AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: Eric Kettenburg on December 31, 2021, 02:11:11 AM
-
Examination of two signed John Rupp rifles, including one or two attributed. Perhaps more if others care to join in the conversation? PLEASE DO SO!
I want to preface everything I offer hereafter with the caveat that (1) it is predominantly based upon my own opinion and study of Northampton County area rifles, and lifetime work as a gunsmith, as well as (2) it is all predicated upon the assumption (by me) that most people knowledgeable in both ‘kentuckies’ as well as possessive of a knowledge of gunstocking will agree with - or at least consider - my assertion that the (apparent) earliest of the John Rupp rifles (Sotheby’s) is a ‘parts rifle’ stocked largely around components taken from an earlier gun. If you don’t agree with me, have at it! I welcome all opinions and more commentary will surely render a better examination.
To take a deep dive right out of the gate, there has been some doubt expressed as to whether or not the Kindig/Collis/Sotheby’s John Rupp rifle was made by the same man that made the Poulin’s John Rupp rifle. Some of this doubt is due to the smaller size and architecture of the Poulin’s rifle and some is due to the change in brass furniture. Hopefully we can address and discuss this in depth, and I plan to offer an analysis of particular details which I hope will put any doubts to rest.
Initially I want to simply present the below photo as food for thought.
Much of the initial ‘wow!’ factor of this rifle (John Rupp - Sotheby’s) is due to the very dramatic nature of the step stock. Yet, I would ask, “Is it in fact such a dramatic step?” I would proffer that the striking nature of the step is largely appearance-only, this due to the use of an oversized and over-long trigger guard for the style of stock and region of manufacture. By utilizing a guard clearly pulled from a larger, earlier rifle in conjunction with a much earlier lock of larger size that consequently mandated a trigger moved further toward the butt - and so likewise the trigger guard itself - the step falls under the grip rail rather than at the point where the return/finger loop reconnects with the stock as per virtually all other Lehigh-area rifles. The aesthetic effect of this orientation is that the grip rail of the guard acts literally as a ‘picture frame’ for the step and creates the visual illusion of this step being much more prominent than others of the region. It is not so, primarily when compared with the earliest of the signed "John Moll" rifles which likewise are shaped with a fairly stout, abrupt step.
I have adjusted this photo using Pixelmator software by removing the original (recycled to my mind) trigger guard, moving the trigger slightly forward (imagining a slightly smaller, later flintlock mechanism) and placing a guard cut from a signed John Moll rifle upon the John Rupp rifle to fit the trigger location as well as the step location.
NO ALTERATION was made at all to the step or overall stock of the rifle.
I suspect many will think this makes a world of difference in the overall appearance of the rifle; it very much does so in my opinion. This photo is presented here solely to initiate some discussion. Further examination will follow.
(https://i.ibb.co/59Sxsgx/JRupp-Mod.jpg) (https://ibb.co/YW1TfFT)
-
Well, I agree with you Eric, your "adjusted" rifle is far more pleasing to the eye because it is proportional, for want of a better word.
The foreshortened nature of the Sotheby's rifle triggerguard, really stands out to me if you compare the triggerguard view of the Sotheby's rifle on page 350 of the new Third Edition of Kindig's book with the Rupp rifle on page 19 of the 4th Edition of Pennsylvania Longrifles of Note. The difference is striking. Granted the Rupp rifle in the Pa Longrifles of note is described as being built by an earlier John Rupp, at least according to the book.
-
From a builder's perspective; the wrist architecture on the Southeby's example is just awkward. You computer rendition is better, but still awkward. I wonder if it is not only a restock using older parts but also using an older, intact stock that the parts could be made to fit.
-
Heinz, it's interesting that you mention that. Now here again, I have to get into speculative territory although there does exist *some* scant evidence to a degree. When it comes to stocking up a rifle, I think most of us here realize that there are differences between how we approach things today vs. how the trade was approached 200+ years ago. I don't necessarily mean simple differences in tool technology used or differences in lighting etc.; I mean, for example, that today, a gunstocker might be approached to stock up a Lancaster style rifle by one customer, a Lehigh by another, a Hudson River gun at another point and on and on. Conversely, one of the reasons we typically can recognize even unsigned work by a historic maker, or at the minimum pin an unsigned piece down to a relatively constrained region, is it appears that a maker developed a pattern for a rifle (using a rifle as example) and then stuck with it, with some allowance being made for adjustments and - if the gunstocker lived long enough - adjustments for stylistic changes. John Phillip Beck is a great example, Herman Rupp is another (as noted above, two rifles 16 years apart that are almost identical), Dickert etc. This makes sense, too: with only one or two exceptions that come to mind (the Oerter rifle noted in a letter and being sent all the way to Lancaster being one), it would seem that a gunstocker dealt with a local customer pool and knew what the customers expected, and they knew what to expect of him. We also have quite a number of surviving 'schimmels' as Chuck has called them, pieces which often appear somewhat oversized to an extent and also appear to have been stocked up to a point, but not finished further. Were stockers working up partially-completed pieces to maintain an inventory of sorts? Bob Lienemann has demonstrated the way it would appear that the CS shop was using a pattern and simply adjusting it up or down slightly for drop, and butt length to adjust lop, so there is this to consider also. I have seen a couple of different antique stock blanks that have survived and they are not the blocky, oversized things we now cut or purchase. They're much closer to the overall form of a rifle, apparently being roughed-out somewhat even while in blank form. Wallace illustrated a great example in the old JHAT series.
A friend and I were discussing this exact approach in a conversation about this John Rupp rifle and the discussion pretty much encompassed exactly my soap box speech above ;D ;D He had asked me *why* would Rupp have made use of a guard that was clearly too large and long for the rifle, and *why* maintain the clunky step? I believe this was because these guys were stocking to a pattern, and it’s fairly apparent that everyone in that portion of NH Co. was working with a similar aesthetic. A step-stock was expected. They were maintaining a step stock into the 19th century, along with wood boxes, so the customer base and the stockers were clearly wedded to a particular style and expectation. My speculation only, but Rupp probably had the stock roughed out with a rough barrel groove, and then just went at it with the parts he had on hand. Frankly that’s what I would do if I needed to stock one up and get paid. He may have had the parts on-hand, either loose or in the form of an 'old gun' (we can typically find examples in the estate inventories of deceased gunsmiths that 'old gun' was commonly noted, usually in multiples; Neihart in 1813 had "Sundry old guns and tools"), or possibly someone brought him a broken piece and wanted it restocked. This is especially a strong possibility given that the components are clearly from an earlier and larger rifle, and might explain why this specific rifle displays a classic Allentown-area form and architecture clearly of the later 1780s or 1790s, yet is so large and bulky.
I too agree that the rifle here despite being attractive in many ways is definitely at the same time a bit awkward. I would wager an awful lot that it was stocked very early in his career, and I make this opinionated observation not at all based upon the size of the gun but based upon the slightly awkward aspect. Using even the signature as an example, which to my eye is clearly the same individual as likewise found upon the Poulin's rifle, the signature here appears a bit more awkward and less proficient, as does the box engraving. The wrist and buttstock angles are somewhat askew and do not flow together quite in the same way that the (seemingly) later Poulin's rifle, as well as other contemporary rifles of the region (John Moll) do so. This has nothing to do with the prominence of the step, as Moll utilized this form likewise. You can somewhat see the manner in which this awkwardness played out as the rifle took shape, as it appears to me that he was forced to shave down the comb more than perhaps originally intended. Simply some of my observations.
-
Good points Eric. I've always believed the regional characteristics of these different "schools" were tells of a proficient craftsman. Making one pattern with MINOR differences is the only way to be proficient and earn a living at such an arduous task. Ken Netting worked as a carpenter and was always employed because he was talented as well as proficient at his trade. His guns reflect this same proficiency and consistency. He carries certain characteristics into each gun he produces, because he is very familiar with those things and can be proficient at rendering them. IMHO
-
Hi Eric,
This is fascinating. So if gun makers in a local area produced similar and locally specific patterns and kept to them, it implies there was a considerable market for just those styled guns. So a customer went to one of those makers and was informed "this is the style I make" or a customer sought out those makers because they wanted that style. I wish we knew more who the customers were. As a retired predator-prey research biologist I know that to understand the predator you need to understand the prey.
dave
-
My two cents (worth no more than that, perhaps):
There is no evidence, not a single shred (that I'm aware of), that any eighteenth-century gun purchaser was aware of these regional styles that we have described as "schools." If there is any, it would be great to share it here.
So, sure, makers had styles and they were roughly regional. This might be expected given how people learned the trade, the (relative) lack of mobility at the time, etc., sort of like the way accents develop. But whether any of these things mattered or even signified to customer is (in my opinion) very unlikely.
Unless somebody can share an instance of an eighteenth-century individual seeking out a maker, or a region, because he preferred that style? It's hard enough to find evidence that an individual sought out a particular maker (Dickert, say)--let alone that the reason was something aesthetic rather than the quality of the maker's products....
