AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: T.C.Albert on February 23, 2009, 07:49:02 PM
-
I dont know how many take this magazine, but new issue out this month has a good article with lots of great color photos about long rifles...it was written by the president of the KRA and leads off with some fine photos
of the "Griffin" embellished Ortner rifle....thought it may be of interest.
TCA
-
I read the article. I have some questions about his facts and opinions, would like to see his supporting documentation.
Michael
-
Hmmm. Fact? Opinion? Sounds juicy. Anyone want to scan and email me a copy? (rubs hands together...) ;)
-
A collector friend emailed me about the article several days ago and so I went out and bought a copy of the current issue of Early American Life magazine. Kafka's article, "The Romance of the Kentucky Rifle", is intended for a general readership interested in early American life but not well acquainted with American longrifles. All in all, this is an entertaining and well written article by an eminent collector and scholar.
However, while I greatly respect Lorentz Kafka, who often posits interesting and sometimes profound theories, his article is sometimes so focused on Pennsylvania as to be almost humorous. For example, he writes: "Kentucky rifles can be classed by profile or architecture into two major designs loosely based on their geographic origin- Lancaster County versus Berks and Bucks Counties." That would probably surprise the 18th and early 19th gunsmiths working in Virginia, the Carolinas, Tennessee, Georgia, Kentucky, Ohio, etc. And it will probably surprise some collectors today. How should we classify a Salisbury, North Carolina, a Southwest Virginia, or an East Tennessee longrifle? Lancaster or Berks and Bucks County?
One of the wonderful rifles illustrated in the article was described as "the finest example of a Western long rifle inspired by the Kentucky was crafted by Wiley Higgins." I respectfully suggest several problems with that statement: Wiley Higgins (if he in fact made the rifle illustrated, which is a possibility but not a certainty) worked and lived in Georgia. As a native Georgian, I have never thought of the Peach State as a western state, or the products of its finest craftsmen as western. As a collector particularly interested in Wiley Higgins' work, I have never thought of him as a maker of western long rifles. Furthermore, what does it mean to say that a fine rifle made outside of Pennsylvania was "inspired by the Kentucky." Are longrifles made outside of Pennsylvania simply "inspired" by the real thing, i.e., those made in Pennsylvania? Food for thought, I guess . . . .
-
Thanks for the info. I used to subscribe a while back. Maybe the bookstore will have a copy. Sounds like a good article.
-
By and large, early American made guns seemingly are going to follow one of two patterns; they will look like the early French Tulle trade guns (Roman nose profile, Bucks, Northampton, etc.) which the French supplied to the Indians and to the settlers, or they will look like the English/Germanic guns which mostly have straight architecture and are somewhat musket like (Lancaster School) and perhaps preferred by the white settlers.
Why a particular school or region favored a specific pattern is a matter of great interest but is still mostly conjecture.
Some feel that the Indians played a major role in at least part of this process in that they like the long barrels and curvilinear stocks of the French fowlers. As it stands at present, we may never know.
The South was peopled by both English and Germans and the style of rifle was mostly straight stocked, but there are exceptions. No truly early guns have been found that could help us make some good hypotheses on when and what early Southern guns looked like, or why. My take is that the makers down there followed the English style for the most part.
Some random thoughts.
Dick
-
Good point. I may well have misunderstood Lorentz's point about "two schools". In that sense, Southern rifles follow both traditions.
-
While some of the statements made in the article don't quite reflect our current understanding of things, I applaud Mr. Kafka for publishing the article in that magazine. For years I have been appalled at seeing pictured in the magazine great, historic eighteenth century homes that have been carefully restored to be period correct, yet hanging over the fireplace is a nineteenth century nondescript shotgun. I sincerely hope the article will open the eyes and minds of some of those home owners to the fact that great flintlock rifles were an important part of life in the period. I wish I had known ahead of time that the article was going to be published. I would have gladly inserted an ad letting those people know how they could obtain a period correct rifle.
-
Years ago I found a nice North Carolina rifle, full stock with a simple patchbox, not knowing long rifles other than seeing them in movies I loved the lines of it which were very Roman Nose , great curve to it. Years later after study of originals , I found the now known rifle, called the "Gamecock ". The rifle has a great curve to it, not straight. The first day I had it I connected it to the Heard rifle, from design elements. I have seen a lot of Southern rifles with great curved stocks. On the other hand I have seen many PA Rifles with straight line stocks. Most Articles in EAL are intended as stated general info, as it would take years to do a full scale article, probably a book. The other thought is, there are a lot of people who find- inherit long rifles that might not care for them and see these articles and might realize that they are History, research people like MR. Kafta to sell them. Lets hope this is the case. Change your socks everyday, The Great Pinyone!
-
I personally found the content of the article more than a little lacking in historical authenticity. Mr. Kafka expresses his conjecture and speculation about symbolism and hidden meanings in the art work as if it were fact, without alerting the reader that they are purely of his own concoction. In addition there are numerous other strange comments which seem to stem from sloppy research or wishful thinking.
For example, the picture of the Beck rifle with the inscription "Christian Corgey" Kafka speculates may be a pun "Christian English Dog". Near as I can tell, the word "Corgi" is Welsh, and means "dwarf dog", not "English dog".
Perhaps a German speaker here could clarify a few other things I suspect may not be quite correct. He identifies the name "Kuntz" as meaning "art". I checked some surname sites that identify K U N S T, not K U N T Z as having that meaning. Kuntz is related to Conrad, and meaning something akin to "brave council". He likewise identifies the man's head on the trigger guard finial of the Kuntz rifle as being a self portrait of Kuntz. Exactly how, in the absence of to my knowledge, of any portrait of Kuntz, and no name or initials engraved with it, do we determine it is a portrait of the gunsmith? Not to mention the "Christian fish" he sees emerging from the alleged Kuntz's mind?
Likewise he recounts the name "Schreyer" as meaning "scissors" "to cut the dross from God's Word" or to "reveal religious belief." Again, those with that surname today appear to believe their name means something akin to "town crier". All I could find is that "Schere", akin to the English "shears", is German for scissors. And the Schreyer patchbox being a "locust about to devour a stag"? Someone want to explain that to me? Do they have exceptionally big locusts in that part of Pennsylvania? The stag represents St. Hubert, or the crucifixion, or the Apocalypse? How about the remote and clearly unrealistic possibility it represents what the owner intended to kill with it?
He seems to mix and match Catholic, Protestant, Moravian and Pagan beliefs together to make an explanation de jour for each and every decorative element present. On several occasions I have read some of his interpretations of the decoration on Moravian made rifles to the former curator of the Moravian Historical Society. To date his reaction has only been laughter and the words, "You must be kidding me."
Exactly what document did he consult to determine that the Oerter rifle taken back to England was left smooth bored because Oerter left the choice of smooth or rifled, “up to God”? What prevents this from having been the customer's choice, and not the gunsmith's?
Since no rifles survive by Wolfgang Hage that are signed or dated, exactly what period documents could he have possibly consulted to determine that Wolfgang abandoned engraving them after his 1751 gunpowder accident?
