AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Contemporary Longrifle Collecting => Topic started by: Wolfeknives on April 05, 2013, 07:08:49 AM
-
I have been lurking on this forum for some time. I have read every post in all the different sections. I have also followed up with a search on all gunmakers I could find, closely studying the work of each.
I found myself drawn to the work of those who produce exceptional rifles in regard to fit and finish. Unfortunately these are also the makers who have a very long waiting list, or are not taking on any additional work. I have however managed to place an order with a couple of the makers whose work most appealed to me.
I have been collecting in other areas for many years. In all these collecting areas condition is of prime concern. I have noticed that many of the rifles produced today are "distressed", some more so than others. I am not trying to start any controversy, but can not understand the appeal of having a newly made rifle looking like a piece that has seen much use, and in many cases abuse. Surely they did not look like that during the period. To me they have a look of the antique rifles we see now, after many years of poor storage and exposure to less than ideal condition.
For my personal taste, I would prefer to receive a rifle that shows all the skill and craftsmanship of the maker without distractions created by blemishes. After all it is a item that was made only a few years ago, why would it want to pretend to be something else.
I am certain that there are many valid arguments against my thoughts, and I would love to hear them. I am always open to change my mind, and keen to learn about all aspects of collecting these beautiful pieces.
Wolfgang
-
Wolfgang,
The body and content of your post presents a question (or questions) asked and simultaneously answered.
The final arbiter of what is acceptable and/or desirable, is the purchaser and as noted, you've done your due diligence, made your selections and placed orders. But, be forewarned that once you venture beyond great architecture, there is no school, or style or embellishments (or lack thereof) that will garner an all-encompassing, overwhelming and universal appeal. Disclaimer: Well, none that I know of anyway.
A telltale, of your own introduction, is that the builders of these 'less-than-perfect' (my choice of words) have, in fact, a 2 to 3 year waiting list (and longer) which, though it contradicts your narrow (my word choice, again) collecting preferences, appeals to others; a condition indicative of a rather broad 'custom' market.
We look forward to learning of and seeing photos of your contemporary longrifles, as they become available and, of course, any antique non-cartridge pieces and/or accoutrements, in your present collection(s).
It's reasonable to assume, that you already have the disease (firearms/accoutrements) but have become exposed to another virulent, but non-lethal, collecting strain, which, like many others, has no known cure.
Welcome and good luck!
-
This is a recurring topic, but one that's not easy to search for. Those who ask, "why would someone want a distressed new rifle" obviously would not want one and are unlikely to be persuaded differently. Like turning a Chevy guy into a Ford guy by talking. There's a huge variety in styles, periods, decoration and many other attributes of longrifles and we all have our preferences. For some, a Bedford is a hockey stick, for others, a Christians Spring rifle is chunky and bulky. Why do folks like what they like?
-
From a "distressed" builder's point of view, I build what I want to and what I'm interested in and turn away any work that isn't interesting. I like guns that look like the old ones that I have seen my entire life. Distressed guns tend to be warm and inviting where "as new" guns can be very cold and lifeless. Just my very short view on why I do what I do.
-
A gun that is built new but looks like a well cared for 200 year old antique is an art all to itself.
As Mike said, the aged gun "speaks"....as if it has stories to tell of how it received every scratch and dent.
Many wish to own new guns that look new and want to impart their own story to the firearm through frequent and honest use.
To each their own....there are enough makers practicing in either or both methods to satisfy the market. Enjoy, J.D.
-
Wolfgang
This is a subject that seems to ignite passions on both sides.It is a subject that has no right or wrong answer.I have customers on both sides of the discussion.Some of my customers want "as new" rifles and some want slightly aged rifles.The customer has the final determination.If you prefer "as new" I say collect "as new".I have my favorites from both sides of the discussion.
Mitch Yates
-
I suspect there are two distinct classes of buyers of contemporary muzzle loaders, those who buy a gun for its artistic/ collector appeal and those who buy a gun to take to the field day after day.
My guess is the first mentioned group would appreciate distressed, wear patterns indicating a gun with some age on it.
The latter would be someone like myself who starts with a shiny new gun and will add their own wear patterns and patina, naturally, over time in the field.
My guns all look"distressed" from actual use. I agree with Mike, every ding and worn place in the finish of my guns adds life and indicates the gun has had an adventurous existence roaming the hills with it's owner.
I did cringe when I put that first scratch in an otherwise flawless finish on my rifle right after I made it but quickly realized maintaining showroom finish on a rifle that spent 50 or 60 days afield was impossible.
-
I agree with the last statement. Add a third... those specifically using their guns for re-enacting. Much like an actor on a stage, a rifle becomes a prop, and adds to the characters portrayal.
I personally prefer the gun to look new. If I owned a gun from a certain maker well known for artistic aging, I'd go with what they produce because it's their art form.
-
I don't really look at it so much from the perspective of being aged, distressed etc. There are a few people who do convincing aging; that is it has the appearance of the real thing, but most are just creating an effect. Variations in surface texture and color to change the feel and add more interest to the piece. For many, the whole goal of this stuff is simply to create more appeal to the final product. To create a product that draws you in. A gun has it, when you don't want to stop looking at it or don't want to put it down when handling it. Texture and color can add a significant amount to this. A simple example might be finishes used on arts and crafts style furniture and hardware. Authentic, believable aging is not always pretty. Sometimes it is, but often not. Is the typical Hershel House finish finish truly representative of an original gun? Probably not, but it has appeal and adds interest to the finished product. I've made guns that are finished perfectly bright and new, but I also really appreciate some of the highly "aged" stuff that is being done today. What I don't understand is when people have strong feelings against one or the other. Good is Good regardless of the approach.
-
Artificially aged guns are for wannabes.
They wanna have a used gun but often do not even understand what a used gun REALLY looks like since they look at 220 year old guns OR the aged guns made to look like 220 year old guns. As opposed to one that was used and cared for over 5 or even 50 years. That it was then battered about for 110-150 years in some closet or by its being given to some kid as a toy and it got beat to $#@* in the process well after it was "out of service" is apparently overlooked to ignored.
