Albrecht, Paxinosa, Great Island, 1752 and 1754: New Information

[spgordon]

It would be fantastic to be able to learn more about that signature on the "shorty" rifle. I am very interested in Albrecht--who isn't?--have written about him and he will feature prominently in a book I'm working on--so to know that this rifle carries his signature (and from when he was working in Bethlehem) would be amazing.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I guess we're all seeking certitude, and that may or may not be forthcoming.  I'm sure everyone - or mostly everyone - can view the short rifle and #19 as being by the same hand.  Some believe a signature is present and some do not.  Given that a few people do feel that there is 'something' there indicating a signature, I'm sure there is some form of non-destructive means of rendering what may be there in greater detail.  I'm no photographer but I suspect that some form of high res photography pieced together from perhaps an entire series of angles and lighting could probably answer the question.

[rich pierce]

I believe Albrecht could build anything he desired due to his extensive journeyman experience, but the stark differences in patchbox cavity construction and decorative details compared with Bethlehem and Christians Spring rifles remain as logical stumbling blocks for me.

[Mike Brooks]

I guess we're all seeking certitude, and that may or may not be forthcoming.  I'm sure everyone - or mostly everyone - can view the short rifle and #19 as being by the same hand.  Some believe a signature is present and some do not.  Given that a few people do feel that there is 'something' there indicating a signature, I'm sure there is some form of non-destructive means of rendering what may be there in greater detail.  I'm no photographer but I suspect that some form of high res photography pieced together from perhaps an entire series of angles and lighting could probably answer the question.

I don't have a clue why it's taking for ever to get this figured out. Seems a simple thing to do. What's up with all the dad blasted delay concerning this?

[120RIR]

Unfortunately, the now-deceased owner of the short rifle was never amenable to outside testing or independent detailed examination.  The current disposition of the rifle is currently unknown but it is likely in the possession of Mr. Cowan's long-time companion.  I have not actively tried to pursue making contact with her - wanting to give it something resembling a decent interval.

[JTR]

I'm sure there is some form of non-destructive means of rendering what may be there in greater detail.  I'm no photographer but I suspect that some form of high res photography pieced together from perhaps an entire series of angles and lighting could probably answer the question.

I wonder if the stacking/enhancing program I use with my astro photography might bring out more detail in a signature.

I know that where as a single 3 minute exposure might not show anything or maybe just very little, when you take fifty to a hundred 3 minute exposures, then stack and enhance them, you'll see a fantastic structure. This is obviously because of collecting more and more light photons and adding them together, so to say.

Imaging a signature might not work exactly the same, but I think, as you said, that if by angling the light, its intensity and/or color wouldn't bring out a more complete signature. The imaging would have to be done in a very specific way, but wouldn't be all that difficult.

[spgordon]

How much would something like this cost?

[JTR]

Scott, I wouldn't think much of anything, if someone was close enough to not have travel costs.
I don't know where the rifle is, but chances are that there is an astronomy club near by, and astro imaging is pretty popular.

The pictures could be taken with any good quality DSLR that could be mounted on a stand or tripod, and held steady. And actually anyone could take the pictures. They'd only need to be able to make reference points and understand varying the light to create a degree of contrast. Then the set of pictures could be put on a memory stick and mailed to whomever was going to process them.

I'd love to give it a try if pictures were ever available!

[Lucky R A]

Scott,  Bucknell University has an astronomy lab.  John Steiner Gold,  who was descended from George Gold, one of the original Moravians with Zinzendorf, taught math and astronomy at Bucknell years ago.  There is a math scholarship there in John Steiner Gold's name.

[spgordon]

I didn't know about the descendant of George Gold at Bucknell! I run across various Golds in Moravian records but haven't focused on any of them. The only thing I remember about George Gold is that he was part of the "Great Wedding" in July 1749 when nearly thirty marriages took place at once.

I guess we don't know where the short rifle is now--but if it's close to Bucknell maybe they could do the inspection there.

[spgordon]

BTW, reading over again this morning the Gnadenhütten diary before putting all this away: on Easter Sunday (April 14, 1754), Paxinosa leaves Gnadenhütten for Bethlehem at 8am and then, after breakfast, four other Shawnee follow him--"for they wanted something done at the smith shop." It's possible that this was gun repair and so possible (though purely speculation) that Albrecht worked on Shawnee rifles in April 1754 as well as in summer 1752. This group of Shawnee, Paxinosa and the others, returned to Gnadenhütten in the afternoon of April 17.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I believe Albrecht could build anything he desired due to his extensive journeyman experience, but the stark differences in patchbox cavity construction and decorative details compared with Bethlehem and Christians Spring rifles remain as logical stumbling blocks for me.

