AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: DaveM on June 30, 2024, 07:35:52 PM
-
Hi all, this rifle turned up on Long Island NY out of an estate. Can you all help try to help determine the maker? I assume the name on the box lid is the owner - If that name is the maker, the name is not familiar to me.
The toe plate appears to have been repaired with a spliced rear portion, likely a repair. There was some engraving on the original toe plate, partially covered by the spliced piece.
The lock is original to the rifle, and is marked inside. I assume it was maybe a german import lock?
The side plate is very old based on the underside, but not sure if it is original or not.
The barrel was shortened - it looks like when the forestock was shortened they may have cut the front portion of the forestock with the nose cap and moved the whole piece back. With the damage it is hard to tell.
It has its original rifling.
The parallel engraved incised lines along the patch box lid sides are interesting. I have found one rifle so far with the same double lines (kindig #62 by Rupp). The barrel tang and rear ramrod pipe have similar parallel incised lines.
Thoughts welcome!
(https://i.ibb.co/dGM0xfy/IMG-9013.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bzmgD6n)
(https://i.ibb.co/PmTDc1s/IMG-9014.jpg) (https://ibb.co/1vszrRY)
(https://i.ibb.co/bN0Dtmp/IMG-9015.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ssfz7RL)
(https://i.ibb.co/PmN55Hd/IMG-9016.jpg) (https://ibb.co/p0x33FS)
(https://i.ibb.co/WzwqfP8/IMG-9017.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jw2BDW0)
(https://i.ibb.co/t26B7PB/IMG-9018.jpg) (https://ibb.co/JpTnfFn)
(https://i.ibb.co/v392q86/IMG-9019.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jyt7fFP)
(https://i.ibb.co/BVSv5Y6/IMG-9020.jpg) (https://ibb.co/4Z5Cn0S)
(https://i.ibb.co/g3JmWYK/IMG-9021.jpg) (https://ibb.co/KXWbsnv)
(https://i.ibb.co/f8MRfL7/IMG-9022.jpg) (https://ibb.co/VHVyR58)
(https://i.ibb.co/ZcVYH8J/IMG-9023.jpg) (https://ibb.co/JrKyx7d)
(https://i.ibb.co/WxzWK5R/IMG-9024.jpg) (https://ibb.co/C19508S)
(https://i.ibb.co/GRb1Myy/IMG-9025.jpg) (https://ibb.co/tDWN2gg)
(https://i.ibb.co/kq0DLFH/IMG-9026.jpg) (https://ibb.co/r5MpBJ7)
(https://i.ibb.co/6NMVT63/IMG-9027.jpg) (https://ibb.co/520tSqN)
(https://i.ibb.co/8PfNRCn/IMG-9028.jpg) (https://ibb.co/c2ZkpBK)
(https://i.ibb.co/6XZbypy/IMG-9029.jpg) (https://ibb.co/RjSPgMg)
(https://i.ibb.co/J2S9HYR/IMG-9031.jpg) (https://ibb.co/pZkSdHv)
(https://i.ibb.co/bzmsRx8/IMG-9032.jpg) (https://ibb.co/Rzb341V)
(https://i.ibb.co/R3wPKhd/IMG-9033.jpg) (https://ibb.co/fkwtW8L)
(https://i.ibb.co/5YyhH09/IMG-9034.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HNsT8S2)
(https://i.ibb.co/Ch65JWv/IMG-9035.jpg) (https://ibb.co/2gS785P)
(https://i.ibb.co/Vgcgq1k/IMG-9037.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ZBpBMjb)
(https://i.ibb.co/WzwLwJK/IMG-9036.jpg) (https://ibb.co/yk1r1js)
(https://i.ibb.co/G9TBfdB/IMG-9003.jpg) (https://ibb.co/bFJqj6q)
(https://i.ibb.co/r7HxcJt/IMG-9038.jpg) (https://ibb.co/X2t73T4)
(https://i.ibb.co/tXQkVdJ/IMG-9040.jpg) (https://ibb.co/167hFSm)
-
I'm pretty sure it started out as a flintlock
-
It certainly has a Rupp connection. Nice to see it
-
John Rupp. At one time I had a signed John Rupp. It had the similar style engraving on the patch box lid. Same type of wrist checkering also. I think there might be a picture on here somewhere under a Rupp thread. I don't have any pictures on the computer any more. I believe it is a little earlier than yours . The two incised lines on each side of the tang are something you see on a lot of Rupp & Kuntz rifles. I don't believe the side plate is original to your rifle but I could be wrong. It's my feeling that some of those guys in that area shared work or sold parts to other makers . Nice Lehigh ! Jim
-
(https://i.ibb.co/MD7hVcz/IMG-2351.jpg)[/u
I took this off a 4x6 picture not very good work . Maybe it wiil help compare patch boxes. Jim
[url=https://ibb.co/zWcfrBQ](https://i.ibb.co/Cpd0zYm/IMG-2353.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WWf3ykr)
-
Wow Jim, awesome! I would really lve to see more photos of your signed example to compare. Maybe one of the moderators would be able to retrieve the old photos? I agree looks similar, and I could see Rupp making kindig 62 then maybe made these 10, 20 or so years later??