-
Very scientific way to approach it! I also wish I knew more about the customers in any given region, the expectations, the local interaction between the gunstocker and his customers. I'm simply making an observation based upon surviving examples of a specific region - in this case, western NH Co., say from Bethlehem through Allentown over toward the Berks border. Once more putting forth pure speculation, my suspicion is that by the late 1760s or early 1770s Oerter at CS was largely setting the benchmark, and anyone else in the region was probably copying what was going on at CS. I think that if we finally ever get to see a signed Johannes Moll rifle that conceivably could date prior to the War, it's going to be very eye-opening. Let's look at Neihardt's signed 1787 rifle; now maybe call me crazy, but I see an awful lot of CS influence in that rifle. I have no doubt Neihardt was aware of what was going on at CS. How could he not, given the proximity? So if you are fishing in the same customer pool, it makes senses that you have to use the same bait. I would also be extremely interested to see a signed Jacob Loesch or Joseph Levering rifle. I think either would also be quite eye-opening and fill in a lot of missing jigsaw pieces.
-
Scott I agree with you, and maybe we are talking past each other. I'm not saying that a customer in Macungie was aware of 'schools' and thought to himself, "Well, I live near Trexler's so I have to buy something that looks like it was made here!" Not at all. What I'm trying to say is that a customer living near what became Trexlertown, for example, would *probably* be a lot more familiar with what the Rupps were stocking, or what Moll was stocking, than they would be familiar with what Dickert or Hachen were stocking. Pure proximity. So if someone living in Macungie decides "hey, I need a rifle!" he's going to be much more familiar with a rifle architectural style that is being built in his immediate area as opposed to somewhere 30 miles away. I'd say it makes sense that his expectations of what his new rifle would look like would be based more upon what he was seeing made in his immediate area as opposed to what was being made elsewhere, unless perhaps he was a recent arrival. I can't conceive of any other reason that specific styles post-War developed in specific regions other than people locally seeing something, thinking 'I like that!' and buying it, and of course, what sells is what anyone with any business sense is going to make. I see it as a symbiotic relationship between gunstocker and customer: the stocker in a particular region stocks what people want, and people in a specific region want what they've been conditioned to expect. Obviously, local residents could not immediately google images of what stockers in far-away communities were making. :P
Am I making sense?
-
by the late 1760s or early 1770s Oerter at CS was largely setting the benchmark, and anyone else in the region was probably copying what was going on at CS. I think that if we finally ever get to see a signed Johannes Moll rifle that conceivably could date prior to the War, it's going to be very eye-opening. Let's look at Neihardt's signed 1787 rifle; now maybe call me crazy, but I see an awful lot of CS influence in that rifle. I have no doubt Neihardt was aware of what was going on at CS. How could he not, given the proximity? So if you are fishing in the same customer pool, it makes senses that you have to use the same bait. I would also be extremely interested to see a signed Jacob Loesch or Joseph Levering rifle. I think either would also be quite eye-opening and fill in a lot of missing jigsaw pieces.
I totally agree that seeing a signed Loesch or Levering or Weiss or William Henry Jr. rifle would be eye opening. I don't think we have even a vague idea what the work of others who worked at Christiansbrunn looked like. Nobody at Christiansbrunn may have been making rifles aspiring to Oerter's standard after 1775. It's not clear that Oerter made any high-end rifles after 1775: we wonder often why he started dating things in 1774 but an equally (more?) important question is why he stopped. I'd say because he was forced to make muskets in late 1775 and died before his commitment to deliver lots of muskets was complete. Did he ever make another high-end rifle after those dated "1775"?
So Oerter's work is surely a high standard--and if it circulated widely in Northampton County it would have impressed other makers. And I understand that folk have seen the influence of Christiansbrunn (i.e. Oerter) in subsequent work, so I guess it did circulate and did impress others.
But maybe that high standard hit its apex in Oerter in 1775 and disappeared as quickly as it emerged? We just don't have enough information to know....
-
Scott I agree with you, and maybe we are talking past each other. I'm not saying that a customer in Macungie was aware of 'schools' and thought to himself, "Well, I live near Trexler's so I have to buy something that looks like it was made here!" Not at all. What I'm trying to say is that a customer living near what became Trexlertown, for example, would *probably* be a lot more familiar with what the Rupps were stocking, or what Moll was stocking, than they would be familiar with what Dickert or Hachen were stocking. Pure proximity. So if someone living in Macungie decides "hey, I need a rifle!" he's going to be much more familiar with a rifle architectural style that is being built in his immediate area as opposed to somewhere 30 miles away. I'd say it makes sense that his expectations of what his new rifle would look like would be based more upon what he was seeing made in his immediate area as opposed to what was being made elsewhere, unless perhaps he was a recent arrival. I can't conceive of any other reason that specific styles post-War developed in specific regions other than people locally seeing something, thinking 'I like that!' and buying it, and of course, what sells is what anyone with any business sense is going to make. I see it as a symbiotic relationship between gunstocker and customer: the stocker in a particular region stocks what people want, and people in a specific region want what they've been conditioned to expect. Obviously, local residents could not immediately google images of what stockers in far-away communities were making. :P
Yes, that makes perfect sense--but other explanations make equally perfect sense. Maybe customer choice (of the sort that Dave's post implied) isn't much involved at all, in which case styles develop because local makers are influencing one another. The product they make is purchased by customers because it is what is available; customer "choice" isn't a factor. Yet the styles still develop.
As you say, customers couldn't google alternate styles. Maybe most customer never even registered that different regions had different styles. Maybe they did--and preferred their own (as you noted). Or maybe they came to think another "look" was cool, in which case they certainly might come to prefer a style from another region. But I myself suspect that would have been very, very unlikely. And, as I've said, there's not a jot of evidence that any eighteenth-century customer cared about or noticed regional styles.
Again, like regional accents.
Here's a thought experiment. Most citizens of our fine republic would not--without some prodding, and teaching--even see the differences between different regional rifle styles. That doesn't mean that those difference aren't there: they are! It means that they aren't immediately recognizable. The ordinary person might see a difference in color, in weight, in a really blocky rifle and a thin/sleek rifle, with a patchbox and without, etc. But regional styles: I very much doubt it.
Maybe eighteenth-century customers were like that, too. It just didn't signify for them. They looked past it--much like you probably looked right past the fact that "rifle" is in two different fonts in the paragraph above. Yes, they are real differences. But we don't notice every real difference ...
-
I don't personally think Oerter's 1775 work hit an apex in the region. It may have at CS - unfortunately no way to say without seeing later work that can be pinpointed to that shop. But Neihardt's 1787 rifle is one $#*! of a rifle, to be blunt. John Moll's rifle that was part of Alex Chamberlain's collection, which he believed was made for one of the Greenleafs, is probably (imho) the finest Lehigh-style ever made, or certainly one of the finest if we take into consideration some have surely perished. The unanswered question, to me, is HOW strong was the CS influence ca. 1770-1775 on what else may have been made outside the Moravian community? How did what was being sold there influence what someone outside of the Moravian community may have been stocking and selling? I do not have answers to that.
Also I do agree that the possibility of makers influencing one another surely may have played a very primary role. *IF* apprenticeships are part of the equation, that's almost self-explanatory. But outside of the master/apprentice relationship, what else can create a cause/effect in terms of style and design? I don't think the customer base were purely innocent bystanders. Now that's speculation on my part, admittedly. When you see a number of different gunstockers in given region all working in somewhat of the same style, I don't personally think that any single reason leads to that similarity, and I am not willing to discount customer preference. Especially post-War: that surely had to be a great shuffling of the deck, and even an area that had previously been fairly insular such as Northampton Co. was thrown into the both shaken AND stirred category. People there must have seen a huge variety of arms and I can't conceive that this sudden cannonball into the blender did not in some way affect things on both sides of the craftsman/customer equation.
"And, as I've said, there's not a jot of evidence that any eighteenth-century customer cared about or noticed regional styles."
Pre-War, I absolutely agree. One probably decided 'I need a rifle' and went and bought a rifle without any though going into stock shaping or architecture. A rifle was just... a rifle. Post -War, I don't think much may have changed on the customer end, but gunstockers who had worked through the War years must have had a vastly increased exposure to differences to which they perhaps had not been exposed previously. How did this affect their work? How were any such changes in their work viewed by a local customer base? I don't know. Maybe their customer base didn't perceive or expect anything different.
This John Rupp rifle is a pretty classic case in point, though, as far as I'm concerned. Prior to the War, attributed CS work and Oerter's signed work is fairly straightforward German step-stock, with Oerter by the mid 1770s playing down that step but still maintaining it to some extent and likewise working down the overall size of the stock. Then suddenly, AFTER the War, by the late 1780s and early 1790s if our timelines are correct, now we see a noticeable step stock being maintained along with some fairly "Frenchy" curves introduced. Not just a rifle here or there, pretty much all of them! This didn't simply 'happen.' Something initiated this change, and I don't personally think it had anything to do with some of these immigrants originating in the Alsace region. If that were important, it logically should have happened with the first wave of immigrants, not their descendants, but there is no evidence that it did. So what changed? And what initiated this change not just within the work of a single maker, but most if not all of them? Too many questions that as yet have no answers.
-
I think we need to keep two things in mind. The lack of power tools means it was far more effective to cut green wood much closer to the finished shape than what we do today, and deal with any warping as necessary. And, they literally relied on patterns for much of their work. An apprentice would likely leave the master's shop with a set of gauges and patterns that helped in the lock and trigger layout, making trigger guard castings and the like. Schools were guided, not just by style ,but also by a tool and pattern set.
To go back to the original example, I can see no reason that step could not have been continued back to the traditional point, and I do not understand why the comb is so short of that trigger guard bow area where the comb, guard flange and step usually line up. Maybe he was in a hurry.
