AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: ajcraig on September 21, 2016, 04:29:06 AM
-
I have always enjoyed reading this forum and the incredible wealth of information provided here by the members. Here is a percussion rifle said to be made by Happoldt in the mid-1800's using recycled hardware from a 1785 silver mounted rifle, including a patchbox with a captured lid. I have no connection with this rifle or the auction; I make this posting in the hope that others might find this patchbox and rifle of interest as I do.
Here is the auction:
http://jamesdjulia.com/item/4473-394/
Enjoy!
-
Well now that certainly is extremely interesting. Especially given the guard, cut down side plate and what I can see of the entry pipe all likely off the original rifle as well.
Not very hard to make a connection there, is there? I'll wait for it…. ;D
-
Interesting box. I'm thinking about the box to go on a future project. This one happens to be in the style of what I had in mind.
-
I agree with Molly,this is I dead a special early patch box. I don't think I have ever seen one with a captured lid, and hidden hinge, that is this early.
Hungry Horse
-
Wallace had illustrated a couple of the same form, one which was a dug relic iirc, but of course none were dated.
If the engraved name, location and date is first work, it renders the piece doubly interesting. First, because of the date affixing the box style to a place and date in time, and second, because of the other furnishings accompanying it which then tie it into a much larger discussion…
How far is Pendelton SC from Salem?
-
Far: 200 miles. I wondered the same thing.
But then: Bethlehem to Salem is further....
-
There was a J. E. Colhoun (1791-1847) of Pendleton--obviously too young to be the J. E. Colhoun referred to on this patchbox. But another source notes that there was a J. E. Colhoun "senior" who died around 1793, so he is likely the man.
-
Hey, Bethlehem to Salem wasn't too far for Jacob Loesch, and if the date is accurate, the timing would be perfect, wouldn't it?
-
Loesch got to Salem a bit earlier but began to work as a gunsmith in March 1783. So timing is good.
And, yes, I meant to suggest that 200 miles wasn't so far, given that people traveled much further (Bethlehem to Salem).
-
I see we're on the same page! And of course, as usual when something like this turns up, the original barrel is missing!!!! Not that it *had* to have been signed, but by the post-war period the likelihood of it being signed seems to have increased pretty dramatically.
-
Eric, Scott and all - I usually try for discipline and leave the speculation to others, but this is fun.
Can see a lot of #42 in this one, so that bit of history. Then Loesch arrives, and after a bit takes on Christoph Vogler, though Loesch soon leaves Vogler to figure it out on his own. Vogler family goes into silver mounted rifles, similar details on their rifles, and other silver products with fine engraving. This seems like the bridge between all those players - FUN!] C Vogler and the boys on barrel?
It's also cool to see how an approx 1850 restock has same breech as early J&S Hawkens, and other details seen there and on trade rifles of the period. This one piece covers a lot of history.
Very little "new" in the world of gunstocking then and now. Borrow from here and there, recycle and modify for new customers. Could write a novel or two about this one.
OK, back to quiet research.
-
OK, let me show my ignorance here! Yes I can see that the date 1785 has been engraved on the patchbox, but other than that, how do we conclude that this rifle with a snail hooked breech was originally a flintlock?
-
Bob I usually try for speculation and leave the discipline just for you!
Glad I was not the only one who saw #42 as soon as I clicked on that link. The buttplate is very interesting and I wonder if it was worked down from a larger butt piece or if by 1785 this would be considered typical? Of course to know if it was typical, there would need to be others of a known location of the same period to use as a basis for comparison.
The Loesch/Vogler potential does seem to "fit" in a lot of ways, given the silver and given that Loesch was apparently quite the talented guy, into a bit of everything and the box design does evince a bit of 'ingenious mechanizing.'
-
Nothing wrong with speculation to my mind!--as long as the speculator realizes it's the start of a conversation or process and not the end of one. Usually speculation is the important first step to learning more ... speculations can be confirmed by further research and conversation or undermined by it. The problem (more common, I think) is when somebody gets too attached to what was only speculation and starts to love it a bit too much ::)
-
Okieboy - this specific rifle was not originally a flintlock, it is a later rifle (the auction house is positing around 1850s I guess?) that was stocked up as a percussion gun but using some components of an earlier flint rifle. I suspect the majority of the interest in this rifle is going to revolve around those components.
-
Very wise observation Scott and very hard to hold oneself to such a standard!
-
Agreed. We all love our own speculations a bit too much! But it's worth having a standard ....
And we all do need to begin with speculation. A feeling, a guess, a hunch. Then you need to be open to that being modified if others have more/different information.
-
Maybe this is our man: John Ewing Colhoun, 1750-1802. Biography here:
http://finding-aids.lib.unc.edu/00130/
-
That does seem to fit the narrative re: the owner as per the auction description. After referencing the abstract of the papers and the brief description of his holdings, I would assume he would have been able to afford a very nice silver-mounted rifle!