Overall, it makes one wonder when the poor apprentice gunsmiths had time to learn the art of gunsmithing when 110 percent of their time appears to have been spent learning the symbols of the mystery religions of the ancient world as well as those of classical mythology and the tenets and history of every one of the various Christian and pagan sects and their symbols. A tall order just to produce a rifle. Or is it more reasonable to think that most of this hidden symbolism stuff is bunk, and gunsmiths actually apprenticed to learn gunsmithing, and basic bookkeeping and writing skills, so they could function in their communities as, believe it or not, gunsmiths, and not as the keepers and transmitters of esoteric knowledge for all the ages.
While I echo the applause of seeing some good rifles appear in a publication like EAL, I hope the readership won't assume we all sit around with books on numerology and other pseudosciences, exploring the hidden symbols on our rifles. There is still so much hard documentation to be searched for on the history of the Kentucky rifle, it just seems a shame to me to waste time on what I personally believe is mostly undocumentable speculation, conjecture and opinion. And opinions, as they say, "are just like your hind end. Everyone has one, and most of them stink". Possibly even at times, my own. ;D
-
expresses his conjecture and speculation ..... as if it were fact, without alerting the reader that they are purely of his own concoction. In addition there are numerous other strange comments which seem to stem from sloppy research or wishful thinking.
I have not seen the article but the partial quote from the post above rings a bell on some other things I have read.
There seems to be a large facet of historians who defend this type of presentation of "facts" as acceptable in the realm of printed historical research. I am not one of them. ;D
-
Well, I just got around to reading the article and must agree that the author seemed to be stretching his interpretation of symbolism on the rifles--he shows partial views of some fine rifles, I wish he had shown more complete views. However the article was entertaining and perhaps will inspire some readers not now "into" longrifles to look deeper at them--perhaps add a few more afficienados. Maybe Eric K can supply some nicely aged examples for their mantles. The Higgins rifle by the way was called a 'western rifle' apparently because it was made for the first governor of Arkansas--a western state on the frontier at the time. He does show its full view anyway. I don't think it is on display anymore--at least the last time I visited the nice museum at the Arkansas Territorial restoration all of their Arkansas longrifles were in storage to make room for a quilt exhibit! I expressed my disappointment. They do have a very nice Bowie knife exhibit there, however, including a newly discovered knife by the semi-legendary James Black that I put them onto [they already had the two most famous Black knives]. Many of the Arkansas made rifles can be found in a book on early Arkansas handworks--I have forgotten the exact title [memo to self: look it up on alibris]....
-
A simliar explanation of symbolism by the same author regarding the Oerter attributed Lion and Lamb rifle is written in Shumways Longrifle Articles book Vol 1. In the article the rifle is attributed to Albrecht as was the common belief then. I always thought the explanation in the article was a bit of a stretch but who was I to argue ? Could Oerter have been that versed in christian symbolism is his mid 20s ? That much symbolisn seems like something to learn as an adult. I don't know much about Moravian life but would religous education continue as he was an apprentice and even later as he was running the shop ? Just thinking out loud here. ???
-
.... There is still so much hard documentation to be searched for on the history of the Kentucky rifle, it just seems a shame to me to waste time on what I personally believe is mostly undocumentable speculation, conjecture and opinion. ...
Welcome to the forum! And amen ;D
-
I personally found the content of the article more than a little lacking in historical authenticity. Mr. Kafka expresses his conjecture and speculation about symbolism and hidden meanings in the art work as if it were fact, without alerting the reader that they are purely of his own concoction. In addition there are numerous other strange comments which seem to stem from sloppy research or wishful thinking.
For example, the picture of the Beck rifle with the inscription "Christian Corgey" Kafka speculates may be a pun "Christian English Dog". Near as I can tell, the word "Corgi" is Welsh, and means "dwarf dog", not "English dog".
Perhaps a German speaker here could clarify a few other things I suspect may not be quite correct. He identifies the name "Kuntz" as meaning "art". I checked some surname sites that identify K U N S T, not K U N T Z as having that meaning. Kuntz is related to Conrad, and meaning something akin to "brave council". He likewise identifies the man's head on the trigger guard finial of the Kuntz rifle as being a self portrait of Kuntz. Exactly how, in the absence of to my knowledge, of any portrait of Kuntz, and no name or initials engraved with it, do we determine it is a portrait of the gunsmith? Not to mention the "Christian fish" he sees emerging from the alleged Kuntz's mind?
Likewise he recounts the name "Schreyer" as meaning "scissors" "to cut the dross from God's Word" or to "reveal religious belief." Again, those with that surname today appear to believe their name means something akin to "town crier". All I could find is that "Schere", akin to the English "shears", is German for scissors. And the Schreyer patchbox being a "locust about to devour a stag"? Someone want to explain that to me? Do they have exceptionally big locusts in that part of Pennsylvania? The stag represents St. Hubert, or the crucifixion, or the Apocalypse? How about the remote and clearly unrealistic possibility it represents what the owner intended to kill with it?
He seems to mix and match Catholic, Protestant, Moravian and Pagan beliefs together to make an explanation de jour for each and every decorative element present. On several occasions I have read some of his interpretations of the decoration on Moravian made rifles to the former curator of the Moravian Historical Society. To date his reaction has only been laughter and the words, "You must be kidding me."
Exactly what document did he consult to determine that the Oerter rifle taken back to England was left smooth bored because Oerter left the choice of smooth or rifled, “up to God”? What prevents this from having been the customer's choice, and not the gunsmith's?
Since no rifles survive by Wolfgang Hage that are signed or dated, exactly what period documents could he have possibly consulted to determine that Wolfgang abandoned engraving them after his 1751 gunpowder accident?
Overall, it makes one wonder when the poor apprentice gunsmiths had time to learn the art of gunsmithing when 110 percent of their time appears to have been spent learning the symbols of the mystery religions of the ancient world as well as those of classical mythology and the tenets and history of every one of the various Christian and pagan sects and their symbols. A tall order just to produce a rifle. Or is it more reasonable to think that most of this hidden symbolism stuff is bunk, and gunsmiths actually apprenticed to learn gunsmithing, and basic bookkeeping and writing skills, so they could function in their communities as, believe it or not, gunsmiths, and not as the keepers and transmitters of esoteric knowledge for all the ages.
While I echo the applause of seeing some good rifles appear in a publication like EAL, I hope the readership won't assume we all sit around with books on numerology and other pseudosciences, exploring the hidden symbols on our rifles. There is still so much hard documentation to be searched for on the history of the Kentucky rifle, it just seems a shame to me to waste time on what I personally believe is mostly undocumentable speculation, conjecture and opinion. And opinions, as they say, "are just like your hind end. Everyone has one, and most of them stink". Possibly even at times, my own. ;D
RifleResearcher, I don't know who you are, but I could not possibly agree more! Bless your heart!
