Author Topic: signed vs unsigned value  (Read 15270 times)

Offline Buck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 702
  • A.F.A.M. # 934, Trinity Commandry #80
Re: signed vs unsigned value
« Reply #25 on: February 07, 2016, 04:30:19 PM »
Brent,
I know the rifle and the previous owner, good gun from a more than reputable collector. Enjoy it.
Buck

Offline jdm

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 880
Re: signed vs unsigned value
« Reply #26 on: February 07, 2016, 04:34:15 PM »
You were worried about a signature???????  Very nice !
JIM

Offline Brent English

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
    • Robust Wood Lathes
Re: signed vs unsigned value
« Reply #27 on: February 07, 2016, 05:07:32 PM »
Couldn't figure out how to insert a quote but Crankshaft posted:  "The obvious question, when a maker signed his work, why didn't he sign all of them ? ? "

I've read in one of the Shumway books that when a good maker made a rifle with full carving and patchbox he often signed it, but a buck and ball with no patchbox (like the one I've pictured in this thread) was often not signed.  The reason may be that the buck and ball gun, being a cheaper piece to produce because it lacked rifling and a patchbox also didn't get the signature.
Done right is better than done fast.

Offline Algae

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 84
Re: signed vs unsigned value
« Reply #28 on: February 07, 2016, 05:33:36 PM »
OK Brent, when do I get to see it!!! :o
 Al Jenkins


Offline Brent English

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 184
    • Robust Wood Lathes
Re: signed vs unsigned value
« Reply #29 on: February 07, 2016, 05:48:58 PM »
Well hey Al, you just need to drag your moldy old carcass over here.  Got a few others I can show you too.  Be great to catch up.   Send me a PM.  Brent
Done right is better than done fast.

Offline louieparker

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 616
Re: signed vs unsigned value
« Reply #30 on: February 07, 2016, 06:00:16 PM »
I think signed or unsigned depends to some extent on the mood of the maker at the time. Eister was a wonderful maker. Yet he signed very few rifles. I have always felt that at the time everyone in his area knew who the maker was, without the signature. It was like modern man in 1950 looking at a Ford from a distance. He didn't have to read the name. He knew it was a ford. But I have read accounts were customers have requested the makers name be put "upon the barrel."
 I think you have bought a very desirable long gun, name or no name. Most of us would be very pleased to own it.   Louie

Offline nord

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1550
Re: signed vs unsigned value
« Reply #31 on: February 07, 2016, 06:05:39 PM »
Given what I see 'ol George didn't need to sign. I compare it to my signed Shroyer and there's just no question that it's a Shroyer gun. I suppose (some have suggested) perhaps by Jr. but I think probably not.

Value? A Shroyer is a Shroyer. Maybe worth more if signed but not a big deal in this case.

By the way... My avatar displays the patchbox on the Schroyer I happen to own.
« Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 06:07:54 PM by nord »
In Memory of Lt. Catherine Hauptman Miller 6/1/21 - 10/1/00 & Capt. Raymond A. Miller 12/26/13 - 5/15/03...  They served proudly.

Offline Mike Brooks

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 9607
    • Mike Brooks Gunmaker
Re: signed vs unsigned value
« Reply #32 on: February 07, 2016, 08:38:30 PM »
I like the unusual abbreviated lower forestock molding and the unusual transition from oct/rnd.
NEW WEBSITE! www.mikebrooksflintlocks.com
Say, any of you boys smithies? Or, if not smithies per se, were you otherwise trained in the metallurgic arts before straitened circumstances forced you into a life of aimless wanderin'?

Offline Buck

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 702
  • A.F.A.M. # 934, Trinity Commandry #80
Re: signed vs unsigned value
« Reply #33 on: February 07, 2016, 11:20:19 PM »
Brent,
Value is what it's worth to you and what someone is willing to pay for it. It's a good gun (in reality it is signed) everyone here knows who the maker is. Enjoy it, Schroyers a good maker.
Buck
« Last Edit: February 07, 2016, 11:25:19 PM by Buck »

Offline homerifle

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 85
Re: signed vs unsigned value
« Reply #34 on: February 08, 2016, 04:17:21 AM »
Nice piece! Smart move to add it to your collection.
It's been 4 years but I believe that is the same gun I looked at. You just started me kicking myself all over again.

"Bama," Been there and done that!

Offline spgordon

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 670
Re: signed vs unsigned value
« Reply #35 on: February 08, 2016, 02:57:06 PM »
I wish we knew more about why makers signed their rifles (and why, sometimes, the same maker didn't). It may have had as much to do with taking responsibility for a weapon (that could be faulty) as with "pride" in craftsmanship. In a piece on Jacob Dickert, I discussed this:

Dickert had been signing the barrels of the rifles that he (or his shop) produced since the Revolutionary War. Gunsmiths may have signed their barrels due to pride in their craft or so that officials responsible for large-scale procurements could identify those who supplied sub-standard products. By the early nineteenth century, some government contracts required makers to sign their work so that, when the guns were proved, makers could be held responsible for faulty ones. Coxe insisted in 1806, for instance, that "every maker's name is to be on his rifles" [Tench Coxe to Henry DeHuff, December 23, 1806, in Hicks, United States Ordnance, 2: 93].

See: http://www.immigrantentrepreneurship.org/entry.php?rec=180

Can anybody supply sources for a customer who requested a maker's signature on a rifle?

Scott
« Last Edit: February 08, 2016, 02:57:40 PM by spgordon »
Check out The Lost Village of Christian's Spring:
https://christiansbrunn.web.lehigh.edu/
And The Letters of Mary Penry: A Single Moravian Woman in Early America
http://www.psupress.org/books/titles/978-0-271-08108-3.html