This is the line up in the Brass Barreled rifle
(https://i.ibb.co/Z6FTw2t/Note-convex-rollover-from-comb-to-cheekpiece.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bgCdybq)
-
Then suddenly, AFTER the War, by the late 1780s and early 1790s if our timelines are correct, now we see a noticeable step stock being maintained along with some fairly "Frenchy" curves introduced. Not just a rifle here or there, pretty much all of them! This didn't simply 'happen.' Something initiated this change, and I don't personally think it had anything to do with some of these immigrants originating in the Alsace region. If that were important, it logically should have happened with the first wave of immigrants, not their descendants, but there is no evidence that it did. So what changed? And what initiated this change not just within the work of a single maker, but most if not all of them? Too many questions that as yet have no answers.
Just to make sure I understand: how would you (speculatively, I understand) explain this change? I think you're saying that it was likely consumer choice that led so many different makers to adjust their styles at the same time?
-
I don't personally think Oerter's 1775 work hit an apex in the region. It may have at CS - unfortunately no way to say without seeing later work that can be pinpointed to that shop. But Neihardt's 1787 rifle is one $#*! of a rifle, to be blunt. John Moll's rifle that was part of Alex Chamberlain's collection, which he believed was made for one of the Greenleafs, is probably (imho) the finest Lehigh-style ever made, or certainly one of the finest if we take into consideration some have surely perished. The unanswered question, to me, is HOW strong was the CS influence ca. 1770-1775 on what else may have been made outside the Moravian community? How did what was being sold there influence what someone outside of the Moravian community may have been stocking and selling? I do not have answers to that.
Also I do agree that the possibility of makers influencing one another surely may have played a very primary role. *IF* apprenticeships are part of the equation, that's almost self-explanatory. But outside of the master/apprentice relationship, what else can create a cause/effect in terms of style and design? I don't think the customer base were purely innocent bystanders. Now that's speculation on my part, admittedly. When you see a number of different gunstockers in given region all working in somewhat of the same style, I don't personally think that any single reason leads to that similarity, and I am not willing to discount customer preference. Especially post-War: that surely had to be a great shuffling of the deck, and even an area that had previously been fairly insular such as Northampton Co. was thrown into the both shaken AND stirred category. People there must have seen a huge variety of arms and I can't conceive that this sudden cannonball into the blender did not in some way affect things on both sides of the craftsman/customer equation.
"And, as I've said, there's not a jot of evidence that any eighteenth-century customer cared about or noticed regional styles."
Pre-War, I absolutely agree. One probably decided 'I need a rifle' and went and bought a rifle without any though going into stock shaping or architecture. A rifle was just... a rifle. Post -War, I don't think much may have changed on the customer end, but gunstockers who had worked through the War years must have had a vastly increased exposure to differences to which they perhaps had not been exposed previously. How did this affect their work? How were any such changes in their work viewed by a local customer base? I don't know. Maybe their customer base didn't perceive or expect anything different.
This John Rupp rifle is a pretty classic case in point, though, as far as I'm concerned. Prior to the War, attributed CS work and Oerter's signed work is fairly straightforward German step-stock, with Oerter by the mid 1770s playing down that step but still maintaining it to some extent and likewise working down the overall size of the stock. Then suddenly, AFTER the War, by the late 1780s and early 1790s if our timelines are correct, now we see a noticeable step stock being maintained along with some fairly "Frenchy" curves introduced. Not just a rifle here or there, pretty much all of them! This didn't simply 'happen.' Something initiated this change, and I don't personally think it had anything to do with some of these immigrants originating in the Alsace region. If that were important, it logically should have happened with the first wave of immigrants, not their descendants, but there is no evidence that it did. So what changed? And what initiated this change not just within the work of a single maker, but most if not all of them? Too many questions that as yet have no answers.
Why study longrifles at all? What makes them special? They are American. They are ours. Rifles are cultural identity. That is why so much care went into how they are built and decorated.
We do not today have Mecklenburg county minivans, or Rowan county sneakers, or Wasco county rifles. It's a national market.
Prior to the Revolution, maybe your shoes probably reflected your county, your wagon reflected it, the tilt of your hat reflected it. Whether you intended or not. Maybe you were a proto-Yinser.
After the Revolution, a generation of men who might never have left their home counties had been marched up and down from Saratoga to South Carolina. Look at Morgan's riflemen. How many would have ever traveled beyond their home counties in VA but for the Revolution? Some even went to Montréal.
That possibly explains a stylistic boundary pre-war and post-war.
A lot of information will always be absent in the historical record. Dashing guy from the next county over wins the big shooting match with a step-stock rifle and gets all the hotties. Make me a rifle like that.
-
The discussion on customer awareness of regional styles reminded me of the gunsmith Peter White. He started out in Maryland making Maryland style rifles. He moved to Bedford Co. Pa. and changed to Bedford style. Then moved to Uniontown changed again. Maybe the locals weren't aware of regional characteristics but he was. Business is business.
-
Hi Eric, and thanks much for your studies and posts here. You and Scott play well together in comparing and reinforcing research, and I enjoy the responses from all. It is great to see photos of an old rifle or two with your research – it keeps us visual thinkers engaged through the study of primary records. The coordination between the guns and the records is what was often missing in prior works.
Regarding the appearance of this larger John Rupp rifle, adjusting the trigger and guard certainly change the appearance. Have you traced the outline of the stock profile from this rifle and the other John Rupp – or others for that matter by Herman Rupp, John Moll or Peter Neihardt? How close are they – are they identical, within the width of a chalk line? I somehow thought to ask for stock tracings of the various Oerter rifles and related arms, which really helped to understand (or guess) at how their shop worked with one stock pattern, and the same pattern or very similar was used for rifle # 43, with a bit more step. Comparison of stock patterns might connect some of these stockers.
If they were stocking custom rifles to fit a customer, then the customer may have had a role in style as well as fit. I had noticed from photos that many of these Oerter, later Lehigh and some Bucks Co rifles have a straight top to the wrist. Not something we would naturally shape – we would tend toward smooth curves from tang area into wrist and butt. But the tracings confirmed this – a slight curve in the top of wrist from breech to about the tang bolt, and then straight to the comb. Many contemporary builders miss this detail.
As you and others have mentioned, it seems the old builders had stock patterns hanging on the wall (two in the C’s Spring shop), and just as Wallace Gusler did in his movie, they would trace around the pattern, cut this out to the pattern line, and go to work. I learned longrifle stocking from Jack Brooks – who has patterns traced from many original rifles, and drawings of more. Jack taught me to cut the stock profile to its finished dimension – leaving no extra wood. This way we inlet only once, and don’t have extra wood in the way. On these slimmest rifles like the Hermann Rupp, the height of the wrist is only a good one inch! When you cut a wide stock blank to that finished profile one inch high in the wrist, it looks real scary!
Sidebar - it is interesting how some of these patterns from different makers are either identical - Lancaster stockers for example - or very close, perhaps showing a slight evolution over time. Again might show connections between stockers and shops.
You mention several antique cut out stocks – and we illustrated one in Moravian Gunmaking II – similar to what we would call a precarved stock today, with a rough groove for the barrel and the stock roughly shaped. When the C’s Spring inventories list “cut out gunstocks”, are they talking about planks cut into square stocks following an outline as we would first do with a bandsaw, or do they mean preshaped to some degree?
If John Rupp cut this stock from a pattern, then added the larger lock and longer trigger guard to the already established stock profile, he would get the results this rifle shows. It would handle and feel just the same, even though it looks different. Whether the lock and guard were reused, or older, or just available, the outcome is the same. There are other classic and slim Lehigh rifles with large locks – Jack has taught classes around one original Lehigh with a small barrel and using the Davis large colonial lock to match the original. The combination yields an interesting rifle. I enjoyed Dan’s comment about Ken Netting’s approach, unique to him.
Andreas Albrecht visited Matthias Roesser in Lancaster in early 1763 IIRC, and they may have compared notes on rifle design, stock and carving patterns. It is possible this visit influenced Dickert and others there, until AA moved to nearby Lititz eight years later. Wm Henry traveled a good deal, as did pastors and teachers. The Moravians ran their Wachovia wagons in a loop through the major settlements and down to N Carolina, taking goods and components from Lancaster, and may have sent a finished rifle along. Mr Baer somehow knew to ask young Oerter to stock a rifle for him (of a different pattern and style), when so many talented gunstockers lived close by – including his fellow Mennonites the Newcomer brothers. I believe that many customers for a rifle or other arm cared a good deal about the rifles they admired, and those that they owned. Some Moravian men near Salem NC were very upset to have their rifles taken from them during the Rev War – some had brought these from the old country. There was a strong connection between some men and their arms. Oerter used the term “she” when describing the rifle for Baer – picking up on that connection in promoting his work (as I read it).
By the middle of the Rev War, after taking arms from the non-Associators, and the smiths and stockers working to repair and restock all sorts of gathered arms in the several armories you have written about, they certainly saw the variety of work going on in the colonies. As did the various military units or rifle companies others have mentioned. Christian Oerter became very sick and was not a force by late 1776. Wm Henry, Jr may have stocked a rifle or two, but he was very busy completing a musket contract with the Brethren and an even larger arms repair contract he had on the side. Jacob Loesch, Jr did complete a few rifles for sale with brass patchboxes ca 1780 – but were they a continuation of Oerter’s work? Quite possible since Loesch learned the trade from Oerter, but perhaps Wm Henry, Jr brought the Lancaster daisy box from Albrecht and Lititz?