-
Oy, I hadn't even read that description. Just looked at the pictures. Doh!
-
The butt plate is a mystery, does not seem to fit the sideplate and especially the guard. Hard for me to postulate an earlier buttplate that was modified to be more curved and narrow. Just too pointy. But the patchbox, guard, and sideplate seem too closely related to furniture of RCA 42 to be coincidental.
-
Maybe, or maybe not. For the purposes of the discussion let's take the date at face value and also that the engraving was executed when the gun was constructed. So we'll say 1785. Now compared to #42, there is (1) a box of the same general artistic design but assumed to be a second stage, designed as a more 'contained' unit. (This of course assumes that #42 is the original box, which if I may be honest I am not convinced that it is but that's a separate discussion that can probably never be answered). (2) The guard here to my eye looks a bit 'less than' #42, i.e. it looks like a guard like #42 was used as the casting pattern, rather than the same master for both. Of course the photos are less than complete here but it's my first impression. (3) Sideplate - assuming the front bolt portion was removed when restocked, it looks like basically the same thing but obviously would have to have side by side to compare. (4) The buttplate. It's obviously a later style. But what was CS for example putting out at the time that Loesch was master, before he went back to NC? No idea. but look at the surrounding area. Peter Neihart was already using smaller buttplates in the 1780s and so was John Moll (if I have Moll's chronology correct, not guaranteed but I think that I do). Casting a slighter wider net out into Berks, we already see smaller buttplates with curvature. The buttplate on this gun almost - *almost* - looks kind of like a variation on the Northampton sheath type. It has a fairly flat and tapered upper portion, in other words not designed to completely span over and frame a well rounded comb. And it does not have a dramatic rear curvature, just some curve with most at the heel.
I really don't know. On one hand I can see it all working together, especially if you consider the restocker likely removed at least *some* material. Probably not very much but something at the least. On the other hand it's possible that the buttplate was made later, just don't know.
-
Remind me, gentlemen, where and when in Pennsylvania Loesch worked before going to Salem in was it 1781. When was he born, when does he first show up in Pennsylvania, etc. thanks
-
Jacob Loesch Jr. (1760–1821) was born in North Carolina. His father had been the the first warden at Christiansbrunn in 1749 and one of the founders of Bethabara in 1753. The family returned to Pennsylvania so Loesch Sr. could become the superintendent at Nazareth in 1771--and Jacob Loesch Jr. became Christian Oerter's apprentice at Christiansbrunn in August 1773. Loesch Jr. worked alongside Oerter, William Henry, Georg Weiss, and Joseph Levering at Christiansbrunn during the busy war years and he took over the Christiansbrunn shop in July 31, 1780 when Henry, who had been master of the shop, moved to Nazareth. Loesch left for North Carolina in fall 1781--but when he arrived at Salem he was not permitted to work as a gunsmith and so worked as a locksmith instead until March 1783, when he was allowed to work as a gunsmith.
Scott
-
I would love to see more first hand references to Loesch as he seems like a very, very interesting guy. There are a number of references to him in Fries compilation of NC records and he apparently taught school, sang, played the organ and the flute, and between 1781 and 1783 (while he was not permitted to engage in gun work) it seems as though he and Valentine Beck (Beck at this point was pastor at Friedberg) got into a bit of a disagreement over who should have the right to pour pewter spoons. The settlement of the issue seems to have favored Beck with the caveat that he improve the form and the alloy, so possibly Loesch was making spoons of better quality. There is quite a bit more - he was on quite a few occasions the subject of numerous issues amongst the 'elders.' He was apparently a capable clockmaker as well as capable of making an organ. Also it was noted in 1787 that he had an air rifle and was in some way doing harm to himself and others (I assume reputation?). It appears that by May in 1787 anyway, Vogler had taken over the gunshop? Not sure of the exact date but there is a notation for this and it is mentioned in past tense, as something already done.
-
BTW Scott and Bob, have either of you come across any reference to Beck working on guns following the War? I don't believe there was any reference in Fries to this, and it would appear that he was ill for at least a few years prior to his death in 1791. I believe the above reference to pouring spoons was the only reference I found indicating he was doing anything other than pastoral duties.
-
I've never followed Beck after he leaves Pennsylvania, so Bob'll have to tackle that one.
I don't think Beck worked much as a gunstocker here in PA, though Bob and I may disagree on this one. At least there's very little evidence that he did. My view goes something like this: sure, Beck and Albrecht and Oerter are all in Bethlehem and Christiansbrunn from 1761-64. Could have been an amazing gathering of talent. But it's important to realize that there was little work for a gunstocker in these years. Moravian gunstockers at this time were doing repair work and may have built some rifles on demand: but how much demand was there? Not much, according to surviving records. So the problem for Moravian authorities, I think, was what else these men could do: both Albrecht and Beck were assigned to work with children. (Our article on gunmaking in Bethlehem, Christiansbrunn, and Nazareth makes this argument in more detail, pp. 15-16.)
