Fine Cased Pair of Flintlock Saw-handled Dueling Pistols by Thomas Mortimer, London, ca. 1810

SKU: FP1745 Categories: ,


Featuring 9 1/4″ octagonal 15 mm smoothbore Damascus twist barrels marked “London” in
script on the top flat with platinum band and engraved “T./Mortimer” in script on the breech;
platinum lined vent hole. Finely engraved barrel tang with rear notch sight; front blade
sight. Locks with sliding safety, raised flat lockplates with decorative border engraved “T.
Mortimer” in script; engraved serpentine cocks. Walnut saw-handled half stocks with
checkered grips; silver fore end and barrel pin escutcheons. One example marked “XX” by
hand on top of stock behind the barrel tang, the other marked “XXX”. Steel mounts
including finely engraved spur trigger, belt hooks with engraved tangs, ramrod thimbles,
and engraved flat butt cap. Original wood ramrods with gilt tips and steel worms on the
other end. Original green baize-lined mahogany case with powder flask, bullet mold, two
accessory compartments with lids, and original Thomas Mortimer trade label; brass lock
(key missing), latch hooks, and vacant round lid escutcheon. Overall length 14 3/4″. Case
measures 18 3/8″ x 8 3/8″ x 2 3/4″. All original and in very good plus condition, showing
only minor handling wear. One brass case latch an expert replacement. Thomas
Mortimer, 44 Ludgate Hill, London 1755-1824, worked with his brother Harvey Walklate
Mortimer and nephew H.W. Mortimer II from 1800 to 1806, Gunmaker to His Majesty, The
Honorable East India Company, and The United States of America. Hard to find a better
example at any price. A similar cased pair by nephew H.W. Mortimer II was featured on
the cover of Bonhams 28 November, 2018 Knightsbridge sale catalog of the Daniel
Williams Collection with an estimate of 18,000 – 22,000 GBP ($24,000 – $29,000 USD).
While not meeting reserve at that sale, it later sold at Bonhams, Knightsbridge on 19
November, 2019 for $16,165, including premium. Interestingly, the case of the Bonhams
example is mis-identified as being mahogany where photos clearly show it to be oak.
However, it appears to be identical in every other way to the example offered here which
really IS mahogany!