-
Then as now, people used common symbols with deep or little intention depending on the person. Some symbols, like the lion and the lamb, speak directly to Christian symbols for Christ. The Moravians were ardent missionaries and very dedicated to their faith, but I suspect that any symbols they used would still remain in the Moravian tradition and not be obscure. The lion and eagle were Czech/Bohemiam/Moravian symbols.
(https://eos.praha.eu/public/ac/7e/d3/38925_4__3_12.jpg)
And the lamb is the symbol of the Moravian church.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.choirrobesonline.com%2F...%2FMoravianChurch.jpg&hash=93e6901a6c8319f5a2f0f07d48706bcab12c0a06)
-
Just to fill in some gaps here. Lorenz Kafka is researcher who looks for any connection between KY Rifle ornaments and religious/philosophical precepts that might exist. although some of his conclusions may seem far fetched to many of us, he nonetheless continues to study and propound new theses.
He is merely providing some ideas on the origins and meanings of symbols that we see frequently on rifles. Attack him if you will, but it was his article that was published (and not yours). At least he sees beyond the object itself and asks the 'why' of certain elements.
Dick/KRA
-
Stophel: "RifleResearcher, I don't know who you are, but I could not possibly agree more! Bless your heart!"
You are just lucky I sent the short version of my rant, I actually get pissy and sarcastic in the long version. ;D
"There's a lotta things about me you don't know anything about... Things you wouldn't understand. Things you couldn't understand. Things you shouldn't understand."
Pee-wee Herman, in Pee-wee's Big Adventure
The same goes for me... ???
RR
-
Just to fill in some gaps here. Lorenz Kafka is researcher who looks for any connection between KY Rifle ornaments and religious/philosophical precepts that might exist. although some of his conclusions may seem far fetched to many of us, he nonetheless continues to study and propound new theses.
He is merely providing some ideas on the origins and meanings of symbols that we see frequently on rifles. Attack him if you will, but it was his article that was published (and not yours). At least he sees beyond the object itself and asks the 'why' of certain elements.
Dick/KRA
Dick,
I would respectfully disagree with your basic premise. He is not merely providing some ideas on the origins of symbols we see frequently on rifles. If he were providing ideas, or theories, he would be using phrases like, "This symbol might represent..." or "The Griffin may symbolize...." Almost exclusively he states his speculation in the form of a fact, ie: "States inlayed a crowned "Big Chief" or "King of Heaven" shown below, depicting..."
Perhaps you see no difference in the two, but I see a world of difference. Kind of the difference between your doctor saying, "That spot might be cancerous, but we will have to test it." or "You have cancer". One is an idea that leaves room for further exploration, one is a definative statement of fact.
In addition, I am absolutely attacking what I believe are clear factual errors. That is the way science works. You float a theory, others test it. I believe it was Einstein who said something like, "No one can prove me correct, but a single discovery can prove me wrong." If I had written, "This man is a crack head.", yup, that would be me attacking him. When I point out errors in his methodology and facts, that is just how big boys play the game.
As for him getting the article published, that is exactly to my point. An article riddled with errors and speculation misrepresented as fact, should never have gotten published in the first place. Seeing beyond the object itself and asking "why" is a noble cause, and one that I and many others aspire to. But I would hope that when I do, it is with the time tested scientific method, and when I theorize, that I don't try to fool myself and others by embracing that just because I believe something to be true, it must be a fact.
Dick, I have no quarrel with you. If you are a friend of his, then I apologize if I have offended you personally with my words. I have known him for over 20 years, and disagree the same with him today as the first time he ever ran his theories by me. The difference is, then he discussed them as theories. Today he clearly believes them to be facts. If he has documentation to prove me wrong on anything I have said here, I will gladly eat crow. It won't be the first time, and with enough barbecue sauce, you can choke it down. But wild speculation, heck, even tame speculation, presented as fact, does not further the knowledge base. A smarter man than me on this board ends his posts with this line:
"If you accept your thoughts as facts, then you will no longer be looking for new information, because you assume that you have all the answers."
I don't know if he is quoting someone else or himself, but I could not agree more with the concept.
RR
-
RR-No quarrel on my part either. Think we better leave hard science out of this however. This is the softest of the soft sciences, originating in ethnology, history and anthro. Some stats are the best we can do and numbers don't define human behavior very well.
You appear to have done a considerable amount of research which I applaud you for. More is always best with most knowledge.
And as it happens, I do not know Lorenz, but we are both members of the KRA. His views on the iconography of the KY Rifle can be said to be somewhat controversial in the group. Personally, I don't subscribe to them either. Most of his ideas (and I know that is what they are) cannot be supported in most cases. We are all just 'guessers' on most of this anyway. He should have a forum to expound his views, as we all should,
Since we are removed in time by some 200 years from the facts and what is the written word from that time can be erroneous, or apply to a specific incident and not be applied to the universe of facts. we can really only suppose what was going on.
The major research done today that I am aware of seems to be carried on by Wallace Gusler, Eric Kettenburg and Alan Gutchess with others doing what they can. The archives of the Moravians are being studied as never before and some interesting things are emerging, all supported by footnoting and bibliography.
I enjoy your commentaries on the history of the rifle and wish you well in your research.
Dick
-
It seems many are assuming that all of the lion-carved guns and others are Moravian! I don't think this assumption can be flatly made.
-
RifleResearcher,
Welcome to the forum, but personally, I think you’ve chosen the wrong venue to deride Kafkas’ article.
It hasn’t been published on this forum and I doubt that many here have read it in the magazine, so a letter to the editor of the magazine would seem to be more appropriate.
If, as you state, you’ve been a friend of his for 20 years, it seems strange that you’d write here in your first post with such obvious ill intent toward the man and his opinion.
I don’t know Kafka personally, and have never talked to him. My only knowledge of him is through his KRA affiliation, however I have heard of some of his theories and/or speculations. While I think some of his ideas might be reaching or farfetched, I don’t rule them out completely as unworthy of discussion. Religion played a much more prominent role and influence in life 200 years ago than it generally does today, and I would guess that a lot of significance to objects and designs might well have been lost in the passage of time.
As apprentices, I’ve read that training gunsmiths were to be trained in the Art and Mystery of gunmaking. Might not the Mystery have been learning the religious significance of objects and designs.
To just throw theories or speculation aside as totally worthless, without proof of their worthlessness, seems as foolish as believing it completely, without proof of their truth.
Kafka wrote is opinions in the article, and signed his name.
So far, all you’ve done is criticize his writings, without benefit of divulging authorship.
John
-
RifleResearcher,
Welcome to the forum, but personally, I think you’ve chosen the wrong venue to deride Kafkas’ article.
It hasn’t been published on this forum and I doubt that many here have read it in the magazine, so a letter to the editor of the magazine would seem to be more appropriate.
If, as you state, you’ve been a friend of his for 20 years, it seems strange that you’d write here in your first post with such obvious ill intent toward the man and his opinion.