Scott
-
A couple of notes, surmises and questions from a neophyte:
1. The outline of the patchbox does look like a refined version of the patchbox on #42.
2. The "nick and dot" border engraving is very small and well executed. I did not find many (if any) borders like this in looking at various North Carolina guns in the books that I have. In particular it does not appear to be a border used by any Volger in any of the guns that I reviewed. Is it possible that this engraving is the work of a silversmith and not a gunsmith?
3. Also regarding the patchbox, note the small projection in the lower rear corner of the box - it almost looks like the tip of the screw or a button. However, it might just be some corrosion.
4. Are my lying eyes fooling me (again!) or is the toeplate not a separate piece but rather the end of the buttplate that has been bent over? This doesn't seem right but I just can't see a clean line or seam between the buttplate and the toeplate. Note that the auction description of the reused gun furniture omits mentioning a toeplate ("utilized the coin silver patch box, buttplate, trigger guard, lock escutcheon, and ramrod thimble, from silver mounted flintlock rifle"). Also, it appears that the toe plate is not engraved - unlike the rest of the silver furniture (per the auction description). Finally, it is a very basic toeplate when compared to many of the elaborate North Carolina toeplates, particularly for a fancy gun.
5. The trigger guard has a fairly long handrail when compared to the bow of the guard. I wonder if this feature is connected to a particular region, school, or maker?
6. The buttplate is a bit hard to explain, as others have noted.
-
ajcraig - thanks for this interesting post, link and your comments.
The early details and possible connections are very interesting.
I find the later details and connections equally interesting - concurrent with some fine threads on Hawken rifles and building same. Is this breech identical to those used by J&S Hawken in St Louis? Other similar details? Did both makers buy the components from the same source, were these commonly available, etc.? Locks and breeches with hook made here or imported? Do our Hawken students have info and observations to share? Thanks
-
ajcraig - the protrusion near the rear of the box is the end of a screw (screwed in from underneath) which is a part of the catch mechanism. Likewise, the same can be seen near the front (above the lid) which is holding the pop-open spring. The idea here is that the entire box lid including catch and kick mechanisms is an entirely self-contained unit, thus not requiring anything other than the entire 'package' to be mounted to the stock.
-
Eric:
Many thanks for the explanation - I see it now!
Alex
-
I've not the depth to contribute anything of substantive value to this discussion, but I am
reminded, in the instant case, that this is the very type of continuing 'conversation' that
eventually allowed the identification and proper attribution to Lancaster gunsmith John
Newcomer, of the the smooth-rifle piece formerly attributed, by Shumway, to John Bullard.
I've always admired RCA#42 and speculated, on these very pages, that the current patchbox is/was a replacement. I hope that someone has downloaded copies of these digital photos (with the watermark) for future discussion and reference, before they disappear.
Virtually everything on this rifle has been re-purposed, right down to the lock plate, on which a double stamp is clearly evident.
-
Wallace has always been adamant that the box on #42 is entirely original. We *might* have discussed the possibility of it being a replacement many moons ago on this board when his articles were being published in MB and it became somewhat of a heated topic. I've personally been somewhat 50/50 on it being original vs. not. I can see it both ways. I can see it as a prototypical side opening box essentially as it exists now and the box on the Deshler rifle is at least of the same age I would say, and essentially the same manner of construction. Then you see the evolution to later Bucks Co boxes. Then meanwhile, you have a couple of these very neat self-contained units as per this silver box as well as one or two others of brass, all of the same design but of indeterminate origin. This silver one, at least, would seem to be a "southern" made box and my gut tells me it may very well have been made in Salem by Jacob Loesch. Now, does the design of 42 preface this more mechanically involved, self-contained style? WAS there an original box of exactly this style on 42, something happened to it very early on and it was replaced more simplistically, thus rendering the appearance of great age? Given the size of the cavity in 42, I can see how all the evidence may have been chiseled away. I simply do not know what to think. The current box was on it when it was auctioned by Serven's in the 1950s, but there was a lot more restoration work done to these old rifles in the 1920s, 30s and 40s than people generally are given to think. And it wasn't all poor quality or cheesy either.
-
I'd have to say given the introduction of this particular (patch)box and the fact that it's dated; that while not conclusively disproving Wallace's considered opinion, it certainly points toward an extremely reasonable alternative.
EK's question(s) of a 'before' and 'after' 'involved' (evolved- ?) hinge and latch mechanism is, I think, a further means of narrowing investigation and distilling away preconceptions and assumptions on either side.
Obviously, it's never been a 'settled' matter, nor a 'finding of fact,' as there are adherents and advocates on both sides of an issue that has been lingering just below the surface.
There's hardly what I'd call a true 'consensus' on this matter.