I added a photo of the patchbox cavity, and found a photo of a signed John Rupp patchbox cavity from an old auction photo. They both have the same unsual hinge - and on the lower left corner of both cavities, they both have an extra drilled or dug out area of wood which is really odd but unique. I added a photo of the box for the 1793 signed Herman Rupp - same weird extra corner dug out!
(https://i.ibb.co/Wzskx0n/IMG-6742.jpg) (https://ibb.co/t23qmzB)
(https://i.ibb.co/1XD3Cxx/IMG-9040.jpg) (https://ibb.co/JpfNYPP)
(https://i.ibb.co/cFgmMxh/IMG-9041.jpg) (https://ibb.co/7WY98bt)
-
Jim beat me to it today but I agree 100%, John Rupp II. This was the nephew of John (Johannes) Rupp Sr.
The auction photo you illustrate with the scrollwork along the box is actually imho John Sr. He may have taught his nephew, or Herman may have done so, but one or both were probably involved.
-
Thanks guys, and Eric thanks for confirming! That is great to know, I am really glad I posted. I will try to learn a little bit about John Rupp II!
-
DaveM, Great score and thanks for posting the pictures!
John
-
We discussed John II briefly a while back when all the ridiculousness was going on with the John Rupp that was auctioned through Poulin's and the big clunky Kindig John Rupp rifle.
There were one or two very long threads on the elder John that led into an article I posted on my site (which has been quite lonely lately) and I started a separate thread on John II but I've lost track of whether I pursued him any further.
https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=68311.msg683849#msg683849 (https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=68311.msg683849#msg683849)
-
Maybe one of the moderators would be able to retrieve the old photos?
Do you have a link to the post?
Tim
-
Tim, I don't know what thread that photo may have been part of - maybe Jim or Eric may recall which thread had the photos from Jim?
-
I found a post from Sept 18 2018 title John Rupp. I don't know how to post the link. It looks like most of the pictures are there. I've been selling some of my collection I bought this Rupp in 1990 . Sold it in 2020. I also found a thread on March 25 2020 where I posted this rifle along with a Kuntz and another Rupp or Kuntz ( I go back and forth on who made it. ) I'm thinking Kuntz did the patch box and maybe Rupp did the rest. Jim
-
FWIW, I think the Johannes/John that became the later "John Rupp" gunsmith here was the son of Andrew (1789 birth) and not the son of George jr. (1791 birth). I'm fairly certain I have evidence to this effect somewhere, but can't find it at the moment.
I can also throw out some Rupp speculation upon which I may be able to elaborate once I figure out where all of my information is stored (don't get me strted):
SPECULATION
Herman, the eldest gunsmith Rupp, clearly had a Moll connection and I would suggest that he either worked at the Allentown armories during the War or apprenticed/worked with at some point Johannes Moll (Sr), who had been establsihed in Allentown as a gunsmith since the early 1760s.