You know Rich I can see it both ways.  One thing to consider is that *IF* these rifles were made by Albrecht in the early 1750s - basically 'right off the boat' guns to some extent - there really is nothing else (Moravian) comparative of that period to use as a basis for comparison.  OR I should say, nothing that can be proved to be of that period.  Of course there's all the Oerter rifles that are signed and dated but they're 20+ years later.  There's the Lion/Lamb rifle which to my mind now is fairly clearly Oerter, but again, later.  Marshall?  Kind of impossible to say when it was made but my guess would be 1760s.  And others we all debate. 

Something that has offered somewhat of a new perspective in more recent years is all of the research that Bob has published and the subsequent realization that it appears as though a lot of work was being done for the Indians.  How might work differences materialize as a response to preferences varying between two entirely different cultures and needs?  Albrecht worked all over the German lands, and in a martial setting too.  Then he worked for natives that were about as different from old world Germans as could be.  Then, later on or even contemporaneously perhaps, the clientele may have been wealthier white individuals such as Richard Shackleton.  And then the Revolution and the years beyond.  I would imagine he was working for a much wider ranging client base than we today, and I'm not sure it's possible - especially in light of all the work for the Indians - to completely understand what may have been wanted, and how an extremely competent gun stocker with a wide range of experience may have responded to such changing and varied wants/needs.

Kind of excessively verbose way of discussing differences in box cavity construction, but I do believe both methods (large and gouged/hogged out vs. smaller squared box) were both used at the same time in Germany and so he surely would have been familiar with both.  So:  how would these differing box cavity styles be viewed by varying clientele?  I don't have an answer to that, but one thing we do know empirically is that here in America, the squared contained box style won out in very broad fashion, likely due to the development of the brass box.  But earlier, pre brass box:  can we envision reasons why any particular customer base might prefer one over the other?  Deep thoughts...

[Seth Isaacson]

We also have to keep in mind that pretty much all of the work they did for the Indians is very likely long, long gone. Not a lot of Native American firearms survive. Even those made at much later dates were pretty much used until they were worn out and then discarded or repurposed.

[Eric Kettenburg]

The funny thing is that if I had to envision a rifle of the 1750s + or - which would be desired by a native of some status, and perhaps suited to such a life as opposed to an immigrant farmer or tradesman of the same period, I would be fairly hard-pressed to envision something other than an approximation of #19!

[Mike Brooks]

I've always admired #19. It's very plausible to consider this gun stocked up for an indian by one of the smiths sent to the indian villages to fix indian guns. It appears to have an old French trade gun barrel and the buttlate certainly has a French design, some parts either left over from a busted up French gun that a chief may have had some sentimental attachment to. either  It could easily, or maybe obviously, have been stocked up by a smith with German training as Albrecht and others had.

 To me it doesn't seem to have any architectural similarity with what we now know was made in CS , Bethlehem, etc. I would assume we'd see at least some resemblance to what is currently attributed to Albrecht's work. At least a stepped toe. But who knows, maybe the chief didn't like step toe'd guns.

[spgordon]

Just a quick note that we know the identities of lots of Native people who took their guns to repair at Bethlehem (and Christiansbrunn)--and none was a "chief" (except for that Shawnee chief who recollected having his gun repaired in 1752). Even in the 1754 Gnadenhütten diary, Paxinosa goes to Bethlehem and then four Shawees follow him who need help from the smith. So Moravian smiths were routinely repairing guns for "ordinary" Indians (and many more Indians, I think, than white people in these early years).

[spgordon]

How might work differences materialize as a response to preferences varying between two entirely different cultures and needs?  Albrecht worked all over the German lands, and in a martial setting too.  Then he worked for natives that were about as different from old world Germans as could be.  Then, later on or even contemporaneously perhaps, the clientele may have been wealthier white individuals such as Richard Shackleton.  And then the Revolution and the years beyond.  I would imagine he was working for a much wider ranging client base than we today, and I'm not sure it's possible - especially in light of all the work for the Indians - to completely understand what may have been wanted, and how an extremely competent gun stocker with a wide range of experience may have responded to such changing and varied wants/needs.

Eric--I'm asking this out of ignorance, not skepticism. I can see why different craftsmen might make different patchboxes, depending on their training, say. But why would a customer prefer one patchbox style over another (gouged/hogged out vs. squared box)? I can see why a customer might prefer a large vs. a small patchbox. But would construction matter (even be visible in the sense of something to care about) to a customer?

[Eric Kettenburg]

Scott - when I refer to the 'hogged' style, I'm indicating a cavity that is generally round-bottomed from front all the way back to the inside of the buttplate, i.e. generally no web of wood between the cavity and the inside of the buttplate.  Also if cut correctly, the angled walls can serve as a mating surface for the dovetail on the bottom of the box lid, so no need to cut 'rails.'  A squared cavity, on the other hand, is cut just like a small box and typically retains a web of wood between the cavity and the inside of the buttplate.  This type of cavity also necessitates the cutting of 'rails' to accommodate the wood lid.  This would be comparable to the AA coffee mill.  The short rifle and #19 are of the larger gouged/hogged variety, which Rich mentioned (I believe) because no other surviving piece attributed to Beth or CS is cut in this manner.  It's a much rarer cavity type relative to surviving American guns, though fairly common in German work.