The guns did not look 200 years old when they were 5-10-20 years old. They would have looked pretty nice unless used very hard or abused.
But battered guns have become a fashion with some must have a "cool" looking beat up rifle, its like like torn blue jeans on a teenager.
As I have stated before in many cases this phenomenon reminds me of the "dog @#$%/!! on a pile of sticks" ceramic "art" I used to see in the pottery/ceramics magazines back when I subscribed to such things. So long as we call it "art" or think its "cool" I guess its not what it really looks like.
Dan
-
Definitive statements on matters of opinion are by definition unconvincing and cannot be "right". There is no right and wrong just preference. No need to denigrate others with different preferences.
-
I for one like well done rifle whether it is new looking or old and beat up. To me its the architecture that determines if I like it.Myself, I pretty much like all the schools of longrifles, but I am partial to southern longrifles.
topknot
-
Dan,
Speaking of "wannabes", that's how I see you and your work. It's pretty amateurish in my view, but I get the feeling you want respect. I guess you do have your "perfect" breeching to hang your hat on, though.
I hope I've made my point... Is this how the forum should operate? You might want to consider a little more kindness and respect in your approach.
Jim
-
I well understand that there is no right or wrong in our choice of collecting interest. I also know from experience that we "mature" as collectors as we are exposed to, and get a deeper understanding of the items we collect. A number of years ago I met Jud Brennan at a custom knife show. He had one of his Jaeger rifles on his table. I was able to handle the rifle. It was tastefully distressed, but still showed the skill of the maker. I would have loved to own that rifle. At this point I am most attracted to rifles with a light patina, but without dings in the wood or pitting in the fittings / barrel.
I started this thread because I truly wish to understand the attraction to the very distressed rifles. I am open minded, and appreciate every collectors point of view. It is what makes collecting so interesting.
As I mentioned, I am very new to this field, and wish to get educated before I dive in. I have learned from experience that it is a mistake to purchase at random at the outset, and later realize that much of the collection consists of pieces we don't really enjoy.
At this point I am treading lightly. As mentioned, I have placed orders with two highly regarded makers. In addition I have purchased a rifle from Brant Selb to be carried int the field. I also purchased a set of old Westley Richards pistols, mostly because of their extremely fine condition.
I hope this thread does not degenerate, I am hoping to get a feel for the reasons that create the passion for our collecting choices.
Wolfgang
-
It seems to me like you may need to decide if you're collecting or investing. If investing you should worry about what others think and may think down the road. If you're collecting just get what you like and enjoy them!
-
I started this post more about antique original longrifles, but I guess contemporary work could become a passion because many do represent historical interpretations. http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=19529.msg184658#msg184658
-
Cool, I've been a 17 year full time wannabe. ;D I've always wanted to be a wannabe so my life is now complete. :P : I could build guns with a new finish but It's incredibly boring for me....I'd probably build one gun and quit.
Honestly, build and buy what you like. Find a maker that is established with a name and builds what you like and go with them.
-
I take the history, the culture, the events of the time, the style of firearms of that period and come up with a piece of historical fiction.
To me, gunmaking is an artform, a means of self-expression. It's my time and money, so I'll spend it in a way that pleases me. If you don't like my work, that's OK. Find some that pleases YOU.
I'll also finish my work in a way that fits with the theme.
If you're a collector, then buy what you like. If you're collecting as investment, buy the best your money can buy. The low to mid-grade stuff is not going to appreciate like the quality works by well known makers will.
-
I currently have an "incredibly boring" (his words, not mine) Mike Brooks piece, for sale, in the ALR Classifieds and featured in the Gallery.
So, if anyone is looking for an "incredibly boring" Mike Brooks longrifle... I'm your guy. ;D
If this longrifle turns out to be THE singular, stand-alone, one-of-a-kind, never-to-be-made-again, thought about quitting but wasn't bored enough, at the time "incredibly boring"... (catch me before I have too much time to ponder on this run-on sentence.) :o
-
Artificially aged guns are for wannabes.
They wanna have a used gun but often do not even understand what a used gun REALLY looks like since they look at 220 year old guns OR the aged guns made to look like 220 year old guns. As opposed to one that was used and cared for over 5 or even 50 years. That it was then battered about for 110-150 years in some closet or by its being given to some kid as a toy and it got beat to $#@* in the process well after it was "out of service" is apparently overlooked to ignored.
The guns did not look 200 years old when they were 5-10-20 years old. They would have looked pretty nice unless used very hard or abused.
But battered guns have become a fashion with some must have a "cool" looking beat up rifle, its like like torn blue jeans on a teenager.
As I have stated before in many cases this phenomenon reminds me of the "dog @#$%/!! on a pile of sticks" ceramic "art" I used to see in the pottery/ceramics magazines back when I subscribed to such things. So long as we call it "art" or think its "cool" I guess its not what it really looks like.
Dan
Dan, you have your opinion and that's fine. Personally, I think you are wrong. I hope you agree my opinion is fine as well. ;)
-
I tend to follow Osprey's line of thought. I see a collector as someone who buys what he likes because it feels good to
hold it and look at it and show others what he likes about it and if he's passionate enough about why he likes it, he
may even influence others to like it as well. An investor, buys what he thinks others like and hopes to make a profit on it. Personally, I would rather be the collector and ultimately be surrounded by what I like rather than surrounded by what others like. I really like a contemporary rifle that has warmth and looks like it's 200 years old. Not beat up, but having color variations where there would have been handling wear on the wrist and forearm. Darkened to look like
aged finish. Brand new shiny looking things leave me cold. That's my 2 cents and you can call me any name you like.....online....
-
I just want to be clear, I am a collector and never buy as an investment. I very much hate having to sell anything. For that very reason I want to make certain that I will be happy enough with my purchases to keep them in my collection until my demise.
I also collect antique edged weapons. Over the years I have learned to appreciate and seek out examples with heavy patina, but no abuse. It speaks to the age of the piece.