Johannes/John Rupp, Herman's younger brother, was approximately of age to have been beginning an apprenticeship at the outbreak of the War, and may have also worked as a grunt at the armories in Allentown or follwing the War may have learned the trade from either Moll if an actual apprenticeship, or otherwise working with brother Herman. I strongly suspect Herman and John 1 worked with each other as well as farming at least through the first decadde of the 19th century, so they may have shared a shop. John II, a nephew to both, probably worked and learned in this same shop which I suspect was at the Rupp homestead and which was almost certainly under Herman's control following the death of his father (George Sr) and later passed to Herman's son Jacob (not a gunsmith). By that time John 1 was dead somewhere and John 2 was working on his own. This theorizing makes sense to me based upon what I currently know of the family gunsmiths. It may change if I find additional verifiable information.
-
Eric thanks very much for this starting info - wish I'd paid better attention to your previous work.
If I understand your research correctly, there were two John Rupps from the same location, with similar styles, both high level pros, with overlapping working dates (to a point). But John I was much older (was Herman's brother) and was taxed as a gunsmith at a much earlier date than John II (Herman's nephew).
I looked on ancestry and found the estate for John (II, I assume) from when he died in 1848. If I understand you correctly the John who died in 1848 was too young to have made the rifles like the one in Kindig.
-
Yes the earlier John Rupp was born sometime in the early 1760s and was Herman's younger brother. The generally accepted birth year is 1762 but that is based solely on the 19th century 'county history' books, I have yet to find a verifiable document. If 1762, he would have been 13 yo in 1775 when the John Rupp signed Kindig rifle was allegedly made (according to Kolar, which I guess is why he decided that it had to be made by John's father George pretending to be John ::) ). Or maybe it's just a clunky post war parts restock like most sane people believe it to be. Anyway. He (John 1) also stocked the Poulin auction rifle and the side-opener that's been pictured a few places. He died sometime between 1807, when his father George Sr died intestate, and 1816 when the entire estate legal work was completed, because his father's estate papers which were all adminstrated by Herman specifically note him (John 1) as having died "insolvent" and clearly dead by 1816 at the time of the estate administration. Still working on where/when he specifically died but I firmly believe he had moved up the river into the Selinsgrove area. Couple problems, but still working on it.
John II was probably Andreas/Andrew's son, although I'm not positive - he may have also been George jr's son, both born within 2 years of each other and both christened Johannes. One of them was the gunsmith who made later guns looking more "Kuntzy" with the elaborate "JR" engraving on box lid or the block "John Rupp" lettering on barrel, just not sure which one of the 4 Rupp brothers his father was. But you are correct, he is the guy that died in 1848 and made rifled shaped/styled like the gun you've pictured and the other piece mentioned. Theyre all later guns because the earliest he was born was 1789. There was a John Rupp still listed in Macungie as of the 1820 census but not sure if this was the gunsmith or the other John - there would have been 2 floating around the area, one a gunsmith and one ??? but both 1st cousins.
-
Eric, I read your article about Rupp on your website. You outlined things nicely and in an easy- to-read way - thanks!
I did find a church burial record ( Ziegel’s Church) for John (II) indicating that he was the son of Andrew, born April 5, 1789. It is not the actual church record copy but is believable and verifiable. The burial record states his father’s name, his two marriages, two daughters with his first wife and one son Daniel with his second wife (and Daniel is named in the estate records), and his age at death (59-0-27).
Is it possible that the known surviving series of signed John Rupp rifles were all made by John II? He would have been making guns by I suppose 1810 or so. Was John I noted as a gunsmith anywhere, or just a smith?
Are there signed John Rupp rifles that are signed that unquestionable predate 1810 or so?
I am not questioning your research, you seem tohave it pretty much nailed down, I am only trying to learn. Thanks,
-
The earliest of the clearly John II rifles of which I'm aware - documentable - is dated 1814 on the box lid. He probably was working for a few years prior but I don't know of anything dated.
I love questioning. It's how we all work to find factual information! Hopefully, I define the difference between when I am speculating and when I am documenting something.
I have never seen a period reference to John (elder) as a "gunsmith" but he is noted a few times as a smith. To be fair, Herman also was always noted as a smith until 1807 when he was one of the assessors for Macungie, then he notes himself as "gunsmith."