I don’t know Kafka personally, and have never talked to him. My only knowledge of him is through his KRA affiliation, however I have heard of some of his theories and/or speculations. While I think some of his ideas might be reaching or farfetched, I don’t rule them out completely as unworthy of discussion. Religion played a much more prominent role and influence in life 200 years ago than it generally does today, and I would guess that a lot of significance to objects and designs might well have been lost in the passage of time.
As apprentices, I’ve read that training gunsmiths were to be trained in the Art and Mystery of gunmaking. Might not the Mystery have been learning the religious significance of objects and designs.
To just throw theories or speculation aside as totally worthless, without proof of their worthlessness, seems as foolish as believing it completely, without proof of their truth.
Kafka wrote is opinions in the article, and signed his name.
So far, all you’ve done is criticize his writings, without benefit of divulging authorship.
John
John,
I guess it is time to clarify myself, and my thoughts. As I stated, I have known Lorentz for over twenty years, I have never considered him friend or enemy and have made no claim here to contrary. I restored the States rifle he illustrates in his article, which was my first contact with him. As for this not being an appropriate venue to discuss his article, have I not seen in this forum discussion of various articles and books, none of which were originally published here? I don't remember anyone ever asking if everyone had read the article or book before discussion was considered appropriate. If I have missed a FAQ page, please refer it to me.
As for my "ill intent", as I have stated, I hope clearly, I am opposed to the man's writings on a historical/factual/scientific basis. I don't care "who" he is personally. If someone wants to keep their beiiefs private, no matter how strange or how true, I believe it is their absolute right to do so, unopposed. But when they publish those ideas in a public magazine, then the gloves are off. A letter to the editor is indeed on the way, as I understand, so are others from a variety of KRA members equally disturbed by his article, but this is a discussion list, or at least I was under the impression it was? Am I to understand we cannot discuss things that are controversial?
As for religion playing a larger part in life then, Amen brother. But colonial American religion is not what Kafka is talking about. The "interpretation" of hidden symbols thrown together in a hodge podge is not a serious study or research. Starting with the answer and then twisting facts to fit, is not research. What he is doing versus pure research is the difference between Astronomy and Astrology, Chemistry and Alchemy, Physics and Tarot Card reading, Medicine and a Pixie Stix. One is science, the other is not. Being an expert in Physics might get you the Nobel prize, being an expert in tarot cards, a good job writing for the National Enquirer. I personally do not see them as equal. If you are going to interpret the symbols on a Moravian rifle, you better start with knowing if the rifle was even made by a Moravian. Then to the Moravian archives. You continue with study of the writings of the founders of the church. You consult with leading scholars of Moravian thought and material culture. Then, and only then, might you be qualified to expound on meaning of the symbol as it applies to the Moravian faith. I will bet you dollars to donuts that Kafka did none of these things, or if he did, he went to teach them, not to learn from them. Moravian beliefs and material culture are unique, not exactly like Catholic, not exactly like Protestant. Not the modern church mind you, but the historic church. I do know what folks who are knowledgeable on Moravian history and material culture think of his conclusions, I have asked them. If you doubt me, I encourage you to do the same.
Marcello Truzzi is thought to have originated the phrase, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." In other words, if I declare as a fact that the moon is made of green cheese, the burden falls on me to prove that assertion, not on you to disprove it. Until I do, I think it only reasonable for everyone to assume I am wrong, based on the obvious illogical and non-scientific problems such a claim presents. The fact there is a moon, and there is green cheese, in no ways makes my claim more likely to be true.
Make no mistake, there a number of us who have indeed confronted Mr. Kafka on these claims personally, and I think you can see in the article what asking for documentation for his claims has done to temper his enthusiasm for his own beliefs. Lorentz is a big boy. I can't imagine that he did not expect folks to discuss and debate what he published. There is a time honored tradition both in the free press and in academia to do just what we are doing here. I don't fully understand why that disturbs some.
I am, for the record, in no way declaring that symbols are not found on rifles. I am not declaring that rifle makers and users did not have spirtitual beliefs, even spiritual beliefs outside the mainstream. I am not declaring that some of these spiritual beliefs could not have manifested on the rifles themselves. What I am declaring is that the study of these symbols, if and where they exist, and the study of these beliefs, if and where they exist, can in no way be given a pass when it comes to still needing to be done with the same careful research that we would expect in any other area of the arts or sciences. And that for the sake of clarity and honesty, we hold those who speculate and conjecture on the topic to be clear and honest about calling their theories, "theories", and not misleading the public or serious students into believing their writings are anything more than their own opinion.
If I state Wolfgang Haga had an accident, blowing himself and his shop up, this is not my opinion, I can cite you the newspaper article describing the event. When I declare that he never again engraved a rifle because of that accident, I have crossed a line from interpreting the facts to personal fantasy. The newspaper makes no mention of this "fact". No diary of Haga survives detailing this "fact". As I pointed out earlier, since there are no surviving signed or dated Haga rifles currently known, there can only be one source for this information, Mr. Kafka's vivid imagination. Yet nowhere in that article does he acknowledge that he has made this bit of information up from whole cloth. He states it as if it were fact! This is not the sole incident of this kind of deceptive behavior in the article. If someone would like to prove me wrong, please, please, please, do so! If Mr. Kafka had any point in EAL given a disclaimer or acknowledged in any way that his beliefs and interpretation were his own alone, and not widely accepted or recognized, and were at best controversial, I would not have darkend your doorstep and bothered to post anything here at all. But he did not, and as a student of the longrifle, a "Rifle Researcher" ;D, I felt compelled to post an opposing opinion.
Again, if anything I have stated about Mr. Kafka's interpretations are untrue, please feel free to point them out. If it is merely my snotty tone that offends, I am sorry, it is the only one I have. The keyboard and screen rob you of all of my cute winks and grins. In person I am big squishy pile of love and happiness, really.
Alan Gutchess
-
Well, hello Alan-It is very nice to find you here on the ALR Forum. Glad that you are on board as you have much to teach us all. For the bretheren, Alan Gutchess is the son of a fine rifle builder Gerry Gutchess who sadly is no longer with us, (Alan, I considered your Dad to be a good friend and I miss him, also). In my opinion, Alan is one of the finest builder/restorer/ scholars of the long rifle in the country today. Overall he is pretty reticent about his abilities,
but make no mistake as to his being a serious contender.
Alan, we met a time or two at the home of Jack Brooks; aka Brooks Boarding House. I was coming as you were leaving. Have enjoyed your contributions to the Early American History
Programs on the History Channel and hope that there are more to come.
Again, welcome and do not be a stranger here. You are among kindred spirits.
Dick Gadler
-
I'm not sure why some who have spent much time researching longrifles present educated guesses and speculations as though they are facts. I won't speculate on their motives, but in fact they diminish their own positions by doing so. Moreover, many new students are led astray because they assume that things stated as facts, are well supported. This leads to all kinds of mythology, such as the common belief that "frontier guns had iron furniture, cause brass is too shiny and can get you kilt." Or " the longrifle developed from the Germanic short barreled jaeger and the English fowler (as if there were no long barreled Germanic fowlers, among many other reasons why that view is unsupportable).
