AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: gizamo on March 30, 2016, 01:28:21 AM
-
I have read of many percussion conversions being "reconverted" back to flint. This is done to restore a lock to its original condition.
I wonder if this actually further muddied the water about the guns originality.
Other then do nothing....are there other options?
Such as preserving the percussion conversion lock and associated parts and starting with another similar lock and fitting that to the original gun...without altering the the inletting. This would require fitting a touchole liner to the barrel.
Giz
-
I am sure some of the more knowledgeable collectors on here will inform you that many original percussions have been "reconverted" back to flintlock to help muddy the water.
-
The waters are further muddied by the fairly common use of flint locks being converted to percussion on the original build. The rifle was always percussion in these cases. As I have quoted an old mentor on this site before: Just assume they are all reconversions and you won't get disappointed
I think Okieboy refers to the ones that even the lock was originally percussion. Most anyone would frown on making those into flinters and by far the majority would object to the scenario I describe. When you can not be absolutely sure what the real situation is, you are better off doing nothing It is not terribly unusual to find a rifle that has a replacement lock, possibly in its working life
Then what do you do? I vote for nothing.
-
Don,
I'll second !
Bob
-
“Retroversion” is the term I use to describe an original percussion gun turned into a flintlock. I think they are usually done fraudulently to increase the selling price. That practice does real damage to the historical and study value of an antique. I’m sure a lot of honest collectors are fooled and cheated by this practice. I know, from my own in-hand studies, that some published “flintlock” swivel breech Kentucky rifles that are really “retroversions”.
-
This issue was debated about a couple of months ago and got out of hand resulting in the thread been removed ,I am a strong believer that a gun that is converted from flint to percussion using the drum and nipple principle should stay that way it is part of the history of the gun, converting them back they never look the same.
Feltwad
Save the Drum and Nipple for future Generations
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi79.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj152%2FRamrod_2006%2FP1010009-2.jpg&hash=62a9c6162484bf49e174a0b99f392c55efb6d4e0) (http://s79.photobucket.com/user/Ramrod_2006/media/P1010009-2.jpg.html)
-
I'd agree in most instances guns are best left as they were. The conversion is part of their history, and many of these guns saw more use as percussion guns than flintlocks. However, some full on restorations of high end early guns I find more appealing converted back to flint (not that I can afford them in any condition ::) ).
-
converted from flint to percussion using the drum and nipple principle should stay that way it is part of the history of the gun, converting them back they never look the same.
Feltwad
I understand anyone thinking their converted flint rifle should stay percussion but I also believe that anyone that owns a converted flint and wants it converted back to flint is only adding to the history of the gun. I fail to understand why the history of a gun stops when its converted the first time. Does it not continue as long as the gun exists? Now I do agree that if it can not be re-converted properly where it looks and functions properly it should be left alone.
Dennis
-
Well put Dennis!
-
converted from flint to percussion using the drum and nipple principle should stay that way it is part of the history of the gun, converting them back they never look the same.
Feltwad
I understand anyone thinking their converted flint rifle should stay percussion but I also believe that anyone that owns a converted flint and wants it converted back to flint is only adding to the history of the gun. I fail to understand why the history of a gun stops when its converted the first time. Does it not continue as long as the gun exists? Now I do agree that if it can not be re-converted properly where it looks and functions properly it should be left alone.
Dennis
Well said Dennis!
-
Dennis, that argument could be made if you wanted to poke it full of tacks, wrap it in rawhide, and paint it blue. I only hope that if people reconvert their percussion to flint, they make darn sure it was a flint in the first place, and have it done by somebody that does it right, and don't misrepresent it as a virgin flintlock.
Hungry Horse
-
“Retroversion” is the term I use to describe an original percussion gun turned into a flintlock. I think they are usually done fraudulently to increase the selling price. That practice does real damage to the historical and study value of an antique. I’m sure a lot of honest collectors are fooled and cheated by this practice. I know, from my own in-hand studies, that some published “flintlock” swivel breech Kentucky rifles that are really “retroversions”.
I am guilty of owning such a gun. But frankly....I could never afford to own let alone hunt with a original.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi96.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fl163%2FGizamo1%2FIMAG0783.jpg&hash=6916cba9404eebdb5e22063a3d820aa0d31edbb3) (http://s96.photobucket.com/user/Gizamo1/media/IMAG0783.jpg.html)
-
Heck there are even quite a few percussion guns out there that were built as percussion guns with converted flintlocks and the builder didn't even bother to plug all the holes. Built originally percussion, nevertheless. Maybe the holes were left open so the stock could 'breathe?' ;D ;D
I absolutely hate seeing guns reconverted badly, i.e. using off the shelf replacement parts, especially Siler parts which don't remotely look correct to begin with. However, given the huge variety of castings now available taken directly from original locks, as well as the ability of many to scratch make components, I can't understand why on earth anyone would choose to use stock Siler or L&R etc parts anyway.
A well-reconverted flint is a thing of beauty, however, at least to my eye. IMO, a nice old flint gun that's been converted to percussion is like looking at a great old piece of early American furniture that's been painted hot pink! Ick.
-
I have seen guns where the lock fit was so poor or so out of place that they begged to be replaced. Who knows how some of these locks got on some rifles. They may have been taken out to put on what someone felt was a better gun . Then replace it with one that does not fit . In some of these cases a well done reconversion not only looks better but also increases the value . It will do justice to the maker by making his work whole again. I'm not saying every converted rifle needs to be changed back. There are times when it makes sense. Well, at least I think so.