Contemporary rifles do of course not have a natural heavy patina. While a few of the comments explain why some collectors like the aged rifles, it almost seems that we feel somewhat defensive. I truly wish to hear what you love about aged weapons, so I can look at them and consider a different and very valid point of view. We all have strong feelings about what we collect and make, which is good and as it should be. We also need to respect the choices made fellow collectors.
Wolfgang
-
Contemporary rifles do of course not have a natural heavy patina.
While a few of the comments explain why some collectors like the aged rifles, it almost seems that we feel somewhat defensive.
I truly wish to hear what you love about aged weapons, so I can look at them and consider a different and very valid point of view.
We all have strong feelings about what we collect and make, which is good and as it should be. We also need to respect the choices made fellow collectors.
Wolfgang
A casual observer, to these postings, would acknowledge that 'feelings' are a form of subjective 'intuition,' forming a context wherein there is no negative, no positive and no neutral and cannot be reconciled by observation or reasoning .
If you're looking for an objective set of criteria that you can judge the merits of opposing/contrary opinion against... holding to strict interpretation... well, it just ain't gonna happen. It's like trying (and boy, they do try) to prove a negative.
Without making too fine a point, of it, it would appear that your opinions, on this topic, are as
intransient (related words: abiding, age-long, aged, ancient, antique, chronic, constant, continuing, diuturnal, durable, enduring, evergreen, hardy, immutable, inveterate, lasting, long-lasting, long-lived, long-standing, long-term, longeval, longevous, macrobiotic, of long duration, of long standing, perdurable, perduring, perennial, permanent, perpetual, persistent, persisting, remaining, sempervirent, stable, staying, steadfast, tough, unfading, vital)...
as say, my own. Now that I've included myself, I guess, you could call it a 'finer' point.
This question (your question, actually) presents as a circular exchange of opinion (no facts to be found here,) masquerading (as they always do) as an ascending argument (more introductions = more important) because there is no basis or substantial merit to begin with... it's like climbing stairs to nowhere.
I don't mind the exercise, but aren't you tired yet?
-
No winning this argument. By anyone.
Tho' many will try.......we just can't help ourselves. ;D
-
Silliness. Buy what you want. Make what you want. This is a thread destined to produce heat, but little (if any) light. THAT'S what's boring--in my uninformed opinion. ;)
-
Wolfgang,
I am certain that in no way did you intend for "simple" question to engender the type of responses you received. Understand that we are all passionate about our work or collections.
In an attempt to answer your question, I begin with this simple premise, we see the longrifle and its' accompanying accoutrements as art. Period. So, as art, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I know, a little cliche, but true. The great contemporary makers, many of whom are members of this forum, use aging or distressing as just another tool to achieve their artistic goals. Art should inspire, make one think, or tell a story. Often aging is one of the "brush strokes" that our maker friends use to achieve the aforementioned objectives.
I am a knife maker. I have studied/worked with Frank House for 20 years. He made it VERY clear to me (those of you that know Frank personally know that he can be VERY clear) that aging should be used to provide a feel, and hint at a history of a piece. It should never be used to cover poor workmanship (yes, he directed that toward me). I think we all can agree that he has mastered that technique. I strive for it. I still make shiny pieces, but frankly they just don't have the warmth that the others have in my opinion.
Opinion, a wonderful thing opinion, and thank goodness for it. It provides all of us that do this for a living to have a chance at pleasing someone with our work. I am really glad that we all like a little bit different version of this art form.
I think we all should be happy about that.
Steve Auvenshine
-
Seems to me egos are driving this. Come on lets agree to disagree hug and kiss and make up KIDS.
-
I don't see why this can't be discussed. For example, I think Steve's recent post said a lot. There doesn't have to be a right or wrong. It's good to understand why choices are made and things are done as they are. I think the key to all this, at least at the upper level, is the word "feeling". That's what the really good stuff does. It creates feelings. Makes you imagine things. Causes you to want to run your hands over it and feel the texture. Makes you not want to put it down etc. ..... Building a gun is easy, but trying to make something more is what it's about to myself and many others.
And you can be sure that making something beyond a functional gun doesn't require patina or aging. Take for example a fowling piece by Mark Silver or Monte Mandarino. These might be crisp shiny and new, but can still be something remarkable. Perhaps carving by Wallace Gusler... This work might be finished "as new", but his beautiful designed and sculpted carving with all the facets and texture create something that draws you in. Or it might be a Hershel House rifle. Not necessarily "aged" in a convincing fashion, but something that has tremendous warmth, interest and appeal. There are lots of approaches. Done well, they all can create fantastic results.
Jim
-
Agree 100% this is a good topic. But anyone starting with the request, "Please explain to me (definitively, clearly, quantitatively, until I understand, am satisfied with your explanation, and concur, etc) what you like about aged new guns" is unlikely to be either open or satisfied with the discussion.
-
So how does one represent the Rev-War period with a Rev-War period gun that is aged to the point it would have been in 1840 or 1900? How does this work? This is my issue, not with the aging so much, unless its used to camouflage sloppy work, its that it puts the guns out of context.
Does it look cool? Sure, it can be very appealing if not over done. But its still fantasy. Folks that think its not might want to back off and think about it. There are aged guns that look older than some originals.
Would it be representative for someone explaining life in the 18th c to tourists in costume to have a rifle that looks 200 years old? Or one that represents what the gun looked like when it was 1 or 5 years old be more HC? What would give the more accurate impression for the visiting tourist? Would it be OK for his clothing to be ragged, grossly stained and 1/2 rotted like some of the originals garments now are?
It obvious that some age guns simply as an artistic statement, look what I can do, its different. So be it.
I think people stock guns in ash for the same reason. Its different, I can't see any particular reason to use it otherwise. But thats just me.
So far as amateurish.
This covers a lot of ground where MLing is concerned. A great deal is "amateurish" when compared to the originals or modern firearms.
I see some horribly misshapen guns shown here and on the Contemporary Blog and people who should know better will give these "amateurish" guns accolades. Apparently its not what someone does but where they are located and who knows them that is the key.
People insist on using short lived plastic finishes and modern synthetic dyes and stains that are not really color fast in many cases. What is this? Professional?
