As already mentioned, the proof marks will tell the story. My gun was marked J. Manton & Co and it was British. Joseph Manton had a brother I believe with the name of John who also had a couple of sons. After the death of Joseph Manton, John carried on in the firearms business as did his 2 sons after the death of John. At some point while John was still alive, the name was changed to J. Manton & Co. Yes, there were Belgian knock offs with the Manton name but don't assume because it doesn't say Joseph Manton that it is a Belgian knock off. True your gun won't be by the original Joseph Manton but it could very well be by a family descendant. Even then, the value will not be high. Below is some info from the web.
Researching Manton &Co, Calcutta.
Posted by: Humpty Dumpty
Researching Manton &Co, Calcutta. - 05/20/13 11:52 PM
I’m researching the story of Manton & Co Calcutta. Yes, I’m doing it for an article. I used to imagine that the person behind Manton and Co, Calcutta, was a Manton’s salesman in India, who collected a handful of orders and came back happy only to learn that Manton is bankrupt and there was nobody to execute these orders. A shrewd businessman, in this context, could try to have the guns made by other makers, and then return to deliver them only to find there were more orders at hand, so why not make it a regular business? I suggested this as a theme for an article, and the editor liked that. The reality, however, proved to be, erm, slightly different.
Here’s what I learned so far from the Web and the books available to me. The sources are numbered and given at the end of the post.
To begin with, there wasn’t a salesman. According to Teasedale-Buckell, Joe Manton sent his son Frederick to open a branch in Calcutta – in 1820, when the business was still going strong. [1] Then again, the bankruptcy doesn’t seem to have a connection to the establishment of the company, since Manton & Son was founded in 1825, and Joe Manton’s bankruptcy occurred later. Teasedale-Buckell gives 1829 as the year Joe was put to debt jail, but the first bankruptcy came in 1826; however, Joe Manton’s business was carried on and off afterwards. Finally, the bankruptcy wasn’t something that stopped Joe Manton in his tracks once and for all. According to Peter Hawker’s diaries, in 1829 the business was operating, even though ‘in the hands of the Philistines’ (external management?) Apparently, without old Joe’s eye, the quality diminished, as Hawker states that personal control was necessary to ensure that the job was done right [6]. So, there was someone to execute the orders, at least in the first years after Manton and Son (Manton and Co) foundation.
In 1825 Manton & Son is started in Calcutta [2], presumably by same Frederick Manton. This causes some confusion, as there was another Manton & Son establishment in London, but this was run by John, not Joseph, Manton. [5] I also found someone quoting John Blackmore's Gunmakers of London, that Manton & Son was founded by Frederick Manton, but managed by other sons of Joe Manton, John Augustus from 1828 to 33 and Edward from 1834 to 46. Curiously, John Augustus was also imprisoned for debt (runs in the family, heh?) in 1836. [7]
At some further point the firm was renamed Manton and Co, which may or may not be coincidal with a change in ownership. To quote Teasdale-Buckell, “The business of Manton and Co. was purchased by Mr. William Robert Wallis about the year 1847; he worked the business successfully until his retirement from India in 1878, when the same was taken over and is now worked by his sons. The firm has flourished, and has held the appointment of gunmakers to every Viceroy of India, and bears the highest reputation as the pioneer gunmakers in India.” [1: 286]
While Joseph Manton could be defined by the Boss slogan “maker of best guns only”, Manton and Son was different. They dealt not only in sporting firearms, but also officers’ swords and lance heads, a web search turns up lots of those marked Manton & Co. There’s one military musket bearing Manton and Co name – a very crude and cheap thing, actually - but the experts believe it to be a gun assembled in India off parts, and converted, perhaps for sporting purposes [4].
By the late XIX century Manton & Co apparently sold all kinds of weapons. They had their guns made for them in England, and also apparently in Germany [3], and, presumably, in Belgium. However, they could supply their client with the best gun, as testified by the fact that they were gunmakers to Viceroys of India, the fact they proudly stated on their guns [5]. Maharaja Cooch-Behar, a demanding customer and a Holland & Holland fan, writes that he had a couple of double rifles, a .450 and a .400 NE, made by Manton & Co, and describes them as “excellent weapons in every way and leave nothing to be desired” [9]
Apparently, by the XXth century, Manton & Co became a dealer of all kinds of weapons by catalogue. The content page of the 1926 catalogue (which can be had as a reprint, I don’t have it, only looked up the front page online – [11]) mentions weapons as diverсe as muzzleloaders and Mauser ‘broomhandle’ pistols. A recent article in African Hunting Gazette speaks about Manton & Co double rifles as solid, but plain workhorses [8]
The company is still in existence, but since the export of guns into India was banned in 1984, it doesn’t deal in firearms or ammunition [10].
There’s a curious lawsuit brought by Manton & Co against Indian government in 1965. Apparently, the government misunderstood the self-designation of ‘gunmaker’, and applied to the company the regulations which were normally applied to manufacturing plants. The company claimed that it did not in fact make any guns, and all their stuff of 46 were either office workers or gunsmiths employed for repair and maintenance of guns. [2] Incidentally, the same lawsuit mentions that the firm was transferred to Indian ownership after the country gained independence. Confiscated?
This is connected to the question if Manton and Son, in their early days, had a production unit in India, or it was a trading operation only. The general opinion is that they never made any guns themselves [8], and the data from the lawsuit supports that, at least within the breechloading period. But what about the early days, when a gunmaker didn’t need either to have a steam engine for making actions etc. or to outsource from one which had?
It could be assumed, that in 1820s Joe Manton already experienced financial difficulties, and probably the decision to explore the Indian market and sending Frederick there was prompted by the same reasons. But which market was meant – one for sporting weapons, or for military ones? Was there an attempt of catering for the needs of East India Company regiments, ensuring orders locally – or was it a sporting gun business from the start? Militaria and generally weapons designed for killing [censored] sapiens are out of the field of my interest, so I am at a loss here.
And, then again, why did the company with Joe Manton’s name took hold in India but not in Britain? That was certainly not due to lack of trying, for they kept a London address. But it didn’t seem to work out.
Was it that the British consumer was more sophisticated and well-read than an Indian expat?
Or did Manton & Co manage to gain a stronghold in India before the confusing news about Joe Manton being out then back in then out again reached the subcontinent?
A risk that paid off, with the Indian consumers having no alternative than to go to Manton and Co, no matter what they thought or had read?
Or was it that the product they offered was nothing special in England but a rare and valuable commodity in India?
Whatever the reason, it goes to show that having a good name is not enough. It’s satisfying the customer that counts.
That’s about all I know. Any additions, comments or corrections are welcome. Especially suggestions on where to read on sport in colonial India, which could help to reconstruct the profile of a Manton & Son / Manton & Co consumer in 1820, etc. Calcutta.
