Evaluate this cannon. Antique? Right?

[cannonmn]

 
The advertising and more photos (is shown as unavailable or sold so I would not think there would be objection to posting it here)
 
http://www.tortugatrading.com/engine/inspect.asp?Item=1943&Filter=Archive
 
Yes, I already have some ideas of my own, but I thought it might be an interesting exercise to see what others think and what they notice about this item. 
 
Questions for you:
 
1.  Is it antique?
 
2.  Is it "right?"
 
If youve already looked at this one on this forum, let me know and I'll remove this topic.

[Double D]

Tortuga Trading is Shawn the antique weapons expert and Movie prop provider from Pawn Stars.   I have never seen him make an evaluation I can say was wrong, but he has made more that one that "didn't sound right". 

The patination appear artificially applied.

[Ex 49'er]

On the web page Cannonmn provided there was this:"Note; this cannon was rescued from a  NY metals refiner/scrap yard.  One of the lifting handles was damaged and professionally restored, unfortunately bead blasted and then artificially aged to be a possible prop for 'PIRATES 2 & 3' but was never used." This cannon is an almost movie star and got the Hollywood treatment.

[KABAR2]

The biggest glaring issue I see right off the bat are the dolphins look very French, next are the proof marks on the side of the breech, and how it is dated..... someone went to a lot of trouble making this look old........

[Cannoneer]

Questions for you:
 
1.  Is it antique?
 
2.  Is it "right?"

1. No

2. No

I believe this gun was manufactured by the now defunct "Cannons LTD." The handles on this tube are an anomaly, they're almost as long as the entire second reinforce.

Photos from eBay

[flagman1776]

We have a winner!!

I believe this gun was manufactured by the now defunct "Cannons LTD." The handles on this tube are an anamoly, they're almost as long as the entire second reinforce.

Photos from eBay

[Double D]

On the web page Cannonmn provided there was this:"Note; this cannon was rescued from a  NY metals refiner/scrap yard.  One of the lifting handles was damaged and professionally restored, unfortunately bead blasted and then artificially aged to be a possible prop for 'PIRATES 2 & 3' but was never used." This cannon is an almost movie star and got the Hollywood treatment.

Whadda yo mean read!!!!  They have  pitchers!!!!   

[Bob Smith]

The Royal cypher should not be engraved onto the barrel; it should be cast on. It would have hada three entwined in it.
Bob Smith

[KABAR2]

It might have been more believable if it had been engraved as a Spanish cannon  with the "CR" intertwined with the "III" under it........

[KABAR2]

The patination appear artificially applied.

Zulu's mortar painted up looked more realistic as to age than this does!

[cannonmn]

The Royal cypher should not be engraved onto the barrel; it should be cast on. It would have hada three entwined in it.

I think we might have to qualify that, at least if what I've observed on British ordnance is generally correct.  I have seen many iron guns with the royal cyphers cast in relief, i.e. sticking out.  On bronze guns, at least those after about 1780, I'm thinking engraved marks are more common.  I'd better run and get some photos to back that up, now, shouldn't I
 
--------------------------------
 
Light 3-pounder dated 1808:
 

[Bob Smith]

Generally the Blomefield guns, introduced  late 1780s, have the marks engraved, but the normal guns before that have the cypher, and coats of arms (which this one is missing?) cast on. Can't find any easy examples, but you should be able to check on the British guns captured by those pesky rebels, which I am sure you all know better than me. But if supposed to date from 1762, it should have much better markings, of good quality casting and chasing.
Bob Smith

[A.Roads]

This gun has been altered to deceive. As much as the patina etc the markings are all wrong. Very rarely are proofmarks stamped onto artillery pieces, if so usually small private pieces. There should be no GR over or under the broad arrow mark. The GR cypher engraving is too thick & crude.  However the lack of an entwined "3" is only incorrect if attempting to attribute this piece to King George III. The 1st King George had just GR, then the 2nd King George had an entwined "2" followed by King George III with entwined "3" which is the most commonly encountered of the three by far.
Adrian