Barrels made in an amateurish manner that leaves random scratches running down the bore is another example. Or barrels with large variations in bore diameter. Certainly not professional grade barrel making. But the average ML maker or user does not seem to pay much attention to such things and I dare not put names to it. This has nothing to do with material BTW which is another subject, just workmanship. Barrels that people seem to gleefully accept as "quality" in the ML "world" could not be given to shooters in other disciplines if they had to use them.
Is this "professional"? No. But often its based on the cheapness of the ML BUYER. So its a Catch 22. People want to pay hobby home prices for barrels (for example) so they get a hobby quality barrel.
Dan
-
And I used to think I was a grumpy old curmudgeon..... ;D
-
Mike
You are very amateurish at being a curmudgeon ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Mitch
-
Dan, It took you a while, but you finally made a good point, whether you meant to or not. I too laugh when I see a "reenactor" representing a period 200+ years ago using a gun that appears as if it's been around for 200 years. :D
That's a different thing than the collector who is buying representative pieces because they appear to be well cared for 200 year old antiques. There's a place for everything. Is it a "niche"? Sure. Are there guys building bad ones? Sure, but as you pointed out, there are guys building mishappen guns that appear "new" also.
As far as heaping praise on guns that otherwise don't measure up to historical standards, sometimes it has to be put into context.....new builder making a first or second attempt, old hand trying something out of their box, etc. Critique doesn't always have to be rough.
Barrel interiors? I don't see many guys posting pictures of the interiors of the barrels on their builds here.
Enjoy, J.D.
-
Different strokes for different folks...
-
I think I've said it at least two times previously in this thread alone, but here it goes again. "Aging", patination etc. doesn't have to be representative of the what the real thing would look like. It's okay to many if it doesn't! Sure it's a fantasy. Look at Jud Brennan's amazing work for example. A search on Art and Jan's site will show many examples. With that said, there are a few that have done aging that is convincing. It too can be wonderful.
-
So how does one represent the Rev-War period with a Rev-War period gun that is aged to the point it would have been in 1840 or 1900? How does this work? This is my issue, not with the aging so much, unless its used to camouflage sloppy work, its that it puts the guns out of context.
Does it look cool? Sure, it can be very appealing if not over done. But its still fantasy.
This statement is confusing to me. Why is building a new looking Rev-War rifle, today, any less "fantasy" than building a Rev-War rifle, today, and making it appear as it may have looked in 1840 or 1900? Neither is representative of a "modern" rifle. Both builds would be a "fantasy" look back into the history of a Rev-War period rifle. Some may wish to view the rifle as it came off the makers bench while other prefer to see it as it appeared after years of use. As Art said, different strokes for different folks, nether being wrong in my mind.
Dennis
-
It's possible to know people with different opinions and approaches and not think or say they are fools. In my experience, re-enacting is a small segment of the current longrifle culture, but one that is full of debate and camps. Events range from "rondy's" to juried events, and folks who are sticklers in one area (guns) may be quite uneducated and appear as rubes when it comes to clothing and other material culture (that would be me). And vice versa. Whether or not a re-enactor should use a new looking gun, horn, clothing, etc is up to them. It's their hobby for heaven's sake.
Among those who purchase custom or semi-custom (use your own definitions here) longrifles, are target shooters, hunters, re-enactors, plinkers, and some who are just decorating their homes or purchasing a piece of craftsmanship. It's possible that some makers think they've become the be-all and end-all, the final word, but I have not experienced that. Most just love longrifles and the process of building them, and are striving for that "look" or "feel". There are different ways of achieving their goals and one of them is patination of "aging". Sometimes a label like "aging" can confuse the whole discussion. It's really patination we're talking about in most cases. Patination appeals to many customers; that's the bottom line.
Just try to figure out how well "as new" powder horns sell compared to "aged" ones. Horns I made 30 or 40 years ago aren't even very yellow yet. The "as new" horns of the 70's generally were fantasy pieces scrimmed with art styles never present on originals. Can't tell you how many finely rendered bugling elks I've seen on traders's row back in the day. Were the owners proud of their "as new" white, bugling elk horns? Darn tootin. They pays the money, they get to choose.
-
Here's another way to look at it. When making a longrifle, a person works within some historical context or framework. How rigid or constraining this is depends ultimately on what the builder values and wants to create. I've seen various categories created to label modern made longrifles, but for me this is what it really comes down to. The balance between historical correctness and artistic liberties. Everybody draws the line somewhere.
-
Wolf, You describe what you collect and why, pretty much. So why expand your comments to a facet of this gun building that you find objectionable, namely "distressed" guns. It is an art in itself, and last I heard the government has not mandated that collectors must have a certain number of these in their collection. I will assume that like most collectors, you expect your collection to appreciate in value as time passes. Right now you can find used and brand new "distressed" guns by Mike Brooks that are way under priced in my opinion and some day, I believe, they will be a very high priced, hot ticket item, appreciating in a proportion way beyond the high priced contemporary guns sold today. I would be willing to bet their are more than a few contemporary collectors out there, maybe not as narrow in their thinking as you, that have at least one and probably more of these thoughtfully done and believable "distressed" guns in their collection. Its a pretty big field with a relatively small number of people in it, with plenty of room for everybody.
Robby
-
Just a bit of math...not my strong suit, but the way I total it even if a guy seriously used a brand new contemporary made piece every single Saturday and Sunday come rain or shine, summer winter spring and fall 24/7 trying to "age it naturally"...it would still take him about 7 years to accumulate the "natural" patina of use and abuse one year of actual Rev War field service would have heaped onto a soldiers equipment in just one year...and the rev war lasted for how many years?
So I'm curious, what did an actual rev war piece actually look like by the end of the war?
Or does the appearance of a rev war piece only count at the beginning it?