There are enough differences between the **signed** guns believed to be John (elder) and the younger John that I find it exceptionally hard to believe, if not downright impossible to believe, that they were the same guy. I only know of two signed, the Kindig rifle and the Poulin auction rifle, and they are clearly the same man. Kolar in his factually-challenged article we discussed in one of the other threads illustrated a signature on a 3rd rifle that he claimed was the earlier guy, although there is only a picture of the signature and a little of the breech; the breech incise decoration looks more like John II, and I can't see the sig clearly enough to really compare. But it could be a later piece of John (elder). I feel like there are more pics of that gun somewhere but at the moment I can;t remember where. Also the semi-famous 'side opener' Lehigh is unsiogned but almost surely John Rupp (elder) just based on details. There are a couple of others I suspect as well but of course not signed so just imho.
John (elder) absolutely, positively had to have died prior to 1816, and *probably* after his father in 1807, given the language in his father's estate papers. Many if not most of the John Rupp rifles of the younger guy are clearly post-1810ish to 1816 rifles, so it seems fairly clear to be just based upon the dating as well as the extreme difference in style, decorative work etc that they stocked by two different men.
I strongly suspect John (elder) sold off most of whatever he owned in Macungie prior to 1810, but I have yet to find a verifiable candidate for his death. I strongly suspect he was the John Rupp that went up the river, but can't prove it with period documentation. Yet.
-
Thanks Eric - looking at the Rupp styles I am barely even a beginner. I assume your comparison of the signatures between John I & II also helped with your conclusions.
My line of thinking was that perhaps John II was an exceptional artist and perhaps changed his style over the years and maybe learned initially how to make the classic older style.
With regards to the John Rupp signed Poulin rifle / kindig rifle - I have not seen these in person but from photos they do not really look that early to me, with the exaggerated curves. Are they of a substantial massive size, or is it the style of decoration that makes them early? I think it was the kindig(??) rifle, even had a bit of checkering on the top of the wrist.
I had assumed that the Rupp rifles (and Lehigh in general) had domed patch box lids through the 1790's (like the 1787 Neihart and 1793 Herman Rupp rifle) till about the turn of the century, but certainly I may be way off on this.
-
There are domed lids which is a style I believe was initiated by John Moll, and I believe he was selling castings based upon the large amount of casting tools in his estate inventory. There are flat lids as well, and the two types appear to have been concurrent. The Kindig John Rupp rifle is a very large rifle with many assumed-early features, but it's a restock of an earlier rifle - large breech large cal barrel, large German lock, large guard and sideplate, and buttplate probably cut down from a larger piece. So when you are working with larger parts from an earlier rifle, there's only so much you can do. And who knows, maybe it was made for a big guy. I personally consider it a 1780s postwar piece and probably some of his earliest work. But to believe that is was stocked up pre-War by a 13 yo, I don't buy that for an instant. There is too much about it particularly the decoration that is too accomplished, and details of the decoration match up well with the Poulin rifle and the side opener, and a couple others.
I'm not going to rehash the silliness promoted by Mr Kolar about George Rupp signing "John" when he clearly signed "George" on documents in German script. I'm sure he knew his own name and the only reason to promote that theory is to try to push the rifle pre-War. I have seen plenty of definitively post-War rifles with big cheeks and big barrels. I'm not a fan of continuously early-dating things.
The Poulin rifle and the side opener are much slimmer rifles, much more of what you would expect of a late 18th century Lehigh, but enough interesting and quirky details imho to pin them to the Kindig rifle as the same maker.
-
My two cents on guessing timeframes - a general guideline that I have considered when trying to guess at relative build dates of a series of rifles from a particular maker or region, is that between about 1790 and 1810, the underside edge of the butt evolved from straight to more and more curved. And I assume this evolution went only towards more curvature for a particular region over these years ( in other words a maker would not have used a more straight lower edge at a later date than a more curved one). After 1810 or so things vary so much that in my mind all bets are off. For example, the Neihart from 1787 is still straight. As far as I know earlier rifles than that such as those by oerter, have this edge as straight also. I feel the curve at the top f the comb went through a similar evolution but more subtle and more difficult to use as a guideline.