It is great fun to read and follow your and Scott’s research, and to imagine how this worked from the few records we have. But you find more records all the time. Hope 2022 brings health, happiness and much more new information! Thanks, Bob
-
Mr Baer somehow knew to ask young Oerter to stock a rifle for him (of a different pattern and style), when so many talented gunstockers lived close by – including his fellow Mennonites the Newcomer brothers. I believe that many customers for a rifle or other arm cared a good deal about the rifles they admired, and those that they owned. Some Moravian men near Salem NC were very upset to have their rifles taken from them during the Rev War – some had brought these from the old country. There was a strong connection between some men and their arms.
I agree with Bob that men who owned arms cared about their arms (and certainly cared when objects that they owned were taken from them). Certainly Baer understood that he was purchasing a very expensive rifle when there were cheaper rifles to be had.
This is a very different matter, though, than imagining that they cared about--or even noticed--the shape of the buttstock or a stepped wrist (or some other thing that, to us, indicates regional style), let alone that a consumer would factor such things into his decision about what rifle to purchase (even if, in a given place, such a consumer would have a "choice"). In my opinion, to imagine that they cared about such things--in the absence of any evidence whatsoever--is to deposit into their minds our modern sensibilities.
Thought Experiment: Have you ever noticed how many different shaped bottles orange juice comes in? It does. But I would doubt any of us are choosing our orange juice because of the bottle shape. Now imagine a historian or bottle collector in 2222 noticing these differences in bottle shape, spending considerable time & energy documenting the differences, coming to believe that these differences he's noticed must be significant, and proposing (despite having no evidence from consumers themselves) that in 2022 consumers were choosing which orange juice to purchase on the basis of the bottle shape. This is a classic instance of something that social scientists, including historians, study as part of their training: it is a mistake to think that the categories that we use are in the heads of the people we study. And both things can be true: yes, regional styles exist and, yes, consumers at the time did not particularly register these differences as significant.
Maybe it is easier to imagine (as JHeath said) that after the war, thanks to all the movement (and lots of men with different rifles thrown together in battle), men had a newly-formed awareness of difference among rifles and so we could reasonably see some of them making what we would recognize as consumer choices. It is still worth keeping in mind, though, the impediments to such choices in early America, how difficult it would be from anybody not in an urban area with multiple gunsmiths, a farmer in Hempfield Township, Lancaster County, say, to have much "choice" at all--without costly and laborious travel to another region to buy something he could much more easily buy next door.
Benjamin Baer was the wealthiest farmer in his township and it is possible he ordered a gun from Oerter because he had connections with Moravians. He was, in any case, no ordinary consumer when he ordered something from 75 miles away that he could have bought next door. Imagining that such an action was representative or ordinary, because it is ordinary for us, again confuses the things we take for granted in the present with the possibilities available to people in the past.
Finally, let me agree with Bob, too, about this: I also hope 2022 brings health, happiness, and much more new information!
-
Hi Scott,
Probably no one cares how a container of orange juice fits in the hand but shooters do care how their guns fit. Moreover, if I remember correctly from one of Bob's books, Samuel Coykendahl owned an Oerter rifle and he lived about 50 miles away from Nazareth in Libertyville, New Jersey. How did he know about Oerter and his work at Christian's Spring and he was not a Moravian? I am very skeptical of the idea that choice did not matter. If you were not a man of means but could scrape together enough to buy a rifle, perhaps you went to the closest maker or purveyor and bought whatever you could. However, if you had the means perhaps you could cast your net further and have greater knowledge of who worked where and what they made.
dave
-
Moreover, if I remember correctly from one of Bob's books, Samuel Coykendahl owned an Oerter rifle and he lived about 50 miles away from Nazareth in Libertyville, New Jersey. How did he know about Oerter and his work at Christian's Spring and he was not a Moravian?
Lots of people knew about Moravian products. I've posted before about authorities at Bethlehem concerned to put labels in items (hats) because people were passing off low-quality hats as Bethlehem-made hats. This shows that Bethlehem had a reputation for good quality and was concerned to preserve it.
Did Coykendahl set out to purchase an Oerter rifle? The point is: we don't know--and employing our 20th or 21st century assumptions is too easy. Sure, Coykendahl may have sought out an Oerter rifle. Baer in Hempfield Township, Lancaster County, did, so certainly possible. But there are many other ways that it could have ended up in his hands. I suggested once that it would be interesting to research the records from the Moravian community in Hope, New Jersey, much closer to Coykendahl, to help understand whether locals were going to Hope for products. Or maybe a Coykendahl passed through Bethlehem on his way to Reading and needed a rifle? Or maybe he traded for it from a neighbor who was a Moravian? Or maybe it was distributed to him as part of his military service. We just don't know. My only point is that there is no evidence from the time at all (that I know of) that supports the image of an eighteenth-century rifle consumer (a) aware of different choices among rifles that we identify or (b) making choices on the basis of those differences.
Of course consumers would have been aware of differences such as "high-end" vs. "plain" rifles. (This, I think, explains Baer's purchase: he was purchasing an heirloom.) And they would have cared a lot about whether they were purchasing an item that would be reliable or not. So, sure, these broad differences would have shaped their choices (as much as was possible for the ordinary consumer). But aware of the straight lines of a Lancaster-made rifle vs. the curved shape of a Lehigh County rifle? And making choices of a rifle on the basis of those aesthetic differences? To me, very unlikely.
-
if you had the means perhaps you could cast your net further and have greater knowledge of who worked where and what they made.
It is a good exercise to play this suggestion out a bit. How would a person in early America not in an urban setting (where he could easily visit different shops) learn or gain knowledge about the different shaped rifles being produced in different areas? As Eric said above: no google available.
This is why I thought that JHeath's point was so interesting: service in the war, which might have involved both travel and an experience of seeing other men's rifles, could have provided "greater knowledge of who worked where and what they made."
It's very hard, for me, to imagine other mechanisms for ordinary eighteenth-century American, living in rural settings, to gain a "greater knowledge of who worked where and what they made." If they even cared to.
-
Then suddenly, AFTER the War, by the late 1780s and early 1790s if our timelines are correct, now we see a noticeable step stock being maintained along with some fairly "Frenchy" curves introduced. Not just a rifle here or there, pretty much all of them! This didn't simply 'happen.' Something initiated this change, and I don't personally think it had anything to do with some of these immigrants originating in the Alsace region. If that were important, it logically should have happened with the first wave of immigrants, not their descendants, but there is no evidence that it did. So what changed? And what initiated this change not just within the work of a single maker, but most if not all of them? Too many questions that as yet have no answers.
Just to make sure I understand: how would you (speculatively, I understand) explain this change? I think you're saying that it was likely consumer choice that led so many different makers to adjust their styles at the same time?
I think the primary driver of change was anyone with even a modicum of ability to work on arms or stock arms, found employ in the War effort and saw more firearms in a few years than would have been seen over the course of a lifetime. And, a variety of arms of all kinds. Like visiting the Met for the first time: it's overwhelming. Exposure, in other words, I believe played a very large role. Customer expectation may have changed also; unfortunately I agree with you that there is no evidence of this, but as I noted above, I can;t bring myself to completely discount the customer side of the equation. Why even decorate a rifle at all if nobody is noticing?
As I am trying to point out with my edited image of the John Rupp piece in question, while the rifle as it stands is "jarring" in an aesthetic sense, particularly in the dramatic nature of the step and location of the step, this is largely due to either poor or necessitated triggerguard choice applied to a rifle style with no adjustment made for that guard choice. When viewed with a more typical guard of the region, it's an entirely different rifle. While I'm on the subject of that step, I want to make clear that it's really not out-of-place for the time (late 1780s or early 1790s, imho) nor the region as one of the John Molls (either Jr. or Sr., or both) was likewise utilizing an equally noticeable step stock design as well as one or two other makers apparently though currently unknown (unsigned). Comparing this rifle with brother Herman's rifles, which do not make use of such a dramatic step, might mistakenly lead one to believe that this rifle is somehow much 'earlier' (and perhaps it is earlier, but it's certainly not pre-War) but doing so based simply upon the larger or more abrupt architeucture is to discount what was going on currently in Moll's shop and possibly others. It's clear the two brothers were working in the same style and region, with similar design methodology, but they're obviously not identical in approach. Maybe Herman was a little guy and John was a six footer. For all we know, something so mundane may have colored one's approach to riflemaking. I don't know!
The underlying question which I do not believe can currently be answered is WHAT caused these guys, in this specific region, to create such a unique architectural design at the time that they did? It really is a merging of the earlier German step stock form as Heinz noted above, and the curvy nature of mid-century French arms. It was not present prior to the War, certainly not to this degree. Oerter's rifles give us one snapshot in the region ca. 1774 and 1775, immediately prior to the War, but while they are 'regional' relative to Allentown and Macungie in one sense, Oerter is still only one gunstocker in one shop. The earliest documentable piece of which I'm aware following the War is Neihart's 1787 rifle. I feel that it's something of a CS clone, or a clone as Neihart interpreted it. That rifle is once again quite regional to Allentown and Macungie, but does not manifest the wacky step or curves of the Rupps and Molls. We can see in a couple of later rifles attributed to Neihart fairly strongly that he was moving in that direction, but he never adopted the 'wackiness' to the same degree. Jacob Kuntz, also initially regional, tore off one or two that were close, but once again not to the same extent of curvature or step abruptness.