This isn't exactly an answer to the question about aging stuff ...as has been pointed out I don't think there is one, but it is something I think about every time this topic comes up...
tc
-
Lewis and Clark come to mind. Their guns needed a lot of maintenance including rough, field freshing of the rifling on a 3-year voyage. With all the different conditions and variations in roughness of use and care, it's not possible to say what a gun should have looked like after 1, 2 or 50 years of service. Obviously many were roughly used. That rough usage may have often come after they were old and considered obsolete aned expendable. But I know my father in law's 30-30 barn/pickup truck gun looked pretty bad after 40 years of use/abuse and never experienced 100 rounds a year.
-
I think I've said it at least two times previously in this thread alone, but here it goes again. "Aging", patination etc. doesn't have to be representative of the what the real thing would look like. It's okay to many if it doesn't! Sure it's a fantasy. Look at Jud Brennan's amazing work for example. A search on Art and Jan's site will show many examples. With that said, there are a few that have done aging that is convincing. It too can be wonderful.
And I agree with this post. The look can be enchanting.
However, this does not change what it is. Though "wannabe" may seem an extreme word for it, its actually about as tame as comes up in my face to face conversations on such things. Some are far less kind and not from me.
If its not representative why do it? How far do we stretch it? Would rhinestone studs or crystal beads set in the stock and a plastic Winchester buttplate then be "ok" if someone wanted it to be that way? It would still be art and the shiny stuff would add "bling" so who cares if its "representative"? What is the point of making a non-representative Kentucky rifle? Other than for "Lookee what I did!"
I also see a divide between users and "viewers" in many cases though there is some cross over, its obvious that many rifles are wall hangers. Some apparently cannot abide an unused gun but have no desire to actually use one. Of course this process is far too slow even if used unless the gun is intentionally abused.
For example.
I have a rifle I have hunted with off and on and shot for over 25 years now don't know how many deer I have shot with it and one elk. I gave 2000 for it 25 years ago and drove home laughing. Given my income at the time it was a lot of money. I have a friend who hunted and guided with his as his only rifle for a couple of years after a divorce. Lots of horseback use. Neither rifle looks aged or even has any real "patina". Why? Because its valued and it HAS TO WORK letting it get rusty, letting it get wet so the wood may swell interferes with this. There are some dents or dings but they don't look like rifles people age. For one thing they have not been exposed to 200 years or so of coal smoke chemicals to change the finish.
I know of a third that has killed bunch of deer and elk over the 40+ years since it was made and its even been aged a little by an expert then owner (and confirmed faker) and IT does not look like the aged guns I see here. So I do have a few points of reference.
Two of the three are in this photo. Can anyone pick them out? Which is the "closet queen"?
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FGuild%2520Fair%25202010%2FP1000552.jpg&hash=e28f0d5d3f65235531d777e4d8fc1f6dcf6292dd)
A friend bought a really fine example of a contemporary rifle that was so encrusted with tobacco smoke residue from hanging on a wall that the rather elaborate decoration and engraving was largely obscured. It was not really a rifle when purchased, it was a decoration to hang on the wall and not even bother to wipe off now and then.
Below is a used gun with honest wear for the area it was used in and the finish applied. No way of knowing how long it was in use. But these rifles went away pretty rapidly out here when the "Needle guns", Sharps and Rolling Blocks using 70 or more grains of powder arrived circa 1868-69. 10-20 years maybe? 30? The plains rifles were more effective hunting rifles than the Spencers and early Winchesters. This rifle was surely carried in a cover.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FML%2520Guns%2FDSC03005-1.jpg&hash=c802633335ff3bd07859b6cc08819c12fe8d81e6)
Its finished with a soft brown varnish, at least its reddish-brown now, that really has no checks its just worn off in places. I am not sure rifles with better wood were finished in this manner, however. Knowing what to look for I am sure its a horseback gun though its almost a forgone conclusion seeing the wear pattern is nice confirmation. BTW most "saddle wear" on guns is actually WAGON wear. Wagons eat stock wood. Saddles not so much.
Also trying to determine how much wear is put on a gun in a given period of time in the past is impossible. There are too many factors. Including if the gun/rifle was owned by or issued to the person using it. Rifle covers are known in the rev-war period and these can greatly reduce wear and damage to the gun. I suspect it was more likely the stock would be broken than the finish would turn black.
I tend to look at the rifle as the people who bought the originals would have, I don't want second hand looking new stuff. People back in the day expected something they paid a lot of money for to look good. Aging a rifle is like taking a new car someplace to have the windshield cracked, the paint "keyed", be rusted in the fenders and rocker panels before its taken home so it looks more like the neighbor's 75 Chevelle. Somewhat akin to people letting the INTERIOR of the barrel rust to get the proper "look". Can't have an aged rifle with a clean bore after all...
To me its much like the guy I seen get out of his pickup at the Drive-In in Livingston a couple of years ago. Black fatigues with a collection on military patches and awards sewn on. He wanted to be something he very obviously was not. Wannabe by definition. Didn't pay the dues but wants the "look" or what he THINKS the "look" is.
Nor was it my intention to attack PEOPLE but the CONCEPT, I worded it badly. But I don't know of a word that describes the need for aged guns OTHER than "wannabe" through the efforts of the gunsmith the guns are pretending to be something they are not. This has nothing to do with the skill needed to do the work BTW.
Here is a selection of rifles all by the same maker as the first three. One was made in 1959, one was made in 1963 at least one probably circa 1980. The one made in 1963 has seen a lot of use, killed something like a 150 squirrels, other small game, one deer and won a lot of matches, been recut to a larger caliber, been sold 4-5 times at least after it was no longer the makers personal rifle. Can it be picked out by someone who does not know which was used a lot and others hardly at all? On close inspection maybe but not from this photo. Its more subtle than that. The silver is worn in places, weak engraving. Where is all the black goo in the protected areas? The gun is not old enough to have a blackened finish nor was it exposed to sulfur from burning coal spending most or all its life west of the Mississippi. Few Colonial guns were either. Extensive use of coal in later times is thought to the mechanism for darkening of oil based varnishes. So its likely that prior to widespread use of coal and the steel making that REALLY increased its use there was little to darken the finish. Or so I am told.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi72.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fi199%2FDPhariss%2FGuild%2520Fair%25202010%2FP1000501.jpg&hash=4962604a1688dee147d430f2c10581b196a10615)
To be fair the bottom rifle is the 1959. He told me he used AF on some early guns and it was too acid and he did not know to neutralize.