The idea that hypotheses should be stated as hypotheses is not new, linited to science, or foreign to the study of longrifles. Any reading of Kindig or Shumway will reveal a lot of careful language.
-
Alan, I for one appreciated your response and didn't feel that it was inappropriate. I hope we hear more from you on the site. Having a discussion like this one is part of what makes this site great. Thanks.
-
Well, it is time to "get real" I think. The man published his article in Early American Life for crying out loud, not a juried scientific journal or even a serious bulletin for collectors of longrifles! EAL is a mag for those elite who can afford to buy and retore old houses, collect high dollar antique furniture, etc., and hardly a scientific or serious historical journal to my knowledge [correct me if I am wrong--I at least HAVE read the article in the mag]. I am a scientist who has published in serious scientific journals and who has [and is currently doing so] edited scientific papers for publication. There is a difference between writing for other professionals and writing "fun" articles for popular, laymen's mags. Personally, even then I would have couched my statements more cautiously than this author did, but I am not him. Scientists [and historians] should know to distinguish between fact, inference and conclusions both in thought and in writing--it is amazing how many professionals do not. I did not expect critical writing in such a mag--and did not find it. To so attack a piece, clearly written as a personal take on gun art, seems a bit overdone IMHO. Sorry. ;)
-
Alan,
It’s good to have you here, and I hope you’ll continue to be a regular contributor.
I don’t know you, other than by name, but have friends that do, and over the years they’ve had many good things to say about your work, and the research you’ve done.
Now, as to my response to your recent post, had you included these comments in the original post along with your name, then my comments wouldn’t have been necessary. Given the anonymous nature of the internet, I think a lot of people, myself included, tend to doubt things said, especially without benefit of a name to give the comments a degree of credibility.
As Dick wrote above, yourself, Gusler and Kettenburg are the preeminent researchers today, and it’s exciting to have you here! Hopefully you’ll feel encouraged to write here and share your knowledge and findings with us less knowledgeable, but very interested guys.
Best regards,
John Robbins
-
Well, it is time to "get real" I think. The man published his article in Early American Life for crying out loud, not a juried scientific journal or even a serious bulletin for collectors of longrifles! EAL is a mag for those elite who can afford to buy and retore old houses, collect high dollar antique furniture, etc., and hardly a scientific or serious historical journal to my knowledge [correct me if I am wrong--I at least HAVE read the article in the mag]. I am a scientist who has published in serious scientific journals and who has [and is currently doing so] edited scientific papers for publication. There is a difference between writing for other professionals and writing "fun" articles for popular, laymen's mags. Personally, even then I would have couched my statements more cautiously than this author did, but I am not him. Scientists [and historians] should know to distinguish between fact, inference and conclusions both in thought and in writing--it is amazing how many professionals do not. I did not expect critical writing in such a mag--and did not find it. To so attack a piece, clearly written as a personal take on gun art, seems a bit overdone IMHO. Sorry. ;)
I though I could not beat this dead horse any further, however...
Just because EAL is not a scholarly journal, the folks who read it still expect that what they are reading is factual information about the past. You may not have expected "critical writing", but the readership, (myself included), expected to not have fantasy tales mixed in with the facts without being forewarned. I have met and spoken to the owner of EAL in the past, and I have no doubt she will be shocked when she discovers what she has published. She has a very sincere interest in American history, and I don't fault her or the editor for being fooled. I agree with you that there is difference between "fun" and scholarly publications, but only if the "fun" ones are clearly identified works of fiction, supermarket tabloids or comic books. A magazine like EAL, even if aimed at a casual audience, still has the expectation of articles not specifically identified as "fiction", as being factual, not fantasy. In case you missed it, part of Mr. Kafka's article was a clear appeal to that "elite" audience you cite to collect Kentucky rifles. He even mentions joining the KRA and repeatedly references the specific high prices top rifles bring. I think those folks, "elite" or not, deserve not to be spoon fed a bunch of fiction under the guise of fact. A lie is a lie, fiction is fiction, whether it is published in MAD magazine or the National Geographic. I would suspect that the readership of MAD expect to be fooled with, but the readership of Nat Geo expect facts. Ask the editor of EAL which magazine she thinks her publication is most like.
In case you don't wish to, these quotes are from EAL's own writer guidelines:
"We cover a diversity of topics, all centered around America from its founding through the mid-1800s: · History. For Life in Early America, we seek an interesting presentation of historic life, an unusual event, or a different look at a well-known topic (usually keyed to the publication date). We are sticklers for accuracy, as our magazine circulates among many museums and historical societies, so you should have some expertise in your subject." "Accuracy is the most important thing you deliver to us. We can guarantee that your work will be scrutinized by experts in the topic about which your write, so please be sure every date is accurate, every name spelled correctly, every address and telephone number verified."
They did not publish this work as a "personal take on gun art", nor did Mr. Kafka present it as one. They purchased and published it as accurate and factual history, which it is not. This clearly does not bother you, but as someone who lectures on, promotes and researches the factual history of the longrifle, these are just more myths that myself and other writers, researchers and museum interpreters who take this study seriously, have to waste time debunking to the public and collectors in the future. They guaranteed him scrutiny, I am making good on that guarantee. ;D
Alan
-
Alan, you clearly take the issue seriously, and I appreciate that. I wonder, however, at your characterization of his flighty opinions as "lies"--a bit strong. They may be wrong, but "lies" implies at least to me a knowing attempt to decieve. I don't know the author, but I don't think he wrote lies, but rather opinions--whether or not you agree with them. As to the editors of the mag--they chose to publish the article as is, meaning it passed their process [I am a technical editor and there is a process regulated by the aims of a given pub]; therefore, I don't see this mag as a historical journal, however otherwise well put together.
P.S. the scrutiny should happen before publication in the editing process, not after. They claim they had experts scrutinize each article. So? They used it anyway. A bit of fancy thrown in with an other wise acceptable article [I saw a few other flaws].
-
Ha! It's usually me who's upsetting the apple cart and making people mad! ::)
Go man, go! ;D
-
Alan, you clearly take the issue seriously, and I appreciate that. I wonder, however, at your characterization of his flighty opinions as "lies"--a bit strong. They may be wrong, but "lies" implies at least to me a knowing attempt to decieve. I don't know the author, but I don't think he wrote lies, but rather opinions--whether or not you agree with them. As to the editors of the mag--they chose to publish the article as is, meaning it passed their process [I am a technical editor and there is a process regulated by the aims of a given pub]; therefore, I don't see this mag as a historical journal, however otherwise well put together.
P.S. the scrutiny should happen before publication in the editing process, not after. They claim they had experts scrutinize each article. So? They used it anyway. A bit of fancy thrown in with an other wise acceptable article [I saw a few other flaws].
Mike,
My arm is weakening, but here goes:
You call them, "flighty opinions", fine, I call them "lies". In my opinion, flighty opinions, when passed off as facts, are lies. While "lie" implies to you a knowing "attempt to deceive", that is not the only implication of the word. A quick look at a dictionary will reveal to you that "lie" can also simply mean:
"2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression.
