well.

 

[Chad78]

Looked over the gun carefully. No other markings on the stock. Uploaded a few more markings I found. I believe that that is all that are on this gun.
Thanks for the replies!

 

[Package4]

Looked over the gun carefully. No other markings on the stock. Uploaded a few more markings I found. I believe that that is all that are on this gun.
Thanks for the replies!

I would say that with these additional markings, you have an original Enfield in all respects, though the piece remains a mystery as to whom it was intended. I'll continue to ask various sources to see if we might shed light on your mysterious weapon.

 

[Chad78]

I would say that with these additional markings, you have an original Enfield in all respects, though the piece remains a mystery as to whom it was intended. I'll continue to ask various sources to see if we might shed light on your mysterious weapon.

Thank you, for all of your help, I really appreciate it.

 

[Package4]

I sent the pictures to Tim Prince at College Hill Arsenal, an expert in ACW arms and as before mentioned a contributor of the incredible book "The English Connection". Tim's reply:

"J Duce - John Taylor Duce, gun lock maker also maker of revolving pistols and sights, Church Street, Wednesbury, Staffordshire, 1854-1880. Son of gun maker John Duce, same address 1827-1854.

Arabic numerals are uncommon as assembly numbers in Enfields, usually "Roman" numeral file slashes are present, but they are used from time to time. I would think matching numbers would be
stamped under the barrel as well.

The mark inside the trigger guard is probably a maker's mark and a mold number that the guard was cast in."

Definitely an original, lock, trigger guard and barrel, it stands to reason that since these pieces fit well with the stock it was all assembled at the same time. Congratulations on a fine piece, just need to find out who it was for.........