I am often a little too direct and know I may lack tact in some discussions and tend to say what I think. As a result I tend to stay out of discussions in which it matters not the least what the facts really are but in reality its more about WHO does things and WHO knows WHO than much of anything else. Known people can be guilty of incredible statements but get a pass here with no comment. A lawyer that reads here said about one post "that was really dumb" from a legal/liability standpoint.
Anyway I up and posted part of what I thought here. I screwed up, what can I say?
There are likely 1/2 dozen people who post or read here who have met me that I know of. Where as most of the eastern guys know everyone at least in passing, face to face discussions, with the facial expressions and body language are different than he written word.
People in the inter-mountain west who build Kentucky's tend to be viewed, and even treated, as some undesirable sub-species by some in the east regardless of their work. Frankly ladies and gentlemen its insulting and speaks volumes...When combined with what I have been told by people (one a LONG time attendee) who attend Dixon's it becomes a pattern of, dare I say it? Discrimination perhaps?.
Distasteful? Yeah, but thats how its been found to be by some both east and west. Again I don't know any other way to put it. Maybe "we" should be more accepting of makers and makers organizations in the west.
I could give an example or three but details would possibly identify others who might not want to be involved.
But in the end it comes down to "I wanna do it that way" for what ever reason. Such as "I want a certain look so I use black paint and synthetic dyes and finishes rather than doing it the way it was done back in the day because the stock won't look right done like the originals". ???
Dan
-
What a great thread. Way to deep and intellectual for me. So I'd like to say that new guns should look new and old guns should look old. As far as movie prop guns, they should look.......... uh,,,,,,,,,,,............well, uh, New but used?
Aged new guns seem out of place to me, but I like looking at them and admire the makers talent.
I don't buy pre washed jeans!!
Excellent post, Wolfgang.
Wes
-
Just curious...does this wannabe theory also apply to the restoration of old guns...?
tc
-
Everyone knows that answer, if you're restoring old guns at the drive-in, wearing black prewashed jeans, it's perfectly clear, you can't fix no guns.
There i said it , cause that's just how i am and this is all about ME ;)
-
I like some of the aged guns a lot. Some look like an art project and don't seem "aged" at all, but rather decorated. I like some of the "as new" guns, while others look like Remchesters. I've seen people pant over T/C's and Pedersoli's which I wouldn't give 10 cents for aesthetically. The same goes for overdone rifles such as Bivens, who at least knew what he was doing.
One thing I think aging is being used for is to compensate for the anachronistic standards of perfection that are used for some new guns. It may seem odd, but I generally hate the contemporaries that are perfect in line, flawless in fit, and in all other ways resemble either factory made or, perhaps worse, English Bespoke work. I've seen several times that it is possible to pick out an original from across a room, even if it is hidden in a rack of contemporaries -- the contemporaries have such straight lines where the lines are supposed to be straight and smooth curves elsewhere; the originals are done competently, or well enough, but there are always signs they occurred before the machine age changed our expectations to such uniformity. I don't like sloppy work (although I live with it when I have to, if I made it :)), but producing an American Longrifle in a manner inconsistent with the originals seems disrespectful to me. Anyway, aging is only a symptom of a larger issue in my mind. In the end, however, each should have exactly what he prefers!
PS. I'm wearing baggy pants right now :)!
-
My 2 cents,wanna be's should NOT touch a gun with the intent of restoring! Totalagreement with jrb!
I love this subject! My living,and a rather good one,thank you very much( ;D),was made restoring Antiques for the public and museum's. Creating patina,good patina,is a talent that is developed after years of reasearch and trial and error.
Another thing to remember is,well used gun's were worn OUT. Good parts re-used,worn out stuff re-purposed. how many gun barrel hide scrapers have you seen? Ever wonder how much "Patina" that gun had before the barrel was given to a Squaw as a time saving gift?
(sorry about your class Tim! Should have sent my dough in sooner!)
(I'm wearing PJ'S)
-
I was actually challenging the logic that was used to say that aging a new gun made one a wanna-be...
following that train of thought would also seem to preclude restorations or else relegate them to wanna-be status too...
in the one case the new gun is made older....in the other case the old gun is made newer... ???
to me, both have their place and are often executed by true artists...not wanna-bes' as per the context implied above.
tc
-
To the question of how far things can be pushed or what the limits are... This is difficult to answer. I believe it's safe to say, that those who are most succesful with this stuff have a solid foundation in what was originally done. With this, the limits can be pushed a long ways. Those without the strong foundation find less success in my view. Done well, some pretty crazy stuff could be done, that in my view, couldn't help but to be appreciated. It's hard to fight off appeal.
-
My self, NO interest in an "aged" firearm. I'll put my age and dings on it by myself, thank you very much.
I have to agree with Dan, it's for wannabes. Artificial ageing, not matter how "artistically done has a reverse appeal to me, I think it makes the piece look tacky. $0.02
-
As long as deceptions are not being made,patination can be very attractive,and at times even enhance an item,as long as that's the reason.
A perfect example is the work of one of my favorite artist's,Chuck Burrow's. His stuff if left in brand new condition,while being top drawer in quality and execution,would be rather boring to look at all shinney and new.
Another item is a Trade gun,Northwest gun's specificly,are really enhanced by the addition of some wear patterns and tack's. And I'm sure that even though the Indian's took good care of their firearm's,they more than likley looked a bit used in very short order.
And no matter how hard I try,nothing I own stay's perfect very long! And belive me,I've tried!
I would have one heck of a time adding "patina" to one of Jud Brennan's or Jim Kiblers gun's! Can I get an AMEN!
-
But of course you can....AMEN !
tc
-
Are you kidding? I would love to own one of their guns and be able to put some patina on them. ;D
-
You don't think some of Jim Kibler's guns already have an artificial patina?
