Gunbroker item 496149755

[debnal]

As I said, I collect American colonial fowlers. I have never seen a modern made fowler that was worth buying. I have owned several modern made Kentucky rifles.
I think some of the contemporary makers of rifles have studied the originals very well and they can preduce a superior gun. I don't think the same can be said for the guys making modern fowlers. I think the high quality American fowlers are defined by their architecture.  everything else is secondary. I have posted some pictures of a fowler that shows my point. I have never seen a modern made fowler with these kind of lines.
Al

[jdm]

 I have always felt that early American Fowler's were some what under priced. When you consider the roll they played in American history. On top of that there are Fowler's made by what  we consider the greatest long rifle makers of early America. I personally think pre 1810  fowlers have some of the best lines of any early American  weapon.  If you want a gun type that fired one of the first shots at the beginning of the Revolution. I would say get an early Fowler.   Jim

[debnal]

John,
Couldn't agree with you more. In colonial times there were two main sources for American fowlers; English fowlers and French fowlers. The French fowlers were superior in architecture to the British ones. They were also lighter and easier to carry.  Both ere beautifully made. The classic New England fowler borrowed heavily from the French designs.
The one that just sold on gunbroker had the nice architecture even though the brass mounts were poorly done.
Al

[debnal]

John,
One more thought. I don't think the makers of rifles produced a fowler that could compare with the ones produced by the non rifle makers.
Al

[James Rogers]

Debnal,
How do you conclude that an English fowling piece is heavier than a French one? I have two English pieces that would rival any of the lightest French guns in the same bore.
Not setting you up for anything , just wanting to participate in a fowling gun conversation.  Also the architecture you picture and I assume what you consider as superior I believe to be quite subjective. I most like the later 17th century styles of French and French influenced English pieces. Also, don't forget Dutch pieces that were available in the colonies as well.
One problem with contemporary fowling guns is the thick barrels available.

I also agree about some American made smooth guns made by rifle makers faling  short in comparison with American fowling guns made by those who mostly made those pieces. I find most smooth guns made by early American rifle makers to be too much like a rifle and many times it's characteristics impair it's use as a fowling piece. I think though these particular pieces were made for buck and ball pot shots and not to be fowling guns.
regards,
James

[debnal]

James,
Good discussion. You are right, it is totally subjective. I just sold an early French fowler that was as beautiful, graceful and as light as you could want. I have seen some "lighter" English pieces, but, for the most part, they seem to be heavier built. Not a hard and fast rule but just generally the French guns are lighter built. I think this might account for the fact that the French trade guns were preferred by the Indians. I happen to like the lighter built guns.
Look in Tom Grinslade's book and I think the New England fowers, influenced by the French are more "lighter" built then the English style fowlers built near New York. To me, the English style fowlers are more clunky looking. But that's just me.
They are all great guns, the French and English were fine builders. Your comment on the modern fowlers being built more like rifles is right on the money, in my opinion.
Al

[James Rogers]

Ah, now if we are talking English STYLE fowling guns (Grinslade's term) of the NY area, I agree in comparison to say the New England type pieces. They are pretty stout waterfowling guns. 
BTW Ken Gahagan had a really super little French piece last year at the CLA show. Don't know if he still has it but if it still around it is worth a look.

[rich pierce]

Rich,
It seems to me that high quality original Rev War period American fowler will bring significantly more than the modern made guns. That is what I primarily collect and that has been my experience. While I have seen many very high quality modern made rifles (some bringing more money that originals), the same can't be said for fowlers.
Al

Check out Ken Gahagan's work and if you like European work, look at Jim Kibler's fowling pieces.  My comment was meant to express my amazement about the affordability of original early fowling pieces compared to rifles.  And the affordability of originals compared to top notch contemporary pieces.  I'd expect to pay $3-$6k for an excellent contemporary piece and originals can be found in the same price range. 

[debnal]

Rich,
I agree with you on the affordability of original fowlers. Couple that with the fact that they were there in the thick of the fight and they should bring more money. I can often buy a great original Rev War fowler for less than some of the better contemporary rifles. As far as historical value, I don't think you can beat a soldier identified NE Rev War fowler.
Al

[jdm]

[quote author=James Rogers

I also agree about some American made smooth guns made by rifle makers faling  short in comparison with American fowling guns made by those who mostly made those pieces. I find most smooth guns made by early American rifle makers to be too much like a rifle and many times it's characteristics impair it's use as a fowling piece. I think though these particular pieces were made for buck and ball pot shots and not to be fowling guns.
regards,
James

  There is a difference between smooth Kentucky's ( buck & ball )  and fowling pieces made by Kentucky makers.  A true Fowler has a rounded butt stock on the bottom  and no Cheekpiece. A buck and ball has a cheekpiece and is flat on the bottom of the stock. Fowling pieces have  a rounded trigger bow . As opposed to a grip rail on a smooth rifle.  I have two fowling pieces made in Bucks county. They are very lightweight with thin walled octagon  to round barrels. As light weight as my New England fowler. I also have a fowling piece by a Maryland maker . It's a little heaver but still not like his rifles.   JIM


 My New England  fowler is listed here under fowlers -111218-4 N.E. fowler

[James Rogers]

Hi Jim, I purposefully did not use the term "buck and ball" to define the guns of which I was speaking as I knew there is a developed criteria in which students class certain types with that delineation.
I do not have a lot of knowledge on the American made pieces as they a too late for my interests but I have certainly seen some that were lively as you describe.
Barrel construction is a big factor for weight and liveliness.

[jdm]

James,
 The two  Bucks county guns have imported barrels  . One is R W marked with the English proofs . There seems to be a lot of imported barrels on fowlers . They must have been cheaper and easier that way.

[Ray-Vigo]

Neat looking piece. I agree it looks New England with its mixture of parts and the rounded stock profile. You see that cut-down stock and bayonet lug on some of the New England fowlers that doubled as weapons for local militia. It looks like someone got an interesting piece of history there.

[debnal]

JDM,
Would love to see some pictures of the Bucks County fowlers. My opinion is that Bucks County guns have some great architecture. Among the best as far as rifles are concerned,.
Al

[jdm]

Al, There was a post of one of the fowlers with some pictures & a very helpful discussion on it. It was posted Sept 28  2014  under Fowler any ideas. The other I found at a local auction about a month later.  I will email you some pictures . I haven't got the hang of that posting thing.   JIM