3. an inaccurate or false statement."
It makes no difference to me if Mr. Kafka knows he deceived or not, the end result of his article I believe still matches both of the above definitions. It serves to convey false impressions, and it is has inaccurate and false statements.
For the record, if you reread the quote from the EAL website, they did not submit Kafka's article to be scrutinized by experts, nor did they claim they would. The guidelines are a warning to author to be accurate and factual because AFTER publication, it would be scrutinized by experts. Mr. Kafka failed to head that warning, in spite of the fact they guaranteed that exactly what is happening, would happen. You may believe, "the scrutiny should happen before publication in the editing process, not after.", but that is not the process EAL uses, and they are clear in warning potential contributors of that fact. Scrutiny can and should happen anytime, before or after something is published. Once something is published it in no way, shape or form becomes sacrosanct. Every year, both popular and academic works are outed as being bunk. Remember "Arming America" by Michael A. Bellesiles? Remember "Million Little Pieces" by James Frey? One was an academic work, one was popular non-fiction, both were outed as frauds AFTER publication when they were examined closely and found to be riddled with factual errors, opinions and fantasies not labled as such. Should critics have just left these publications alone because the authors managed to get them by their editors and published? Should they have been left alone because some folks read them and did not see or suspect any errors?
Again Mike, I realize none of this effects you personally. But as I pointed out already, for those of us who it does effect, this kind of stuff stinks. It muddies the very water that many of us work very hard to clear up. The fact that you see no problem with "a bit of fancy" and see "few other flaws" does not mean that they are not there, in abundance.
In closing, Mike, I have no quarrel with you personally. Again, and for the record, if I come across offensively, it is just an accident. I am really, really, really, a big fluffy pile of sunshine and rainbows. "I'm not bad, I'm just drawn that way." ;D
Alan Gutchess
-
I am not trying to have the last word [really]--and I agree with most of what you say--and it is true that all published ideas get scrutinized after publication--that is not what I was trying to say. At least in the scientific world, and that does not include Nat'l Geogr or Sci. American, critical review occurs prior to publicationand can result in rejection of the paper. Controversial papers [what isn't these days] may get published if they otherwise pass review--sometimes with caveats--and are subject to scholarly attack [usually "lies" are not part of the attack, we are civil]. Rebuttal papers can follow rebuttal papers. Clearly it is possible to purposely deceive [such as the Bellesisles (sp?) book in 'history' or recent cloning claims from Korea], and such rare folks when caught are generally thrown out of the profession. I guess I am just not as close to the subject of longrifle art--one which I do love, however, to get so [apparently] incensed over a bit of fluff in a popular mag. Obviously you see it differently. Is that mag the proper venue to write a rebuttal article? I don't think so, but I would welcome a rebuttal article from you or any other thoughtful person who has considered the subject deeply. I wish to learn, but I am a critical enough reader to recognize BS when I read it. I also remember history and in the past many things once considered BS came to be the accepted theory.
-
I also remember history and in the past many things once considered BS came to be the accepted theory.
I don't want the last word either Mike, really. ;D But again, while scientific and historical writings and theories that may once have been scoffed at, often have proven true, I reject that this is what I am talking about here. I see Kafka's theories as the writing of "Jack and the Beanstalk" when compared to "Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in its Golden Age." Mr. Kindig makes lots of conjecture, and labels it as such. If I remember, he even challenges the reader to disprove his theories. He makes up no fictional stories, etc. etc.. Do we all believe that he made no errors? Are all of this theories correct? No. But he presented them in an honest fashion, even in the choice of a title to his book.
Mr. Kafka begins by acknowledging the romance of the rifle, even debunking a couple myths, setting the reader up to believe that what was to follow would be the truth. Making up stories like the one of Haga abandoning engraving after the explosion of his shop, rewriting or mistranslating names so their new meanings match the preconceived notion of the symbolism they should represent, etc., etc., is the realm of fairy tale, not history. I doubt anyone will ever find real magic beans that make a vine that lets you climb to a giant's castle in the sky and steal his goose that lays golden eggs and thus prove that fairy tale's, "B.S.", to be an accepted theory in botany, history, anthropology, or any other field. I don't see why we should expect that the fairy tales written by Kafka should have any better chance of being verifiable.
Oh $#@*! The keepers here at the asylum are kicking in the door. Fair thee well rifle enthusiasts! But head my warning! Clearly my fate is yours if you take all of this too seriously. I will post again, but only if the magic beans I traded my cow for make a huge vine that I can climb to get over the wall and escape... ;D
Alan Gutchess
-
...Who was that masked man?
You mean to tell me I have been wasting my time using an Ouija board to lay out my patch boxes?
-
Ian if you were truly using a Oujia board you wouldn't have to ask that question. :D
Bruce
-
This may be the liveliest discussion we've had since the nine page long "Golden Mean" debate. (Just an observation, I'm not trying to start anything!)
-
Alan
DON'T GO!! DON'T GO!!!!!!!! This is really starting to get interesting.
I was the first one to reply to the original post and as I stated I had some questions about his 'opinions' and 'facts'. Something about the article didnot ring true but not having access to the research and the collections that others have I try to listen and learn every chance I get.
Michael
-
I was trained and work as a research biologist. I appreciated Mr.Gutchess' (and others) comments concerning academic rigor. A very enjoyable and useful series of posts. Exuberant over-extrapolation seems to be a problem common to all sorts of study but every once in a while it can provide a useful hypothesis, or idea, for further examination. If the hypothesis are tested well and hold up they become accepted as theory and if subsequently proven irrefutable as a law. That is research, at least in the hard sciences. It is human nature to want to skip a step or two.
I readily acknowledge that I do not know the first thing about the proper protocol for long rifle study. I do find the subject fascinating and am always willing to learn.
Thank you to all concerned with keeping this website going.
Bruce
-
I also remember history and in the past many things once considered BS came to be the accepted theory.
I don't want the last word either Mike, really. ;D But again, while scientific and historical writings and theories that may once have been scoffed at, often have proven true, I reject that this is what I am talking about here. I see Kafka's theories as the writing of "Jack and the Beanstalk" when compared to "Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle in its Golden Age." Mr. Kindig makes lots of conjecture, and labels it as such. If I remember, he even challenges the reader to disprove his theories. He makes up no fictional stories, etc. etc.. Do we all believe that he made no errors? Are all of this theories correct? No. But he presented them in an honest fashion, even in the choice of a title to his book.
Mr. Kafka begins by acknowledging the romance of the rifle, even debunking a couple myths, setting the reader up to believe that what was to follow would be the truth. Making up stories like the one of Haga abandoning engraving after the explosion of his shop, rewriting or mistranslating names so their new meanings match the preconceived notion of the symbolism they should represent, etc., etc., is the realm of fairy tale, not history. I doubt anyone will ever find real magic beans that make a vine that lets you climb to a giant's castle in the sky and steal his goose that lays golden eggs and thus prove that fairy tale's, "B.S.", to be an accepted theory in botany, history, anthropology, or any other field. I don't see why we should expect that the fairy tales written by Kafka should have any better chance of being verifiable.