Robby
-
I believe Mr Kibler has a knack for applying a finish that invites a closer look. I do not feel there is anything artificial or any attempt at aging in the sense of this discussion. His finishing imparts a very appealing warmth to a gun that aids in achieving an overall harmony. Another who can achieve this is Taylor Sapergia, his finishing and the overall appeal of his work is top tier. When it comes to aging who can beat Louie Parker? His work has a studied affect that imparts a "story" and leaves one wondering at a guns history even though you know it is brand new, all one has to do is apply their imagination while enjoying the obvious craftsmanship. All of these contemporary makers deserve the term artist to my mind and you can bet if I was in the same room with their work I would want to enjoy the visual and tactile pleasure of handling, and learning from, their creations.
dave
-
who out there buys pre-washed jeans? or those retro shirts from old navy or what used to be banana republic back in the 80s? whether its wanna-be or just an appreciation for a little soft warmth from prior use, there is a huge market for aged stuff.
K
-
To me, the whole argument is a little ridiculous as it's all about taste, and as they say, "there's no accounting for it."
If a case can be made against aging guns then it can as easily be made for over finished guns.....even going the extra mile to create "warmth". Finishing a typical American longrifle to appear as if it were turned out in the finest English or French shops is as absurd.....especially the majority of guns produced during war years. A gun finished like that isn't in keeping with the original guns. Is it?
I guess we can make an argument that octagon barrel channels are going too far also. Or how 'bout well inlet lock internals....in the English fashion? And don't dare polish parts that don't show!
Personally, when it comes to emulating early American work, I feel overfinished guns are more unappealing than anything.....some seem dead or lack soul, or worse....manufactured.
If you build, build to YOUR standard or those of your customer. This isn't a guild system. We have no masters to please. For most of us here this is still a hobby. Some people just need to get over themselves and......Enjoy, J.D. ;)
-
Well, I just asked a question without any judgment. I like Jim Kibler's work. The first gun That I remember him posting here DID have an artificial patina in the manner of an oxidized varnish with a lightening in the obvious wear areas. I liked it, and even asked him about it. His work doesn't need any defense from me or anyone else. People should do what they like in the manner that reflects how they see things at the time they are doing it. Things change and so does ones approach toward making anything. People that are so imbedded and dogmatic about how things should be done should also post their work so it can be criticized in a manner which reflects their rutted ideas.
Robby
-
Another master that defies the ages is our own Eric Kettinburg. I have to admit that I have seen a few of his fine rifles and if he had not signed them, I'd swear they were made in the 18th century. I personally found them to be very appealing. I will also admit that IMHO each rifle made is a statement unto itself. Some I like very much and others maybe not so much no matter who the maker is. There is no resting upon the laurels of one's past work. I have known modern gunsmiths who like the early makers had their prime when they produced products that were top of their form. In later years it became evident that poorer eyesight and the pitfalls of ageing caused a degraded form to the fineness of earlier work. This thread reminds me of a class I took way back in highschool. It was called "Music Appreciation". We have been holding class called "Longrifle Appreciation". No one can fail this coarse. :o
-
I will say this......Dan. To completely discount aging, you rule out some of the best contemporary gun builders and artisans in existence today. I get your arguement, but again....I think you are wrong. I appreciate the work and talent of many contemporary builders who incorporate aging into their work. I see aging as a skill just as much as the skill involved in building an architecturally correct rifle.
-
Strictly my opinion and all others are more than welcome to theirs and to pursue whatever they like. Artificially aged guns are an attempt to make them look old, well used etc. This is a purely fictional story. While some may enjoy the appearance and effect, it is a work of pure fiction,. There is not one real or true story that is being told by the patination of a new gun.
It is like painting an exact copy of the Mona Lisa. Very pretty but it is a work of fiction and does not have the stories to tell that being painted by the master and surviving 400 years imparts to the original. That said, few of us could afford the original so an exact copy may be the best we can arrange if we want to gaze on the Mona Lisa daily.
To each his own, I don't think there really is a right or wrong here, and another's choice in this area costs those of opposing views absolutely ZERO. Own your own opinion and follow your heart, but otherwise, live and let live.
-
I'm nobody in this contemporary long rifle world but I have an opinion on the subject and I like the aged look on everything, including guns.
I built a kitchen table to put some antique Windsor chairs under. Should the table look like it was just delivered from "Ethan Allen's"? Nah. I don't think so. However, it does set in a kitchen with a gas range, running water and an electric refrigerator. :/
I don't shoot like I use to (eyes) or camp as primitive as I once did (arthritis) but all my camp stuff has a legitimate "patina" going back only 20 or 30 years. My gun's do too. Painted camp furniture gets knocked around and used hard in all sorts of weather. Guns get bumped up against things while being transported and used. Aging happens. Sometimes it gets a little help. :/
I'm not ready to argue the new/old or wannabe points, I'm not anal about it, I just like what I like.
-
For all of you that have been in this game for few years, have you ever looked at a Herschel House gun? Personally, I have
never seen one I didn't like. I am not a real student of southern guns, but, are his guns a "copy" of a style common to a
particular area in the south? I am asking because I don't know. There is one person that collects good contemporary guns,
he usually has a display of them at the CLA show. He has guns that are pristine, and guns that are made to look old, but,
they are all good guns. He has a desire to own what he feels are great guns, or, as the Pa. dutchman would say "he knows
what good IS". I've been aroound for a few years and have seen so many guns. How many of you can say you sat in Jack
Haugh's shop and held that fabulous wheelock that John Bivins created. I feel honored to know that I was a part of this gun,
we made the barrel from a damascus blank that was pounded out by a guy up in the Poconos section of Pa. I can also recall
a guy from Canada that had a great Alexander Henry rifle that he built, had it in a case and would put white gloves on before
handling it. Just shows, a place for every kind...........Don
-
In my opinion-best answer.
-
Don,
The "Guy from Canada" with the superb Alex Henry copy was the late Ted Girodat
who was one of the finest craftsmen EVER at the guns he undertook.The Henry was one
example,a Rolling Block Creedmoor,a Rhein Schuetzen and an 1877 Sharps was another.