-
if you had the means perhaps you could cast your net further and have greater knowledge of who worked where and what they made.
It is a good exercise to play this suggestion out a bit. How would a person in early America not in an urban setting (where he could easily visit different shops) learn or gain knowledge about the different shaped rifles being produced in different areas? As Eric said above: no google available.
This is why I thought that JHeath's point was so interesting: service in the war, which might have involved both travel and an experience of seeing other men's rifles, could have provided "greater knowledge of who worked where and what they made."
It's very hard, for me, to imagine other mechanisms for ordinary eighteenth-century American, living in rural settings, to gain a "greater knowledge of who worked where and what they made." If they even cared to.
Yes, this is likewise what I think was the 'main event' in regard to what initiated such changes after the War. And in the region under discussion, once more I have to "circle back" ;D to what had been going on in Allentown and NH Co. in general ca. 1777-1779. I can't imagine a more sudden disruption to daily life.
-
Bob - you said, "If John Rupp cut this stock from a pattern, then added the larger lock and longer trigger guard to the already established stock profile, he would get the results this rifle shows. It would handle and feel just the same, even though it looks different. Whether the lock and guard were reused, or older, or just available, the outcome is the same."
I agree entirely! This is why I opted to edit the photo so as to show how different a simple change in furnishing on an otherwise identical stock can change perception so noticeably.
This approach may also explain why the sideplate, which I believe was also originally part of the same earlier rifle, is so large as to practically be running off the side flat. Stock to a pattern, no adjustment made for the use of contrary components as long as they do the job.
-
But aware of the straight lines of a Lancaster-made rifle vs. the curved shape of a Lehigh County rifle? And making choices of a rifle on the basis of those aesthetic differences? To me, very unlikely.
I hope I'm not creating the impression that this is what I'm saying. I may not be explaining my thoughts clearly. I don't think a resident of Allentown or nearby Macungie or Whitehall would think to himself, "I want a curvy stock, not a straight stock like a Lancaster smith would make." This implies a conscious decision or consciousness of different styles in different regions and I agree with you, I don't buy that. What I'm trying to say is that the straw man resident would certainly have seen rifles of the Rupp or Moll style, and when purchasing a rifle, the stock style we're discussing would likely have been the customer's expectation because that what he would be seeing regularly (we assume). I don't think it was a conscious expectation. Kind of like someone born and raised in PA when imagining a tree *most likely* is going to imagine some type of deciduous tree. Someone born and raised in south Florida is *most likely* going to envision a palm. Both trees, just different.
I'm not trying to say that the local customer base was the driving force behind the style evolution of this funky stock style, but something was, or a combination of somethings were. Customer's had to have been aware of style change, especially considering that in the grand scheme of things, it happened relatively quickly pre-War vs. post-War. So I think we do agree on that point, that the War itself and the turmoil it created did a lot of shaking of the yoo hoo.
-
if you had the means perhaps you could cast your net further and have greater knowledge of who worked where and what they made.
It is a good exercise to play this suggestion out a bit. How would a person in early America not in an urban setting (where he could easily visit different shops) learn or gain knowledge about the different shaped rifles being produced in different areas? As Eric said above: no google available.
This is why I thought that JHeath's point was so interesting: service in the war, which might have involved both travel and an experience of seeing other men's rifles, could have provided "greater knowledge of who worked where and what they made."
It's very hard, for me, to imagine other mechanisms for ordinary eighteenth-century American, living in rural settings, to gain a "greater knowledge of who worked where and what they made." If they even cared to.
Yes, this is likewise what I think was the 'main event' in regard to what initiated such changes after the War. And in the region under discussion, once more I have to "circle back" ;D to what had been going on in Allentown and NH Co. in general ca. 1777-1779. I can't imagine a more sudden disruption to daily life.
I believe this same logic should be applied to the French and Indian War (I know that is not the PC term but it is the one I grew up with). Many Virginiains and Carolinians came north or ventured further west than they would have. They saw rifles in use on a frontier environment by both Indigenous peoples and immigrants. And they saw free land where a rifle gun would be handy. When we have so little physical evidence of what those rifles looked like but know of their use from period accounts, and the probably inflated claims of the "Suffering Traders"
-
But aware of the straight lines of a Lancaster-made rifle vs. the curved shape of a Lehigh County rifle? And making choices of a rifle on the basis of those aesthetic differences? To me, very unlikely.
I hope I'm not creating the impression that this is what I'm saying. I may not be explaining my thoughts clearly. I don't think a resident of Allentown or nearby Macungie or Whitehall would think to himself, "I want a curvy stock, not a straight stock like a Lancaster smith would make." This implies a conscious decision or consciousness of different styles in different regions and I agree with you, I don't buy that.
Right, I get this! But other folks on this thread have suggested that such things did enter into a consumer's choice. (Or at least I thought that they were saying this: "Dashing guy from the next county over wins the big shooting match with a step-stock rifle and gets all the hotties. Make me a rifle like that.")
There are hundreds and hundreds of descriptions of rifles in eighteenth-century letters, advertisements, novels, etc. I don't think any reference what is now called the "architecture" of the rifle in order to describe the object. They mention the presence of patchboxes, carving, type of wood, length of barrel, etc.--even, in that 1772 PA Gazette advertisement about a Newcomer rifle, a signature on the barrel and lock--but never the shape of the stock. To me this means this feature was largely invisible to them. That doesn't mean, of course, that if the difference were pointed out to somebody he wouldn't see it! Just that it didn't typically register.
There is an interesting description in Charles Brockden Brown's Edgar Huntly (1798) when the main character comes across a familiar musket: "Scarcely had I fixed my eyes upon the stock, when I perceived marks that were familiar to my apprehension. Shape, ornaments, and ciphers, were evidently the same with those of a piece which I had frequently handled. The marks were of a kind which could not be mistaken." I've often wondered if "shape" here pointed to the sort of regional shapes of the stock that we point out today.
-
Eric,
I'm entering into the conversation very late. You mentioned a signed Johannes Moll rifle has never surfaced - there was one displayed in a basement of a mutual friend that had the front end stretched. I didn't examine it too closely, but I know that you had studied it extensively in the past. Is the jury out on that one?
Buck.
-
There are a couple of rifles signed "John Moll" which could conceivably be Johannes/John Sr., however there's no way to say with certainty that they're the old man as opposed to his son; we can only speculate. There are two restock pieces actually signed "Johannes Moll" in very large block letters filled with what appears to be an amalgam inlay - I mean BIG letters, taking up the majority of the space between breech and rear sight. Alas, they are both restocks and so no way to determine how the original rifles may have appeared. One uses what is clearly some of the furniture as well as liberty head inlay from the original rifle, and the furniture looks largely the same as what is used on our mutual friend's piece as well as the former Alex Chamberlain piece. So, was the old man working practically right up until the end along with his son? Do early rifles of John II look pretty much identical to the latest (late 1780s or first couple years 1790s) rifles of John Sr.? Unfortunately not enough surviving material to say with any certainty.
-
But aware of the straight lines of a Lancaster-made rifle vs. the curved shape of a Lehigh County rifle? And making choices of a rifle on the basis of those aesthetic differences? To me, very unlikely.
I hope I'm not creating the impression that this is what I'm saying. I may not be explaining my thoughts clearly. I don't think a resident of Allentown or nearby Macungie or Whitehall would think to himself, "I want a curvy stock, not a straight stock like a Lancaster smith would make." This implies a conscious decision or consciousness of different styles in different regions and I agree with you, I don't buy that.
Right, I get this! But other folks on this thread have suggested that such things did enter into a consumer's choice. (Or at least I thought that they were saying this: "Dashing guy from the next county over wins the big shooting match with a step-stock rifle and gets all the hotties. Make me a rifle like that.")
There are hundreds and hundreds of descriptions of rifles in eighteenth-century letters, advertisements, novels, etc. I don't think any reference what is now called the "architecture" of the rifle in order to describe the object. They mention the presence of patchboxes, carving, type of wood, length of barrel, etc.--even, in that 1772 PA Gazette advertisement about a Newcomer rifle, a signature on the barrel and lock--but never the shape of the stock. To me this means this feature was largely invisible to them. That doesn't mean, of course, that if the difference were pointed out to somebody he wouldn't see it! Just that it didn't typically register.
There is an interesting description in Charles Brockden Brown's Edgar Huntly (1798) when the main character comes across a familiar musket: "Scarcely had I fixed my eyes upon the stock, when I perceived marks that were familiar to my apprehension. Shape, ornaments, and ciphers, were evidently the same with those of a piece which I had frequently handled. The marks were of a kind which could not be mistaken." I've often wondered if "shape" here pointed to the sort of regional shapes of the stock that we point out today.
I was throwing out there the "dashing young man" as an example of info that can be missing. Not necessarily asserting that demand drove changes in longrifles.
An example from another thread might be worth tracing for what it says about design by supply vs demand:
Classic J&S Hawken half-stocks share little with their father's Maryland longrifles. But I noticed a W&G Chance (Birmingham England) half-stock flintlock c. 1815 that bore a marked resemblance to the later Hawkens.