In terms of preference, there are pros and cons of both types.  I can't think of any reason a customer would prefer one over another, save that the 'hogged' type is usually larger so if you're the type of shooter that carries a lot in the box, you might prefer such a cavity.  As a gunsmith, I have no preference either way myself.  The smaller boxed type is more time consuming to cut in my opinion because of the need for rails, but on the other hand, the gouged type (preferably) should make use of an inletted buttplate (as opposed to flat sawn at the rear) to prevent the presence of a gap or crack at the bottom of the cavity into which small pieces of 'stuff' might get lost.  I guess it's 6 of one, half dozen of other in terms of time.

 

[spgordon]

Eric -- Thanks, I vaguely grasped the difference between how the two were constructed--what I was asking (and you answered!) is whether there would be a reason for customers to prefer one or the other. It seems that there really isn't. So--just as a thought--I'd think that it would be less likely that Albrecht tailored different patchboxes for different cultures and needs, since there is no "need" that one patchbox over the other would satisfy. It would seem more likely that the different styles of patchbox signal different craftsmen. Just more likely--no certainty here.

Or am I getting something wrong?

[Eric Kettenburg]

Unless it was typical for a native to want to carry a lot of 'stuff' in a box (no evidence for this one way or another to my knowledge), I can't think of any reason they might prefer one box style over another.  Typically, I would (as with Rich) lean toward viewing it as something specific to a particular gun stocker, however as I mentioned, given Albrecht's broad experiences in Germany, he surely was familiar with both.  *If* he stocked the shorty/#19, then he apparently changed his method later on, at least by the time of the assumed Lititiz-made rifle, and also, it is more likely all the other unsigned surviving work we currently attribute to CS may be Oerter or others.  Unless he changed his style earlier, or use both types, in which case we are back to square one and the box cavity means nothing!

Just to reiterate the obvious, it's really all going to come down to whether not there's a readable signature on that shorty.  Everything else is just fun speculation.

[spgordon]

Eric--Came across this the other day: seems to support your theory that what we now know of as "Allentown" was indeed called Allentown earlier than I had thought. It is very early, May 1761: most sources say that the earliest reference to any settlement that became Allentown was in December 1761, in a petition to build a road to a "new Town which is built on Mr. Allen's land." But here's somebody building some sort of a road six months earlier and calling the place "Allenstown"! (See the bottom-most invoice in the photograph below.)

(Given the names mentioned, that letter from 1755 that I posted earlier, though, has got to refer to Allen Township.)

[Eric Kettenburg]

That's extremely interesting - thanks for posting that Scott!  It's great to see first-hand sources.  From what I've been able to gather based upon just a few scraps here and there, I strongly believe there were already houses at the site before the town was "officially" laid out in William Allen's 1762 plan of the town, although probably not many.  I'd like to know more about it but there just doesn't seem to be much (if any) reference.

[Dan Fruth]

As I read Bob Lienemann's latest book, I am struck with the question..."Is there any documentation in the Moravian archives for these guns being built by Oerter."   My point is the only evidence we have these are indeed made by Oerter for, say Samual Coykendall, is the gun itself. If I need further written proof by a journal entry, or some other forensic evidence, I would be out of luck. I have to rely on the object itself as evidence that it was built for Coykendall by Oerter, and isn't that what is being presented by those who view #19 as the evidence for it's authenticity?  I have a 1750s French fusil in my shop for restoration, and when the gun was brought into my shop, I was floored by how much it looks like #19. Obviously whoever built #19 had seen these French guns before, and was building an Americanized version of one. Recognizing there are no signatures on either of these guns in question make attribution almost impossible, but that same reality exists for RCA #42, and look what has happened there......Just sayin

[rich pierce]

They should have made a law that all guns must be signed on the top and bottom of the barrel, Dan!

I am amazed and delighted at the primary source documentation on the Moravian gunsmiths and whole community. Those original documents make me want to copy their cursive style.

[spgordon]

Rich Pierce, I wish it were always so neat! That's a professional & trained scribe or bookkeeper there. Most Moravian handwriting is so much sloppier...

By the way: coincidentally, the first receipt on the photo above indicates that William Okely has bought a carpenter's rule for Peter Rice. Peter Rice was a boy who had been sent to Christiansbrunn to work under Albrecht when Albrecht gets sent there on 3 September 1759. I speculated in my article with Bob L. that this was necessary because, in Bethlehem, Albrecht had available help (since he was working in the locksmith shop), but in Christiansbrunn he would not have easily available help. Anyway, Rice doesn't last long with Albrecht and soon after gets apprenticed to the cabinetmaker. Which goes to show that, just because a name is associated with the gun trade at some point, we cannot assume that he became a gunsmith or practiced as a gunsmith.