Oh $#@*! The keepers here at the asylum are kicking in the door. Fair thee well rifle enthusiasts! But head my warning! Clearly my fate is yours if you take all of this too seriously. I will post again, but only if the magic beans I traded my cow for make a huge vine that I can climb to get over the wall and escape... ;D
Alan Gutchess, former blow hard, former know-it-all, former smart-ass, former self declared King and Lord Master of all Skeptics, former whipper of room temperature equines, former defender of truth, justice and the American way.
I agree...I sense that our main differences in view over this issue, is that I took it from the first read as 'author's fancy' written to stimulate interest in lay readers of a non-juried pub; that I recognized the B.S. in it from the first--most, but not all, of the B.S. is not in the text proper, but in terse figure captions [a good technical editor would have asked the author to support his statements in the text and with references]; and that, not taking the article too seriously, I did not get as incensed over it--maybe just my mellowing with age. I do agree that he should have put all sorts of caveat words in front of his interpretations--but I from the get-go saw the statements as his personal interpretations. You are correct that he does not back up certain claims such as the Haga claim, and such things as that deserve a rebuttal. It is dangerous ground to accuse someone of lying [ask a lawyer]--especially when most folks, given the background of this, I think would agree he was simply mistaken in his interpretations. I'll give a brief example from my editing experiences: Many years ago now with a fresh Ph.D. in hand, I was asked by the editor of the prestigious Geological Society of America Bulletin to review a few papers being considered for the pub. The first one I got was written by a world famous geologist, Professor at a prestigious Calif university. I found a fatal flaw in his conclusions--a key conclusion was based on an error in the inferences--inferences based on a mistaken interpretation--presented as a "fact", when it was not one. I have long felt that this researcher, in his zeal to prove a point, simply misinterpreted his data, did not try to deceive [lie]. He showed a map which he said proved his point [it did not, and in fact, field relationships disproved his conclusion]. He made an observational error. Was his conclusion/interpretation FALSE? Yes. Was it a LIE? No. By the way he held a grudge against me for years afterwards.
-
I was really hoping this topic might go some place with some real information... Instead it continues to just be one guy blasting the other guy for lying.
Hate to say it, but that's just getting old.
So Alan, how about some Facts from your point of view? How about some real information regarding your research on the topic?
Eric Kettenburg has written here many times with lot's of enlightening information, so how something from you, as one of todays primary researchers?
I'm certainly interested, and I'm sure several other guys are as well.
John
-
This has been a great discussion - now it turns nasty. :(
-
as a nubie to this, all the discussion/banter on symbols etc. many of us do not understand the indepth symbolism related to all the inlays, cheek piece lines etc.. mr. gutchess was that you that responded to my question on another forum about the fish side plate?
what all you knowegable historians need to do is write a chapter or two and we know that it would not cover your area of expertise but would be a great source of information.
i for one would spend many hours pouring over this information as the more i learn on this subject the more i want to know. please don,t end up like mr. bivins taking all your knowlege with you
-
I was really hoping this topic might go some place with some real information... Instead it continues to just be one guy blasting the other guy for lying.
Hate to say it, but that's just getting old.
So Alan, how about some Facts from your point of view? How about some real information regarding your research on the topic?
Eric Kettenburg has written here many times with lot's of enlightening information, so how something from you, as one of todays primary researchers?
I'm certainly interested, and I'm sure several other guys are as well.
John
It appears magic beans that grow huge vines overnight really do work. But remember, magic beans are only for planting, not for eating. (Don't ask me how I learned that, but no one should ever be their own ladder.)
Preparing once more to poke myself in the eye with a sharp stick...
John, John, John. Now I know you did not mean that last post as harsh as it sounded, I mean who would want to hurt my little old feelings? No "real information"? I am sorry if the refutation of specific falsehoods and a discussion of what does and what does not constitute valid historic research does not "enlighten" you enough John. And after all, I awake every morning and ask myself, "What can I do today to make John's life more enlightened?" ;D
(For those who are interested in the topic of historical research, I did a quick check on Wiki and found a couple of excellent pages that I believe anyone doing research with the goal of eventually publishing or posting online for discussion, should find interesting food for thought...)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_method
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historiography
"How about some facts"? From my point of view, I thought I had already posted quite a few. Could you be more specific? Facts about hidden symbolism? I thought I had made myself pretty clear that at this point, I don't know of a single scrap of fact about it. I have only seen wild speculation and fantasies. (How was that, I did not call them "lies" this time.) I am at a complete loss to add any more. I have done some more research on Masonic symbols in the mean time. It is amazing to me how what official Masonic documents have to say about symbolism seems to be at complete odds with what the now unnamed longrifle symbologist says. I may post it on the new "symbolism" thread, but not here, since I think this started out as a discussion of a specific article in EAL. So, John, what exactly do you want me to write about here? I am much afraid that no matter what it is, I will still only disappoint you. My comments always get "old" quickly.
I don't actually understand why you would be waiting for me, or Eric, or anyone else to enlighten you. I believe real historical research, (not the fantasy kind), is open and accessible to everyone who is willing to put even a little effort into it, now more than ever with the internet. It is not, and should not ever be the domain of a few "superstars", but each and every person on a forum like this. Some of you put me on an awful short list with folks like Wallace G. or Eric K., but I am in awe of more folks than just them, men like the late Sam Dyke, Bill Guthman and Donald Vaughn, or the not so late Arnie Dowd, Robert Lienemann, Gary Brumfield, Jack Brooks, Rich Pierce, Walt O'Conner, Doc Heckert, Steve Hench and a host of others. I plan on ambushing Eric Armstrong and making him bring me up to speed on Bucks County rifles, my favorite Golden Age school, yet one I know little about compared to him. I have stared at the rifles, even restored them, but not researched them. I am embarrassed to be on a list that does not include all of them and dozens more. Want to be on that list? Learn to run a microfilm reader, and look at some tax rolls and land documents. Join Accessible Archives or Footnote, or Ancestry and spend some time in pursuit of the factual life of your favorite gunsmith. Teach me some fact I don't know. But please, just don't try and whizz down my leg and try and convince me its raining, or you will face my smart arsed wrath. :D Also, for the record, I have not on this site, or any other that I am aware of, ever identified myself as an Kentucky rifle expert, "primary researcher", one of the "finest... scholars of the long rifle in the country today" or "one of the "preeminent researcher(s)". While my ego accepts all such accolades, even those written by John, ;D I am usually very careful about identifying myself as merely a student of the Kentucky rifle, no more, no less. I learned that modesty primarily from knowing the above mentioned folks, especially Bob Lienemann, a true "expert" on Christian's Spring, who rejects such labels for himself for that of "student".