Roger Weir and I were Ted and Donna's house guests in 1987 during an International
Muzzle Loading event at Kitchener,Ontario where the Girodat's lived and we were wined and dined like
old time royalty.Ted's personal gun collection would warp your mind.Unbelieveable is all I can say
and the accouterments and old time ammo was fabulous.He had a cased Gibbs long range muzzle loader that appeared
to be unfired and a Rigby the same condition without the case. I tried to buy it but he didn't want to sell it.We spent the
money later restoring our 110 year old house.
Ted was criticized for making the Alex Henry "too good" by some NMLRA memeber,maybe the club president but to me,
that was sour grapes or the Green Eyed Monster talking.
The late Don Brown was also a house guest along with Roger and I but I will say no more.
Bob Roller
-
Thanks for coming up with that name Bob, his stuff was good, as were the Henry's that Don Brown made. But, on the other
hand it just wouldn't be right to "age" a copy of a great English gun. Mark Silver is also one who likes to do pristine work
and it would be extremely difficult to do a critique of his guns. If I were fortunate enough to win one of these mega million
lotteries I would have a fabulous contemporary gun collection, it would have both kinds of guns, pristine and aged. Ageing
does not make a good gun bad. For many years I owned a super Bob Harn rifle, it was aged as only Bob can do, and it was
a great gun. I never built any really great guns, but I was kind of happy with the "staple" gun I finished early this year, and
am glad it is in good hands..........Don
-
Don,
I can take $600 in parts and make the very best $40 gun ever!
I enjoy woodwork but with locks and triggers to be made for both
our people and now Holland and Germany,I have consigned my
current gun making to "some day,maybe".Like you,if I ever hit a
Megagazillion$ lottery I would certainly try to buy the best contemporary,
and SHOOTABLE rifles I could find.Seeing as I don't play the lotteries,'that too will remain a dream
along with a "J"Duesenberg and Packard "12".
Bob Roller
-
What you like, dislike, is completely personal. You may not get to decide what is right for someone else. This discussion goes back a long time, probably before the Romans, who had this in their repertoire:
De gustibus non est disputandum is a Latin maxim meaning "There is no disputing of tastes"
-
But also, there's no disputing that some have little taste. ;) I look back to when I started and the things I thought were pretty good seem to miss it oftentimes now. But even then, I of course wanted at least a little respect. It's been said here before, but oftentimes we don't realize how little we know.
-
Boy, that's a mouthful Jim!! I more I learn, the more I realize I don't know. It's like a never ending quest...the Holy Grail of rifle smithing.
-
who out there buys pre-washed jeans? or those retro shirts from old navy or what used to be banana republic back in the 80s? whether its wanna-be or just an appreciation for a little soft warmth from prior use, there is a huge market for aged stuff.
K
I used to get new clothes once a year to start school.
In HS there was a dress code. Show dressed like a biker, street ho or a street urchin they sent you home.
I grew up in a different time.
I am wearing a pair of "shop" pants with a tear in the double knee and I do run to the hardware store in them. But if I go to church or shopping the worn stuff stays in the house. I am wearing a shirt that has started to show white at the cuffs etc. Not the old. Its now a shop shirt.
I detest prewashed clothing. Its service life is 1/2-2/3s for the "stone washed" $#@* and paying 30-50 bucks for an item burns me as well.
But like I said I grew up in a different time when mothers would not allow kids out in ragged or dirty clothing since it reflected on the entire family and especially on HER. Patched was OK if they were clean....
Dan
-
From the Field and Stream article on Hershel House: http://www.fieldandstream.com/articles/hunting/2013/04/hershel-house-guns-kentucky-flintlock
When he first started making these guns, “I caught $#*! for it,” he recalls. “People said I was building fakery guns, that a new gun ought to look like a new gun. But I kinda like it, and it turned out that a whole bunch of other folks kind of liked it, too. So I’m glad I never listened to those folks.”
Keyword: 'like'
Focus on what you like, not on what you don't.
-
Focus on what you like, not on what you don't.
Really? I disagree. It's obvious to most that a builder ought to study what he finds appealing - a particular school of rifles, the work of one builder, the color scheme of a rifle that really grabs his attention, a really nifty rear sight, etc. etc. - and just as important (if not more important) to ask himself "Why do I find this appealing?". Asking yourself "why?" can lead to both a greater understanding of your appreciation, and to finding new avenues in the creative process.
But it can also be perhaps equally beneficial for a builder to study that which he does not find appealing, and also to ask himself "why do I NOT like this?" Well worth doing. It can be much easier for us to completely dismiss something that we "don't like" rather than to break it down and find what we individually regard as it's merits and faults.
-
Focus on what you like, not on what you don't.
Really? I disagree. It's obvious to most that a builder ought to study what he finds appealing - a particular school of rifles, the work of one builder, the color scheme of a rifle that really grabs his attention, a really nifty rear sight, etc. etc. - and just as important (if not more important) to ask himself "Why do I find this appealing?". Asking yourself "why?" can lead to both a greater understanding of your appreciation, and to finding new avenues in the creative process.
But it can also be perhaps equally beneficial for a builder to study that which he does not find appealing, and also to ask himself "why do I NOT like this?" Well worth doing. It can be much easier for us to completely dismiss something that we "don't like" rather than to break it down and find what we individually regard as it's merits and faults.
That is a very profound and wise post Ian. It applies to many areas in our lives.
I had hoped for some insights when I started this thread, and have certainly received them. It has helped me to look at collecting with different eyes. I can now appreciate and enjoy some ageing, but still have trouble with the heavy distressed look. But who knows where my tastes will be as I mature as a collector.
Wolfgang
-
Ian, I am agreed that I can learn from what I don't like, and try to figure out why. This would be a good exercise for me. It's the mirror to 'why I like' something. Yin yang, etc.
-
There's work that's excellent, but does not appeal to me. I can still acknowledge and appreciate it's excellence and learn from studying it. I offer the "friendly" amendment that it can also be useful to study that which is not only unappealing because of personal taste but also reflects poor design, execution, or incoherence, to try to understand what about it fails. Then try not to do that (again, if it's my own work that disappoints).