Of course this could be all bs, but this is a tough transition period of 20 or so years to judge. Looking Eric at your photo here, my opinion is that the moll in the center is the earliest and maybe around 1790 to 1795, followed by the one on the bottom. In my opinion the Rupp at the top is noticeably later - no dome on the box, later style patchbox head, very curved along the under edge of the butt, and the loss of crease/channel at the nose of the comb. Anyone please feel free to disagree and point out examples that show this is not a relable way to see things. That’s how we learn!
(https://i.ibb.co/RvhLqdr/IMG-6784.jpg) (https://ibb.co/w0JDfjG)
-
A few things - the Oerters aren't dead straight along the toe, but close enough that to my mind it's kind of impossible to tell if he was deliberatey trying to add a little concavity in profile or if it was just from planes and clean-up. The Molls are quite deliberate, clearly. Are they John Sr or John Jr? That's a question that's still up in the air to me. The two pieces you've illustrated - they are exceptional rifles, and the quality of the decortive work would lead me to believe that they may be very late John Sr rifles, but it's still not possible to say for certain. John Sr and his son signed the rifles almost identically, we assume, if we're looking at two guys. Or maybe it was all one guy. Then there are later rifles actually signed "John Moll jr" that are assumed to be John III. I'd feel a lot more confident if a rifle looking like one of these ever turned up with the 'Johannes Moll' sig in large block letters, because I really believe they are the old man. U/nfortunately the only two of which I've seen are later restocks.
I see the Kindig Rupp rifle (top rifle) in a bit of a different light. It's very large and clunky, giant cheek, the furniture is a mis-mash; I see it as a rifle by a guy who is learning to work in the accepted regional style of the time (I'm going 1780s or maybe early 1790s) and trying to force that style on a lock, barrel and furnishings that are absolutely too large and not suited to that style. Seriously - just look at it. I think in one of the older posts I illustrated one of the earlier rifles with the same furnishings that I assume these came from - I totally see it as a restock.
I genuinely do not attribute the doming of the lid as being earlier or later. I've seen much later rifles with domed lids, and earlier rifles with flat lids. I think a lot of it just happened to revolve around what the stocker had on hand - castings? - or if he was working with sheet and then subsequently felt like forming a dome or just going flat. I don't attribute any dating to that characteristic at all. Keep in mind Herman's 1809 dated rifle still is carrying a domed lid, Neihart's 1787 is flat and the 'olive branch' rifle which I think is a Moll but some believe is a Rupp is probably earlier than both and carries a flat lid.
My opinion, and anyone can take it or leave it, but comparing the Kindig John Rupp to the Moll rifles illustrated is like comparing a VW to a Lexus. It's just a chunky, clunky, big gun made up of parts. and very attractive in its own way, but there is a professionalism evident in the two Molls here that is completely lacking in that Rupp gun. I think it's probably contemporaneous or possibly earlier than those Molls, but not by much and none of them are pre-War.
-
Very interesting and informative thread going here. First, DaveM, congratulations on your recent find.
I recently completed a rendition of the Rupp attributed side opener. During my research for the build, I obtained photos of the original patchbox internals. What I found interesting, and for the life of me couldn't figure out was the latch arrangement. It is pretty much identical to the top one you have circled in your photos. Whereas there is no visible leaf spring latch like the lower photo. It appears that he used some sort of spring-loaded pivoting latch hidden between the buttplate and stock with the same type of Lehigh style button on the outside. The KRA discs unfortunately do not show the patchbox internals. I'm wondering if the top photo is possibly John Rupp(the elder) KRA disc #13?
-
A few things - the Oerters aren't dead straight along the toe, but close enough that to my mind it's kind of impossible to tell if he was deliberatey trying to add a little concavity in profile or if it was just from planes and clean-up.
Eric, you are absolutely right. I was laying out a drawing earlier today of an Oerter I'm starting to build. Studying all photos I have from different sources, laying straight edges on his toe line comes up with maybe around a .070" concave dish to the toe line. At first I thought well maybe the wood shrank, but it clearly looks intended, although barely noticeable.
