I think I've said it at least two times previously in this thread alone, but here it goes again. "Aging", patination etc. doesn't have to be representative of the what the real thing would look like. It's okay to many if it doesn't! Sure it's a fantasy. Look at Jud Brennan's amazing work for example. A search on Art and Jan's site will show many examples. With that said, there are a few that have done aging that is convincing. It too can be wonderful.
And I agree with this post. The look can be enchanting.
However, this does not change what it is. Though "wannabe" may seem an extreme word for it, its actually about as tame as comes up in my face to face conversations on such things. Some are far less kind and not from me.
If its not representative why do it? How far do we stretch it? Would rhinestone studs or crystal beads set in the stock and a plastic Winchester buttplate then be "ok" if someone wanted it to be that way? It would still be art and the shiny stuff would add "bling" so who cares if its "representative"? What is the point of making a non-representative Kentucky rifle? Other than for "Lookee what I did!"
I also see a divide between users and "viewers" in many cases though there is some cross over, its obvious that many rifles are wall hangers. Some apparently cannot abide an unused gun but have no desire to actually use one. Of course this process is far too slow even if used unless the gun is intentionally abused.
For example.
I have a rifle I have hunted with off and on and shot for over 25 years now don't know how many deer I have shot with it and one elk. I gave 2000 for it 25 years ago and drove home laughing. Given my income at the time it was a lot of money. I have a friend who hunted and guided with his as his only rifle for a couple of years after a divorce. Lots of horseback use. Neither rifle looks aged or even has any real "patina". Why? Because its valued and it HAS TO WORK letting it get rusty, letting it get wet so the wood may swell interferes with this. There are some dents or dings but they don't look like rifles people age. For one thing they have not been exposed to 200 years or so of coal smoke chemicals to change the finish.
I know of a third that has killed bunch of deer and elk over the 40+ years since it was made and its even been aged a little by an expert then owner (and confirmed faker) and IT does not look like the aged guns I see here. So I do have a few points of reference.
Two of the three are in this photo. Can anyone pick them out? Which is the "closet queen"?
A friend bought a really fine example of a contemporary rifle that was so encrusted with tobacco smoke residue from hanging on a wall that the rather elaborate decoration and engraving was largely obscured. It was not really a rifle when purchased, it was a decoration to hang on the wall and not even bother to wipe off now and then.
Below is a used gun with honest wear for the area it was used in and the finish applied. No way of knowing how long it was in use. But these rifles went away pretty rapidly out here when the "Needle guns", Sharps and Rolling Blocks using 70 or more grains of powder arrived circa 1868-69. 10-20 years maybe? 30? The plains rifles were more effective hunting rifles than the Spencers and early Winchesters. This rifle was surely carried in a cover.
Its finished with a soft brown varnish, at least its reddish-brown now, that really has no checks its just worn off in places. I am not sure rifles with better wood were finished in this manner, however. Knowing what to look for I am sure its a horseback gun though its almost a forgone conclusion seeing the wear pattern is nice confirmation. BTW most "saddle wear" on guns is actually WAGON wear. Wagons eat stock wood. Saddles not so much.
Also trying to determine how much wear is put on a gun in a given period of time in the past is impossible. There are too many factors. Including if the gun/rifle was owned by or issued to the person using it. Rifle covers are known in the rev-war period and these can greatly reduce wear and damage to the gun. I suspect it was more likely the stock would be broken than the finish would turn black.
I tend to look at the rifle as the people who bought the originals would have, I don't want second hand looking new stuff. People back in the day expected something they paid a lot of money for to look good. Aging a rifle is like taking a new car someplace to have the windshield cracked, the paint "keyed", be rusted in the fenders and rocker panels before its taken home so it looks more like the neighbor's 75 Chevelle. Somewhat akin to people letting the INTERIOR of the barrel rust to get the proper "look". Can't have an aged rifle with a clean bore after all...
To me its much like the guy I seen get out of his pickup at the Drive-In in Livingston a couple of years ago. Black fatigues with a collection on military patches and awards sewn on. He wanted to be
something he very obviously was not. Wannabe by definition. Didn't pay the dues but wants the "look" or what he THINKS the "look" is.
Nor was it my intention to attack PEOPLE but the CONCEPT, I worded it badly. But I don't know of a word that describes the need for aged guns OTHER than "wannabe" through the efforts of the gunsmith the guns are pretending to be something they are not. This has nothing to do with the skill needed to do the work BTW.
Here is a selection of rifles all by the same maker as the first three. One was made in 1959, one was made in 1963 at least one probably circa 1980. The one made in 1963 has seen a lot of use, killed something like a 150 squirrels, other small game, one deer and won a lot of matches, been recut to a larger caliber, been sold 4-5 times at least after it was no longer the makers personal rifle. Can it be picked out by someone who does not know which was used a lot and others hardly at all? On close inspection maybe but not from this photo. Its more subtle than that. The silver is worn in places, weak engraving. Where is all the black goo in the protected areas? The gun is not old enough to have a blackened finish nor was it exposed to sulfur from burning coal spending most or all its life west of the Mississippi. Few Colonial guns were either. Extensive use of coal in later times is thought to the mechanism for darkening of oil based varnishes. So its likely that prior to widespread use of coal and the steel making that REALLY increased its use there was little to darken the finish. Or so I am told.
To be fair the bottom rifle is the 1959. He told me he used AF on some early guns and it was too acid and he did not know to neutralize.
I am often a little too direct and know I may lack tact in some discussions and tend to say what I think. As a result I tend to stay out of discussions in which it matters not the least what the facts really are but in reality its more about WHO does things and WHO knows WHO than much of anything else. Known people can be guilty of incredible statements but get a pass here with no comment. A lawyer that reads here said about one post "that was really dumb" from a legal/liability standpoint.
Anyway I up and posted part of what I thought here. I screwed up, what can I say?
There are likely 1/2 dozen people who post or read here who have met me that I know of. Where as most of the eastern guys know everyone at least in passing, face to face discussions, with the facial expressions and body language are different than he written word.
People in the inter-mountain west who build Kentucky's tend to be viewed, and even treated, as some undesirable sub-species by some in the east regardless of their work. Frankly ladies and gentlemen its insulting and speaks volumes...When combined with what I have been told by people (one a LONG time attendee) who attend Dixon's it becomes a pattern of, dare I say it? Discrimination perhaps?.
Distasteful? Yeah, but thats how its been found to be by some both east and west. Again I don't know any other way to put it. Maybe "we" should be more accepting of makers and makers organizations in the west.
I could give an example or three but details would possibly identify others who might not want to be involved.
But in the end it comes down to "I wanna do it that way" for what ever reason. Such as "I want a certain look so I use black paint and synthetic dyes and finishes rather than doing it the way it was done back in the day because the stock won't look right done like the originals".
Dan