Turns out that W&G Chance of Birmingham produced guns and other items for the fur trade, was a vendor to the American Fur Company, maintained an NYC office, and forwarded goods to St. Louis. The Chance rifle I was looking a recently was auctioned in California.
In turn, it appears that the Chance design was influenced by more-prestigious Manton.
Were J&S influenced by seeing a W&G Chance? Or did a customer request a similar rifle? What caused J&S to abandon tradition and adopt English influences?
And once they built a half-stock or two, did a stream of customers appear wanting the same rifle they'd seen?
In (much later) turn, Robert Redford made a movie and soon every male age 12 to 50 demanded half-stock muzzleloaders.
So we travel from Joseph Mantons built for snob aristocrats to deviated TCs built to emulate illiterate trappers, by a historical process of, alternately, supply and demand that is not all discernable or distinguishable in the record.
That is a macro-scale example. But the processes can play out in micro-scale within a PA county, abutting other counties, when a new immigrant arrives and a few hundred out of state soldiers travel through with rifles.
-
John Rupp w/ modified guard (for consistency)
John Moll (signed)
John Moll (signed)
Aside from the more evident awkwardness and large cheek (not visible here), the Rupp is really not much different. Are the Molls pre-War also?
I should note that the guard I lifted for the photoshopped Rupp is the guard on the middle (Moll) rifle. I did not modfiy or adjust the size of the guard at all - simple cut and paste, it works perfectly as-is. I find this interesting.
(https://i.ibb.co/1QFZGZq/Comparison.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Gpz7Q72)
-
Hi,
JHeath, you bring up good points and suggest customer choice and demand was important in the gun trade in the early 19th century. We know very well that customer choices had a major role in the gun trades in Britain as well as continental Europe during the 18th century. Americans were different? Let me make a point by switching gears and going much further back in time and focus on another trade and art form. In the late 1300s, Baldasarre Embriachi in Italy realized that carved cow bone would be a cheaper substitute for carved ivory, a trade monopolized by the French. In fact, the cow bone was better because it did not yellow with age. He created a line of products that represented Chevy, Buick, and Cadillac grades of work with efficiently customizable features that accommodated choices by the consumers. This in an environment where travel was hard and dangerous. Moreover, he and his descendants created a complex network of trade among the major centers of population in 14th century Europe to market their wares. Here is an example:
(https://i.ibb.co/1TJhQ9V/65-40-Italian-WSThe-Embriachi-Marriage-Casket-front-Top-Oblique.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
So in 14th century Europe, this company reacted to customer demand to produce desirable products. So are we to believe that no such forces existed in Colonial America and that the notion of the importance of customer demand is a modern bias?
dave
-
There’s enormous amounts of writing about the colonial American economy, changes over time (including when the “consumer revolution” occurred), how such phenomena were differentially disturbed (rural, urban, etc.), and differences between items (housewares, say, vs. lumber). No need to guess or speculate.
There aren’t studies of the rifle “industry” in early America, though, so we’re left to apply what historians have said generally or about other markets to the market for rifles.
My point hasn’t been that consumers of guns had no choice, and if I overstated the point at times I regret that. As I said, any rifle consumer would prefer reliable over unreliable or choose on the basis of cost. My point (again) has been that they wouldn’t have been making choices based on the things that we see in these objects: the straight Lancaster profile v. the curved Lehigh profile. Yes, to imagine that eighteenth-century consumers of rifles registered such things is a modern bias, depositing the concerns of modern collectors into the heads of eighteenth-century consumers (as if they acted in the basis of of what we know).
-
I went back to Moravian Gunmakers II and looked at the requests from Casper Wistar for rifles he was importing into Philadelphia from Germany. Wistar had specific requests about barrel length, set triggers and sights, and reliability. But, as spgordon suggested, there is no request on stock details or architecture noted.
-
Wistar was a canny importer--and this is a great example of customer preferences determining what gets sold. Rosalind Beiler's Immigrant and Entrepreneur: The Atlantic World of Caspar Wistar, 1650-1750 [Penn State Press, 2008], which is where a decade ago Bob and I first learned about Wistar's importing of guns, has a lot more information about other stuff he imported and the markets for them. Another instance of would be how governments understood what sort of guns Indigenous people preferred and procuring those sorts to supply them with: so there, too, customer preferences were crucial. More generally, whenever one produces (or imports) any item, one assumes there is a market (customer demand) for them, so, sure, customer wants play a role in any transaction.
My deep skepticism centers on the sorts of customer demands that some seem to believe drove eighteenth-century consumers--which match our interests and obsessions and, in my opinion, distorts theirs.
I want to add too that the things I've said (too often in this thread, to be sure) about the limitations on or lack of customer choice (how would customers know about different style, how would they go about purchasing different styles if they actually noticed them or cared about them, etc.) applies to the period of 1750-1780. To explore these matters in 1820 is totally different. For starters, the population had grown from a bit over 2 million to nearly 10 million. The fifty years between 1770 and 1820 produce an entirely different world and one much closer to our consumer society.
-
Below are detailed cheek photo carving of three rifles which I am convinced were all built by the same “John Rupp,” this being Johannes Rupp brother of Herman and son of George.
The first photo is the Kindig/Collis/Sotheby’s rifle which we have been primarily discussing. This rifle is signed “John Rupp.” It is rifle number 13 on the KRA 2010 ‘Lehigh’ CD available through the KRF.
The second photo is the rifle sold last autumn (2021) through Poulin’s. It too is signed “John Rupp” and the signature appears to be by the same man who signed the aforementioned piece.
The third photo is the well-known “side opening box” rifle that was part of the Morphy’s September, 2021 auction and is unsigned. I strongly believe this rifle is also a product of Johannes / John Rupp, the same man who signed the two rifles I’ve noted above. This rifle is also pictured on the KRA 2010 ‘Lehigh’ CD available for purchase through the KRF. It is rifle number 7 on the disc, “Attributed John Rupp.”
I’m going to begin with an examination of the cheek carving on all three rifles.
The area in each that I have circled in red appears to be a decorative methodology unique to this man. Often we can find small groupings of 3 or 4 tiny gouge cuts all over the carving on most NH Co. / Lehigh rifles. However, here we see a very lengthy string of them used essentially as ‘filler.’ I have not seen these tiny cuts used in this manner on any other rifle not attributed or signed by this man.
The areas I have circled in purple are small, simple ‘tendrils’ as they might be interpreted. These also are somewhat common in the region, however the cuts on these three rifles are unique in one way: following the larger ramping gouge cut, and prior to the three tiny perpendicular gouge cuts, there is a clear ‘dot’ at the end of each larger cut that was not utilized by the Molls or brother Herman (those makers going directly to the small perpendicular gouge cuts and eliminating the ‘dot.’)
The yellow points I have inserted are marking the visible locations of simple short line cuts also used as ‘filler,’ typically in the bottom of the lengthy hollows of the main branches of the carving. Other makers, including brother Herman, used these as well, but not quite as extensively and definitey not in conjunction with the other two unique details noted above.
As always, all comments welcome. Further detailed examinations will follow.
Kindig/Collis/Sotheby's:
(https://i.ibb.co/SwRH0VR/Kindig-Ruppcheek.jpg) (https://ibb.co/chDRt2D)
Poulin's:
(https://i.ibb.co/VMR42q9/Poulin-Ruppcheek.jpg) (https://ibb.co/CVgGhH8)
Unsigned 'side opener:'
(https://i.ibb.co/jGP4BF4/Side-Ruppcheek.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ftz0B70)
-
Heinz and all - in addition to barrel length and construction details, Wistar strongly preferred rifles from Johann Adolf Doll, the I A D of Rothenburg. He or his customers may have preferred the stock pattern, style and details of Doll's rifles. I don't know what Doll's style was, but Shumway's Jaeger Rifles has examples from Bavaria and Suhl, and several by Michael Wagner that might be similar to what Doll was sending to the colonies.
Eric - thanks for the photos and study of carving details. It appears from your other photos that this stock pattern was very consistent in profile across those rifles. A stock pattern only establishes the side view profile, while the barrel breech, buttplate and a few other components determine the thickness and feel of the rifle.
thanks all, Bob
-
Here are areas forward of the cheek and also along the box on two of the three rifles. Once more, one can clearly see the use of sinuous gouge cuts with a clear ‘dot’ terminating the cut. This seems to be identical to the methodology used by Herman Rupp in brass wire, inlaying ribbon in the alternately sinuous gouge cuts and terminating each cut with a brass stud or tack creating the ‘dot.’ Here, however, it is executed solely with gouges and an indeterminate tool to create the dot. The Kindig/Sotheby’s rifle and the unsigned ‘side-opener’ display this identical method of forward tendril work emerging from the junction of the carving forward of the cheek. The Poulin’s rifle does display a forward tendril here, but it is executed in a more simplistic manner; nevertheless, the remainder of the carving on the Poulin rifle is virtually identical to the other two rifles including the simple incised line framing the forward portion of the comb and acting as a link to the box side of each rifle.
Upon the side-opener and the Poulin’s rifles, box side, once more we can see the gouge/dot approach to carving, and the Poulin’s rifle also displays a very long string of tiny gouge cuts as framing on either side of the box. This seems to mimic the long strings of tiny gouge cuts integrated into the cheek carving upon all three rifles. I strongly feel this 'gouge string' approach is somewhat of a John Rupp signature along with the use of dots to terminate the alternating tendril gouge cuts.