On this forum, I have clearly identified myself specifically as who I really am at heart, a blow hard, know-it-all, smart-ass, self declared King and Lord Master of all Skeptics, whipper of room temperature equines and defender of truth, justice and the American way. I am just a guy who reads a lot, looks at lots of original rifles, and ponders with a critical mind what he reads, sees and hears. Also for the record, I am training at Lamont Cranston University to know what evil lurks in the hearts of men. ;) (Once I master this, I will first check out the cold dark hearts of "Stophel" and Rich Pierce, and let you know what is really wrong with those guys.) But if anyone thinks I am going to brighten their world and shower them with esoteric knowledge of the longrifle, they likely have the wrong man.
In spite of my natural tendency to question and debate anything that hits my ears or eyes that does not instantly ring true, I really don't enjoy these, "my opinion vs. your opinion" exchanges. Let facts rule. Let proof rule. Let documentation rule. Base your opinion directly on provable facts, and even if in my gut I think you are wrong, I will leave you alone, or at worst, I will debate your interpretation of those facts. But I won't call you a, well you know, the "L" word. We can all discuss and debate facts as gentlemen, and with nary a hurt feeling, usually. But opinions, based on nothing but wishful thinking or fantasies, are not the foundation of an intelligent discussion. As Dennis the peasant said so eloquently, "Listen, strange women lyin' in ponds distributin' swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcicial aquatic ceremony!" ??? I am not sure if that was relevant to this discussion, but I always enjoyed hearing it. I still insist that I am a lovable pile of warmth and sunshine deep, deep, deep, and getting deeper, inside. So John, please let me buy you a beer sometime and lets talk about things we will surely both agree on, like religion and politics. In spite of my tone, I harbor no personal ill feelings towards you or any one else that disagrees with me. I know I will eventually win you over to my point of view. What's that line from Star Trek, "Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.", or is that, "Lie back and think of England. I always get those two confused.
Wow, had enough about me and my self guided tour of the universe yet? If I did not know myself so well, I might think I had a huge ego problem. Go figure. To paraphrase an even more foul fellow than myself, "Someone take over, my arm is getting tired." (If you get that, you should be ashamed if you smiled when you read it.)
Dang it, here come the guards again to take me back to the rubber room. Me to Doctor, "Doc, it hurts when I do this." (poking myself in the eye with a sharp stick). Doctor to me, "Then stop doing that!"
I really need to listen to my doctor more...
Alan Gutchess, learning to appreciate more and more the words of the immortal Rick Nelson from "Garden Party": "You see, you can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself".
(Please insert your own sarcastic remark here about not "pleasing myself in public". Go ahead, I can take it.) >:(
-
as a nubie to this, all the discussion/banter on symbols etc. many of us do not understand the indepth symbolism related to all the inlays, cheek piece lines etc.. mr. gutchess was that you that responded to my question on another forum about the fish side plate?
what all you knowegable historians need to do is write a chapter or two and we know that it would not cover your area of expertise but would be a great source of information.
i for one would spend many hours pouring over this information as the more i learn on this subject the more i want to know. please don,t end up like mr. bivins taking all your knowlege with you
ProJeeper,
No, I don't think it was me, at least I don't remember discussing a fish sideplate before. If you repost this request on the new "symbolism" discussion thread, I have no doubt you will get plenty of action.
Mr. Gutchess ;D
-
Alan, Thanks for introducing yourself to all of us who frequent this board.
Thanks everyone for the very entertaining thread.
-
(For those who are interested in the topic of historical research, I did a quick check on Wiki and found a couple of excellent pages that I believe anyone doing research with the goal of eventually publishing or posting online for discussion, should find interesting food for thought...)
Thank you. That was helpful.
Bruce
-
I am training at Lamont Cranston University to know what evil lurks in the hearts of men. ;) (Once I master this, I will first check out the cold dark hearts of "Stophel" and Rich Pierce, and let you know what is really wrong with those guys.)
Mwa, Ha, ha, haaah. (wringing my hands maniacally...)
8)
-
Alan,
Welcome to the board, you big squishy pile of love. Great thread! I couldn't imagine what turned such a mundane topic into a red hot 4 pager.
Nice to hear from you,
Jeff
-
I read with amusement the longrifle article in EAL. The writer is, de facto, no "eminent scholar" and I clearly weigh in as an endorser of RifleResearcher's position. Maybe the reason many of us trained researchers don't dazzle the collecting fraternity with lots of profound stories and new finds is simply because there are few, if any, breakthroughs in true science. Science is a slow process, requiring approval by the court of educated opinion, subject to checks and balances, and never cast in concrete. Truth comes in trickle by trickle, not spewing out of someone's mouth as profound revelation, unfounded in fact, twisted in logic, and penetrated like Swiss cheese with error upon error.
The best that can be said for Mr. Kafka is that he is consistent and predictable. If he gazed into a horse patty he would see Christian and Masonic symbols right in there. But wait, there's more. He won't be content until he finds one or two gullible patty enthusiasts so that he can interpret it to them. EAL is the dupe on this one.
My primary objection to this rehash of old history combined with idiosyncratic, symbolic conjecture is that the writer suggests that he speaks for the KRA. To wit: the primary source listed in the WWW for this article is the KRA and its foundation.
Mr. Kafka is entitled under the 1st Amendment of the U.S. Constitution to voice his opinions, no matter how unfounded or bizarre. It is most inappropriate, however, for him to structure things so as to make it appear that he speaks for the Kentucky Rifle Association or its Foundation. Since the reader is directed to these organizations for further information, as a past president of the KRA, let me say that Mr. Kafka neither speaks for me or for most of my acquaintances and friends in the KRA. He speaks for himself. This is one past president who does not buy his tripe, and that is not to say that an occasional symbol...say three fish, for instance, wasn't a symbol of importance to a mainstream Christian.
The bottom line is that this fanciful and unbaked thinking has been a dirty little secret in collecting circles for some time. Normally reasonable people keep quiet because they "don't wan't to offend anybody." Well, this time the author crossed a line, because he suggests that OUR organization, by proxy, endorses HIS views.
We are the ones who should be offended, because he has no right to suggest that you can get further information from us. Call him (if you can reach him), listen carefully, then make up your own mind on the veracity of the source.
I'm with RifleResearcher and the educated scientists, historians, and genealogists on this one. Thanks, men of reason and erudition, for helping balance things toward normalcy. J. W. Heckert, Harrisburg.PA
-
Amen and hallelujah Wayne! Maybe you and Alan can start a counter reformation in the KRA to bring the rational minds together?
RSStephenson (KRA)
-
Wasn't going to wade into this, but must; but it will be brief. As a 30+ year member of the KRA I applaud Allan who I have known and respected since he was a "very" young man (I am old enough to be his father) ! and also Mr Heckert who voiced best my persoanl thoughts and conclusions on this article. Thank You, Arnie
Dowd, Denver, Colorado
-
My hat is off and I bow in respect to the reasonable men of the KRA board of directors, who, after being informed of the situation, rapidly took action to have the organization's name removed as the contact reference for the aforementioned substandard article. That one responsible and appropriate act speaks volumes.