-
Thanks TommyG!
Eric I completely forgot about the signed dated 1809 rifle, I’ll have to search for photos of that one. That would be great for comparison. It is nice that they put dates on at least a few of them or we would really be in the weeds.
TommyG, not sure I can add anything to your patchbox question, but it is fascinating to me that the 1793 dated Herman Rupp rifle, and at least the two John I/II rifeles above, all have the same off extra dug out hole in the lower left of the cavity. Maybe this means nothing but it is too much of a coincdence. Maybe that is where they begin to gouge out the opening with the chisel or something. Or maybe lots of rifles have this I have no idea.
-
Something like this.
(https://i.ibb.co/WzxdqVG/IMG-2354.jpg) (https://ibb.co/GMx1BHn)
-
Jim I don't think he's talking abotu the so-called "prayer hole" that often is found running up from the forward wall of the mortise. He's talking about the weird hole, or partial hole, that is usually shallower than the remainder of the mortise and is always along the lower side at the rear corner. Maybe 1/4" to 5/16" diamter off the top of my head.
I have no explanation for it, but I've seen it on quite a few rifles. But no explanation. It's almost always shallower than the remainder of the mortise.
Tommy - the two frequently used released in that region were either the long spring with the big 90degree or so bend that is just hammer driven in up through the forward portion of the mortise, or the release as you mention which is is piece that outwardly looks liek the spring w/ the large head, but is typically riveted to the inside of the buttplate or is tacked into the underside of the butt at the end grain (head riveted on afterwards, so buttplate can not be removed) and is basically just an inverted "L" shaped catch with a simple spring that is typically driven into the wood end grain to make it springy. I've made a few that way but I always rivet them to buttplate so the buttplate can be removed easily if necessary. I've seen both types - long spring and rivet type - used by the same maker, so I have no idea why one would choose one over the other.
-
Thanks Eric. Makes sense now. Unless you actually get to take one of these apart, there is really no way of knowing for sure exactly how the riveted one was executed.
-
Here is the profile of the Herman Rupp from 1809. It does look slimmer and smaller than the kindig rifle. What a puzzle! I feel like the kindig rifle is early, and per your research Eric seems to be an earlier maker - yet some details like the wrist scroll engraving, and incise lines along the patchbox make me feel it is the same maker as the one I pictured in my OP, yet I get why there seemed to be two seprate guys. And yet the toe line of the kindig appears similar to the 1809. I assume the 1809 Herman rifle is contemporary with the first rifles John Rupp II would have put out. Sheesh! What are the odds that the only rifles with incised lines along the lid were only by two different guys named John Rupp? But maybe others used these, I don’t have enough experience to know. It is interesting that the hinge on the kindig patch box extends beyond the lid edges, making the incise lines function almost like sideplates.
Below is the scroll on the barrel of the OP and the one on the kindig. I know it is a common design, but less so in this folksy area.
(https://i.ibb.co/R0MTRzY/IMG-6809.png) (https://ibb.co/jMxkngb)
(https://i.ibb.co/WKmgJx8/IMG-6808.jpg) (https://ibb.co/2KGg4nV)
(https://i.ibb.co/Qmd4MTb/IMG-9049.jpg) (https://ibb.co/5cFPLSM)
-
One more detail from the rifle in my OP. From a short distance away, visually the wavy lines along the patchbox lid look smoothly engraved. But up close, they are really a series of short straight cuts. I wonder how this compares to how the wavy lines long the kindig patch box were made? Did most makers make their wavy lines this way?
Thanks for your patience if you are reading this thread through my too many questions!
(https://i.ibb.co/26wHQJB/IMG-6810.png) (https://ibb.co/59dwyZV)
(https://i.ibb.co/L1bVrvh/IMG-9020.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6FVj8NJ)
-
Dave. the incised decoration on the Kindig Rupp you illustrate (forward of the box) above is a very common regional trait. Molls used it also, and others in the region, some unsigned. I don't know if its supposed to represent something but there are quite a few variations of it found on multiple pieces.
-
Late to the party. Nifty.