Kindig/Collis/Sotheby's:
(https://i.ibb.co/XzLsV6m/Kindig-Rupp-For.jpg) (https://ibb.co/nDmcR4h)
Poulin's:
(https://i.ibb.co/FHN4MrD/Poulin-Rupp-For.jpg) (https://ibb.co/phGj87L)
(https://i.ibb.co/fSG5Y0M/Poulin-Rupp-Box.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PYznZCx)
Side-opener:
(https://i.ibb.co/qWq9HYg/Side-Rupp-For.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Yyn85Bd)
(https://i.ibb.co/cTffQy1/Side-Ruppbox.jpg) (https://ibb.co/j400D8T)
-
Wistar was a canny importer--and this is a great example of customer preferences determining what gets sold. Rosalind Beiler's Immigrant and Entrepreneur: The Atlantic World of Caspar Wistar, 1650-1750 [Penn State Press, 2008], which is where a decade ago Bob and I first learned about Wistar's importing of guns, has a lot more information about other stuff he imported and the markets for them. Another instance of would be how governments understood what sort of guns Indigenous people preferred and procuring those sorts to supply them with: so there, too, customer preferences were crucial. More generally, whenever one produces (or imports) any item, one assumes there is a market (customer demand) for them, so, sure, customer wants play a role in any transaction.
My deep skepticism centers on the sorts of customer demands that some seem to believe drove eighteenth-century consumers--which match our interests and obsessions and, in my opinion, distorts theirs.
I want to add too that the things I've said (too often in this thread, to be sure) about the limitations on or lack of customer choice (how would customers know about different style, how would they go about purchasing different styles if they actually noticed them or cared about them, etc.) applies to the period of 1750-1780. To explore these matters in 1820 is totally different. For starters, the population had grown from a bit over 2 million to nearly 10 million. The fifty years between 1770 and 1820 produce an entirely different world and one much closer to our consumer society.
Your observation is undoubtedly valid and sets up the subject for serious history. Explaining the length of a trigger guard by e.g. discovering a previously-unidentified Alsatian immigrant can be outstanding detective work and important ID work. But demontrating how the development of rifle builder traditions and user tastes fits the large-scale social transition from individual artisans to more market-based production is historical work on a deep level.
Rupp's products, and other rifle makers', are now viewed as works by an individual 18th Cent. artisan making his own choices. We put a microscope on his carving details, as though trying to explain subtle Flemish influences in the background of a Leonardo. Yet (to give a contrasting example) for some reason peculiar to our times, we view J&S Hawken more as a brand, when in fact they were two brothers operating not much differently than 18th Cent longrifle builders. We view them through a modern lens and for that reason don't much explore why their trigger guards and two-wedge foreends look like 1790 Manton, instead of their father's.
What happened to the role of artisanship in those decades that was genuinely transformative, and/or what happened that causes us to retroactively view it as transformative?
Bruce Laurie wrote a book called _Artisans into Workers_ that discusses this in a later context.
Modern law distinguishes between artistry that represents personal expression, vs economic craft-on-demand. I can't insist that Ian Pratt build me a gay-themed SMR, because his work is considered an expression of his own values. But I can demand a gay-themed wedding cake from the local bakery because the courts decided a cake is just a product, not an individual expression that reflects on the baker. That is a modern distinction.
It seems impossible now to untangle across multiple regions and immigrations, the cause-and-effect dynamics of 18th century traditions, evolving tastes, market demands, innovations, non-local examples, and the rifle builder's willingness to produce changes that might or might not have reflected on him in the community.
-
Rupp's products, and other rifle makers', are now viewed as works by an individual 18th Cent. artisan making his own choices. We put a microscope on his carving details, as though trying to explain subtle Flemish influences in the background of a Leonardo.
Yes, this is very interesting. I know this isn't quite what you were saying--but it suggests a number of things. Eric can decode very subtle stylistic "clues" to link an unsigned rifle with a signed one, just as technical art historians can date an Old Master's paintings by brush strokes or by pigment. Those analyses, by Eric and the art historians, are brilliant and definitive. The mistake (IMHO) is to imagine that original viewers of those paintings noticed (or cared about) such things. Brush strokes and pigments are clues for the historian; they aren't indicators of what viewers of those painting noticed. Same, I think, holds for stock architecture: it helps collectors pinpoint the origin point for a rifle and perhaps who made it. The mistake is to imagine that eighteenth-century consumers cared about the thing that the historian does.
I think the hardest question to answer is the other that you mentioned: how should we "place" gunstocking or gunsmithing in the field of early American trades? Did people consider their rifles largely as practical objects--more like a blacksmith's hinge or a papermaker's ream of paper--or did they consider them more as (in part) artistic objects. The categories certainly existed in early America (the painter John Singleton Copley complained that in early America painters were considered no different than shoemakers, so he thought painters should be "high" art but weren't considered as such by Americans)--the challenge is to figure out where gunsmithing was on the spectrum. Certainly there were high-art guns produced in Europe before the eighteenth century. And, as Bob L. has often stressed, the differential prices of rifles at Christiansbrunn shows that some consumers were willing to purchase a rifle whose price meant that they weren't purchasing just a practical object.
But, as with items in our consumer society today, these attitudes were distributed unevenly in early America: many (I'd say most) people bought rifles as purely practical objects, thinking no differently about them than they would in buying a hinge or buying paper; and then some thought of them differently. As I've said before, it is very difficult to find contemporary evidence from early America that anybody thought much about their gun purchases (except for the willingness of a few to spend more than usual on a purchase).
-
Rupp's products, and other rifle makers', are now viewed as works by an individual 18th Cent. artisan making his own choices. We put a microscope on his carving details, as though trying to explain subtle Flemish influences in the background of a Leonardo.
Yes, this is very interesting. I know this isn't quite what you were saying--but it suggests a number of things. Eric can decode very subtle stylistic "clues" to link an unsigned rifle with a signed one, just as technical art historians can date an Old Master's paintings by brush strokes or by pigment. Those analyses, by Eric and the art historians, are brilliant and definitive. The mistake (IMHO) is to imagine that original viewers of those paintings noticed (or cared about) such things. Brush strokes and pigments are clues for the historian; they aren't indicators of what viewers of those painting noticed. Same, I think, holds for stock architecture: it helps collectors pinpoint the origin point for a rifle and perhaps who made it. The mistake is to imagine that eighteenth-century consumers cared about the thing that the historian does.
I think the hardest question to answer is the other that you mentioned: how should we "place" gunstocking or gunsmithing in the field of early American trades? Did people consider their rifles largely as practical objects--more like a blacksmith's hinge or a papermaker's ream of paper--or did they consider them more as (in part) artistic objects. Maybe this is in part a modern distinction. But it's also that different sorts of rifles were produced. Certainly there were high-art guns produced in Europe before the eighteenth century. And, as Bob L. has often stressed, the differential prices of rifles at Christiansbrunn shows that some consumers were willing to purchase a rifle whose price meant that they weren't purchasing just a practical object.
But, as with items in our consumer society today, these attitudes were distributed unevenly in early America: many (I'd say most) people bought rifles as purely practical objects, thinking no differently about them than they would in buying a hinge or buying paper; and then some thought of them differently. As I've said before, it is very difficult to find contemporary evidence from early America that anybody thought much about their gun purchases (except for the willingness of a few to spend more than usual on a purchase).
First: Eric, this is a parallel, overarching conversation that I hope does not feel like thread hijacking. Please indulge.
Scott, yes absolutely. An example might be the Paris Salon reactions to the Impressionists or Van Gogh, or the changed perceptions of George Ohr. Contemporaries disliked it for what they saw missing. We do not notice anything missing at all and are amused by their inability to see what is present.
So much unnecessary care and expense went into rifle crafting that the object must have carried more meaning than a hay fork or butter churn.
Wire inlay etc is obvious embellishment. But as you suggest, much "architecture" as we discuss it might have been invisible to them. Just like it was invisible to them that these were muzzleloading flintlocks, using black powder. To them, "muzzle", "flint", and "black" in that sentence would likely be meaningless.
Pretty much everything about an object is information, thus has "meaning." But detectives often find meaning in what participants did not recognize as meaningful.
-
I'm a very indulgent kind of guy! I still have leftover Malört. :o :o :o
Below is a study of the liberty heads carved upon both the Kindig/Sotheby’s John Rupp rifle and the Poulin’s John Rupp rifle. I have not included the attributed ‘side-opener’ because the stock was broken-through forward of the guard and a large piece of wood in that location, including the liberty head, is a replacement.
Initially I would ask that the two heads be compared in every other aspect aside from the mouth, which is the only portion of the head which is different upon these two rifles. All other aspects of the carved design are practically identical, not merely in the shaping of the ‘hat’ or headdress but in the decorative fill cuts as well.
I have pointed out one aspect which appears unique to John Rupp, this being the circular stamp or otherwise cut designs placed both above and below the shoulders. These are present upon both rifles, and to the best of my knowledge, I do not believe they are incorporated into liberty heads carved by any other regional maker, certainly not in this consistent patterning.
The Poulin’s rifle still displays 3 of the 4 circular stamps, and I assume a 4th was present but there is too much damage in the area of the potential 4th to point out it’s location (which I *think* I see) without delving into speculation.
I’ve only photoshopped in some arrows to point out the circular markings because I consider them yet another signature of this gun stocker. The remainder of the headdress design and decorative cuts are so very much alike in both liberty heads that a comparison is fairly self-evident and I don’t want to cover the images in needless clutter!
Kindig/Collis/Sotheby's:
(https://i.ibb.co/bspKzhd/Kindig-face.jpg) (https://ibb.co/v32jZ5z)
Poulin's:
(https://i.ibb.co/C9h01Qn/Poulin-face.jpg) (https://ibb.co/VC2BjTv)
-
Eric, might this imply that the work was circumscribed with various gouges allowing the carving to be repeated as long as the same tools were used in the same repetitive way? That may imply the tool kit was as much a part of what we are seeing as the man using it? Just my own wonderings.
Tim A
-
It does appear that most of the liberty heads were predominantly stamped in - not just by John Rupp as illustrated here - even upon rifles which clearly also show plenty of evidence of the use of a parting tool in other areas of the carving, primarily for longer sweeps. The carved heads are so small that stamping with small gouges is really the most sensical way to go about it.
It's of course tough to make definitive judgements based upon only two original examples as illustrated here, but at least in regard to these two particular heads, it sure does appear that a fairly small number of gouges was repetitively used in a "formulaic" manner.
I can't tell if the small circles I've pointed out were stamped with a single circular punch or other tool, or if they were cut with a small gouge rocked around in a circle.
-
So by now we’re all aware that I am repeatedly going on and on about this specific John Rupp rifle being composed at least partially of recycled components taken from an earlier rifle. My humble opinion: lock, barrel, guard and sideplate for certain. Pipes? I can’t say. Buttplate? I strongly suspect the buttplate was created/cut down out of a larger plate, but again, can’t say for certain. I can easily envision how it could be accomplished, however.
Is there an extant representation of the original rifle that I think may have acted as organ donor? Why yes, I think there is!
I will preface this by stating that after years of studying and searching old Northampton Co. into eastern Berks, I still do not know who 'that guy' might have been, the stocker who created the rifle type which I am convinced is the donor rifle for this specific [Sotheby’s] John Rupp rifle ca. late 1780s or early 1790s. The original donor may have been a pre-War piece, likely sometime of the mid-1770s but I don’t personally think much earlier than that. It’s my belief, along with Kindig and Shumway who expressed the same general belief, that this unknown gunsmith was working somewhere in eastern Berks Co. or otherwise somewhere along the Berks/Northampton border, and quite possibly somewhat near to the Macungie area.
There have been two of these earlier rifles published and one more is extant as a relic but unpublished; unfortunately none are signed. Whoever this stocker was, he was fairly consistent among the three total surviving pieces. One piece carries a wood box and was described by George Shumway in Muzzle Blasts magazine as “A Smooth-Rifle from Somewhere East of Reading, Pennsylvania,” pg. 40-41 of the June, 1993 issue. The second published piece was illustrated in Kindig’s Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle… as rifle number 11, and subsequently has been photographed in high resolution and published again on the KRA 2010 ‘Lehigh’ CD that is available through the Kentucky Rifle Foundation. The unpublished piece is another wooden box rifle and is entirely consistent with the first two rifles despite damage.
Below, a couple of fairly evident comparisons between the John Rupp and Kindig’s #11, as well as a brief refresher of the MB 1993 rifle. All commentary is welcomed!
(https://i.ibb.co/zs1t0MB/Side-compare.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WnQRYhM)
(https://i.ibb.co/zPHvGTJ/Guard-compare.jpg) (https://ibb.co/wprmMFs)
(https://i.ibb.co/SvNpzbR/MB1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/j4hFSmg)
-
Thanks to Eric and all who are contributing to this post. Fascinating stuff.
-
Eric has very admirably made his point with the particular rifle at Sotheby's.
I would imagine that using components from an earlier rifle to create a new rifle was more common than not. Theirs was not the "throwaway society" we have. One of the areas of the Sotheby's rifle that is very telling, to me, is the rather large sideplate relative to what I call the offlock stock flat. It appears to me that Rupp did his best to alter the sideplate to fit that area of the stock but there appears to have been only so much he could do. I think this speaks to a couple of points addressed earlier in this thread that Rupp may have used a roughed-out stock on hand to build this rifle and adapted the components to fit.
-
I think this speaks to a couple of points addressed earlier in this thread that Rupp may have used a roughed-out stock on hand to build this rifle and adapted the components to fit.
Thats the way I see it as well, and it would explain the horrendously awkward guard location as well as the oversized lock, oversized sideplate, and frankly oversized rifle.
-
This thread needs more Malört.
-
This thread needs more Malört.
I had to look that up. Among side effects does it cause thread drift?
The Poulin seems to have had a mainspring blow downward through the wood, and it sounds like the attributed side opener did, too.
-
I don't know about thread drift but it sure causes a grimace, stamping of the feet and a gag reflex.
The Poulin's gun definitely looks like mainspring blowout. The side-opener, not so sure. I suspect the wood there in front of the guard was simply excessively thin and it broke through, so someone patched it.
-
Perhaps a topic for another discussion, but a good part of this dialog is about applying a maker and or date to enhance value. The new 3rd edition of Kindig's book (pg. 339) attributes Rifle #11 to Peter Neihardt. I'm curious to see the supporting evidence. I recalled the MB June 1993 article. Shumway suggested a possible location; however, he made no claim of a maker.
-
Everyone likes to make attributions. Sometimes it's clearly about value, other times someone may 'see' something or group of somethings in a particular unsigned piece that is reminiscent of a known maker's other work.
Talk of Neihart gets thrown around very often and in conjunction with many unsigned pieces. Typically anything with a lot of gouge cuts worked into decorative design will be attributed to him immediately ;D ;D
-
Perhaps a topic for another discussion, but a good part of this dialog is about applying a maker and or date to enhance value. The new 3rd edition of Kindig's book (pg. 339) attributes Rifle #11 to Peter Neihardt. I'm curious to see the supporting evidence. I recalled the MB June 1993 article. Shumway suggested a possible location; however, he made no claim of a maker.
As I saw in print somewhere (maybe I put it there), attributions are part connoisseurship and part just con. I guess we just need to hope that most attributions are more the former than the latter.
-
As I saw in print somewhere (maybe I put it there), attributions are part connoisseurship and part just con. I guess we just need to hope that most attributions are more the former than the latter.
I think they are. I'd like to think most people who are interested in these old guns are more interested in the history, the artistic nature of each piece, the potential 'story' that may lie within, and/or the life of any potential gunstocker. Also it's human nature to desire to transform the unknown into the known, so each unsigned piece is a challenge presented as mystery.
Hopefully I'm not just "...a simple country boy, you might say a cockeyed optimist..." ;D ;D ;D
-
Hopefully I'm not just "...a simple country boy, you might say a cockeyed optimist..." ;D ;D ;D
... "who somehow got himself mixed up in the high stakes game of transatlantic gunstocking and international sleuthing ..."
-
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
-
Anyone have any thoughts as to my proposal of the donor rifle? I realize of course that were are in the realm of speculation here, but I'd like to know if I'm way out on the diving board into the pool of insanity or if I'm firmly strapped into the life vest.
-
As far as a possible donor rifle goes my thought is how early would we expect to see the fully developed Lehigh Fluer de lis patchbox finial that we see on the Rupp rifle in question ? Niehardt's 1787 rifle is about the earliest dated example that I can remember. As i look for an earlier version of that patchbox finial design I see John Moll rifles ( Kindig #63 and 64 ) that appear to be maybe 1780 decade rifles, not yet exactly developed Lehighs. These rifles could be contemporary to Kindigs #11 mentioned by Eric and something like these could have been the donor.
-
Kindigs 63 & 64 are attributed to the Moll family, details not shown in the photos point in the direction of another patriarchal builder who was closely associated to the Molls. Eric - care to comment without revealing the details?
Buck
-
Noel you've been working on this for quite some time, I know, and others have as well as I believe. One thing I can say with a fair degree of certainty is that those Kindig rifles are not 'early Molls' so it does affect how we view development of all these pieces in specific regions. I don't think these two noted Kindig pieces, or the others that look like them whether published or not, really have any relation to John Rupp's work *directly* but I'd never say never as there is always more information to uncover.
We discussed another one of these - not one of the Kindig pieces but another by the same guy - quite a bunch of years back with Earl involved, as it turned up down in NC but the situation with it involved a huge pile of BS that did not come to light until later. Suffice it to say, this dude's shop was apparently quite prolific.
-
Just to update: I've added some discussion of two additional unsigned rifles over in the "Johannes Rupp of Macungie" thread here: https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=68720.150 (https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=68720.150). These two additional rifles are also extremely interesting and seem to display a number of what I believe to be characteristic details which point to John Rupp being the maker.
-
I've always wondered how much the different gun makers got together, maybe Saturday night at a local tavern. Certainly, if they lived close enough to each other - but we have to remember that 30 miles or so distance would take at least 5 or 6 hours travel by horse. So a whole day taken up by going and coming,
I can see how, if living in the same vicinity - within 5 or 10 miles - there might be some visiting from time to time. Perhaps looking for a good piece of stock wood, or a lock already built. Further than that, however, was probably a very rare occurrence.