-
I found these photos online of a Herman Rupp rifle on display at an Ohio museum. Related to the discussion of domed vs not domes with respect to time period, this rifle appears to be a restock - but the parts such as the barrel and patchbox and sideplate, look like the original Rupp gun they came from may be quite early. The signature looks very early. It is interesting that the sideplate - assuming t was original to the Rupp, seems to predate the late evolved arrowhead sideplate type the Rupps used. It appears that the barrel has a legit date of 1784.
(https://i.ibb.co/KKgt9cY/IMG-6843.jpg) (https://ibb.co/VwGFv0d)
(https://i.ibb.co/ZVdLcPW/IMG-6842.jpg) (https://ibb.co/NsxVWPZ)
(https://i.ibb.co/MggMwTH/IMG-6837.jpg) (https://ibb.co/2FFgV2r)
(https://i.ibb.co/r5FtQFX/IMG-6830.jpg) (https://ibb.co/XFj4WjG)
(https://i.ibb.co/6D6KTk8/IMG-6832.jpg) (https://ibb.co/F8GQyFX)
(https://i.ibb.co/2g8SRJq/IMG-6829.jpg) (https://ibb.co/6gv8GQY)
(https://i.ibb.co/7b0bhPM/IMG-6834.jpg) (https://ibb.co/YbVbgmn)
(https://i.ibb.co/2q0LppF/IMG-6833.jpg) (https://ibb.co/VV0hkkL)
(https://i.ibb.co/3r2LFbd/IMG-6838.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8KqSxws)
short poem on honesty (https://poetandpoem.com/honesty)
-
Those are some very interesting pics Dave. To my untrained eye, it looks like some Lehigh, some Lancaster. The trigger is interesting as well, looks like a DST with the rear set missing.
-
TommyG, good observation about the DST, I think you are right.
Restock or not, this is an amazing gun! Seems like this would fall into a pretty elite small group of dated signed rifles prior to 1787’s Neihart. I this the earliest signed dated Lehigh rifle?
Almost certainly the patchbox was from Rupp’s original gun, and the probability that the early sideplate was also from that gun seems like it would be very high. If this was restocked in say 1840 it is hard to imagine that the maker had more than one 1780’s ish rifle to take parts from! I assume this would show this Lehigh patchbox finial style was developed by 1784. I would love to see more detailed photos.
-
I am in the restock camp. Original DST on early Lehigh are rare . The side plates on the box, I believe are not Rupps work . Patch box release would probably be on the end of the but plate and not on the top . Trigger guard does not appear to be Rupp and likely a replacement. Nice barrel. Jim
-
Wasn't that rifle posted here maybe a year or two ago? I know I already have those same pictures and I'm positive someone posted them here.
I think the only original parts on this restock are the barrel and the central 2-pc box, and that's about it. The lock is a buggered reconversion but looks too late for 1784 (imho) and I really don't think that sideplate was on the original rifle. Not saying the original had to be an arrowback plate but I just strongly doubt this sideplate.
Herman was old enough to have potentially been trained, or perhaps just beginning to work at the outbreak of the War. But honestly, and it's just speculation on my part, I don't think either Herman or John were gunstocking until after the War. John was too young anyway.
I really, REALLY wish there was more documentable information on who was working at the repair shop/shops in Allentown 1777-1779 because I strongly believe it was after that point, and the closure of the War, that things really took off in that area.
-
I have an old gun I alway attributed to Lehigh when it came to origin, but it wouldn't be the first time I was wrong. It does have some small characteristics that coincide with your gun. It has the same bars engraved on both ends of the sights on top of the barrel. Much of the brass inlays, and the top of the patch box are held on with brass nails instead of screws. The type of patch box hinge appears to be very similar.
My gun has a triggerguard just like yours, but the trigger is like yours a simple trigger, but it is made of brass and has a fancy cut web on the back of the trigger pad. I did find some picture of a similar made rifle with many of the same features that was signed by a gunsmith named Baer from Lehigh.
Hungry Horse
-
Hungry Horse I’d be interested in photos of your rifle if you care to post some, and any other lehigh style rifles. I am very late to the party in studying Lehigh / Allentown rifles, I am only catching up!
As for the revwar arsenals / shops it seems like there is a lack of correspondence regarding these facilities compared to other maker/contract correspondence. Was that intentional to keep these locations as secret as possible? Or have the records just not turned up yet? Like Allentown’s, the one at Lancaster seems mysterious.
-
As for the revwar arsenals / shops it seems like there is a lack of correspondence regarding these facilities compared to other maker/contract correspondence. Was that intentional to keep these locations as secret as possible? Or have the records just not turned up yet? Like Allentown’s, the one at Lancaster seems mysterious.
I don't think there's a "lack" of material regarding the Allentown facility compared to other facilities? There is lots of material regarding the Allentown facility, including regular returns that indicate precisely how many arms were sent there and how many (repaired) were disbursed from there; we know lots about who operated it, when it was built, and when it was disbanded.
So if we're comparing maker/contractor correspondence with the Allentown facility, say: we have comparable info, if not more. We know information about who operated the facility, what they were paid, what their work involved. What we don't know, as Eric said, are the names of the men who worked there (who worked under the heads of the factory).
It's worth thinking about how where such information would have been kept. Returns of incoming and outgoing arms survive because they were sent to central authorities in Philadelphia. But payments to local workers (if they were local: these workers may have been relocated from Philadelphia, as the factory itself was)?: receipts would probably have been produced and saved, if they were saved, by the local managers. So what happened to Ebenezer Cowell's and John Tyler's personal papers? Who knows. Very, very, very few batches of personal papers by such "minor" figures survive today.
I suspect it would be impossible to recover a list of workers in almost any factory setting in early America, unless--miraculously--the materials from the shop happen to survive and those materials involve payments to workers (instead of just ledgers of customers or daybooks of daily work). Very, very, very few merchant's ledgers or craftsmen's ledgers survive. The ones that do enable us, sometimes, to reconstruct a whole world of workers, suppliers, customers, etc. But without such materials: total mystery.
-
Scott, your thoughts about how specific folks could be identified made me think of a few instances where documentation survived about drafted soldiers who provided substitutes for themselves while they stayed home to help make guns. Henry Hahn and John Reiffschneider in Reading were examples, and the receipt survived showing that they furnished substitutes. But these sort of records seem rare also and the receipts are not always specific as to the reason. Hahn showed a copy of this receipt when he requested a pension.
Another possibility would be statements made about particular men in pension request records.
I did look up Herman Rupp’s pension dcumentation. Interestingly, he served three years as a private in the PA militia, then served one year as a teamster. Two of the men who provided testimony said he Rupp had his own team while he was a teamster. This may indicate he had no involvement in making guns during the war since he served a full 4 years.
-
Scott, your thoughts about how specific folks could be identified made me think of a few instances where documentation survived about drafted soldiers who provided substitutes for themselves while they stayed home to help make guns. Henry Hahn and John Reiffschneider in Reading were examples, and the receipt survived showing that they furnished substitutes. But these sort of records seem rare also and the receipts are not always specific as to the reason. Hahn showed a copy of this receipt when he requested a pension.
Yes, very true. But these men did not (I don't think?) work in a factory setting?
It is relatively easy, in many cases, to identify many gunsmiths who produced or repaired arms or from whom authorities procured arms, because these people were dealing directly with (getting paid by) county or provincial or continental authorities. Those sorts of records often survive. William Henry--at this time no longer a gunsmith but rather a high-level procurement officer--kept records of dozens and dozens of gunsmiths from whom he purchased arms. Payments to particular gunsmiths (including Dickert in Lancaster or Samuel Sarjant in Carlisle) are so large that it is evident that they were employing large numbers of "hands." It is this next level of receipts--Dickert's or Sarjant's with the "hands" they employed--that seem not to survive.
Similar with the Allentown factory. Tyler said he had sixteen "hands" employed; but we do not know who they were or what skills they had (what tasks they engaged in). Just as we would need Dickert's accounts with the men he employed, or Sarjant's with the men he employed--none of which we have--we would need Tyler's with the men he employed.
I suppose a pension application could say "I worked in the factory at Allentown"--that would be something ...