-
I find myself in absolute agreement with Feltwad. As to the "history" of the gun. It stops with the working life of the gun itself. Its likely that very few converted flintlocks were still in use by the middle of the 19th century... maybe a handful were still in use at end of the Civil War but the ready, and cheap availability of tens of thousands of ex-military rifles probably retires those. Anything done after that is historical vandalism.
-
I understand both sides of the issue very well. I guess I'm more or less in agreement with Eric K's stance. There are some really hideous conversions that were done during the working life of some of these guns. The reconversion argument more or less parallels the whole restoration issue. To each his own. I do sometimes notice a somewhat snobbish attitude towards guns that have been restored, no matter how well they were done. Often those with that attitude wouldn't touch a reconverted gun or one that had been abused during it's working life either. So what's to become of the poor gun? It has no value because it's had it's barrel lopped off or been reconverted. I suppose it should just be trashed. Another piece of history gone!
-
Am working with a gun that had a excellent flint lock plate converted to percussion. ..in a not so excellent manner. And yet, that is the true history of the gun.
In my case, all the original parts can be preserved. Bagged and sealed. The fitting of a new lock....while difficult and costly, seems the best option . The only change is fitting a new 5/16th" liner to the existing percussion hole. Everything else will be made to fit the lock mortise exactly.
-
I have no problem at all with guns in rough condition... most of mine are because generally, that's what I can afford. I will not, however, even look at a reconversion no will I use photos of them in any of the books I work on.
-
If I were fortunate enough to have all original flintlocks, I would be very happy not to own any reconverted rifles. But since I came along so late to collecting Long Rifles I don't have a problem with a properly done reconversion. I have paid a restorer to make a few of mine flintlock again. I did recently trade a couple reconverted guns and a substantial amount of cash for a totally original flintlock. So reconverted guns are worth something. I think it depends a lot on which side of the fence you be. Just my opinion, not trying to be contrary. "God bless the purists, God bless the poor, If I were rich, I would still want more" ;D
-
I lean more to leaving a converted gun alone. I however have no problem with a well done reconversion. It would not stop me from buying a rifle . To me the lock is the least important part of an antique longrifle. Sometimes the reconversions are so bad that the damage has already been done so there is no harm in redoing them .
If there were no pictures of reconverted Kentucky's in books. There would be a lot thinner books.
-
And then there are the re-conversions that are so good that even the "experts" proclaim them to be original flint.
-
I suppose if its impossible to tell... it's what — a perfect forgery? No reconversion is original and no one, no matter how "expert," can possibly know what the gun looked like originally. The best work is, of itself, the worst from a historical perspective because it destroys something that has a history and replaces it with someone's current notion of what may have been. It would be akin to printing fake 18th century books (something I could do were I so minded)... or perhaps forging historical documents to support a particular thesis. Its all quite possible, but is it admirable?
My own experience has been that 99% of reconversions are almost instantly recognizable from a few fundamental mistakes almost everyone who does them make. I'm always amazed by collectors who go on sanctimoniously about preserving the past but feel its perfectly acceptable to alter it when it suits them. Its a reflection of collecting as "competitive acquisition" as opposed to genuine historical interest.
-
I think that's a somewhat harsh assessment. You associate honest restoration with outright fraud. I'm sure that fakery exists and there are those who do indeed prey upon others, but I don't believe that represents the majority of restorers. I think that most proper restoration work is done to right a wrong which has happened in the past. Just because a fine rifle was butchered 150 years ago doesn't mean that it should suffer with that stigma forever. My passion is for flintlock era guns and I enjoy seeing them as they were originally, not as they were bubba'ed by someone who quite obviously had no interest in preserving it for its artistic and/or historic value.
-
Unfortunately what is today referred to as being Bubba'd, probably was cutting edge when some of these guns were reconverted just a few years ago. And to deny a guns history, by reconverting a rough field conversion, born of necessity, back to a pristine flinter, is basically denying the guns genuine history. This is no different that when a genealogist finds that a hundred and fifty years ago someones family tree was purged of it native american, or african american roots. Reconversion falsifies the guns true provenance, and creates a false history through the deletion of the guns life after the flint era.
Hungry Horse
-
I associate reconversion, not gluing a broken wrist back together, with fraud... I don't think intent has much to do with it. While I'll grant most collectors the benefit of the doubt, the result is the same. The historical record is permanently obscured and we now have no remnants of either the original lock parts or of their period alterations. And, if the majority of of restorers don't intend to deceive, why is it so few reconversions are marked as such? I've seen, at best, two out of hundreds of examples.
-
Unfortunately what is today referred to as being Bubba'd, probably was cutting edge when some of these guns were reconverted just a few years ago. And to deny a guns history, by reconverting a rough field conversion, born of necessity, back to a pristine flinter, is basically denying the guns genuine history. This is no different that when a genealogist finds that a hundred and fifty years ago someones family tree was purged of it native american, or african american roots. Reconversion falsifies the guns true provenance, and creates a false history through the deletion of the guns life after the flint era.
Hungry Horse
Well put sir it is the guns history that counts not financial gain that most are done for
Feltwad
-
Interesting discussion and understandable from both sides. In the end though we are only voicing an opinion as to how we proceed with OUR property, not that of others. ;)
-
I see your point, and believe it or not I do somewhat agree with some of what you say. But a heck of a lot of these conversions were absolute butcher jobs. Most times the original parts were discarded at the time of conversion anyway, so I fail to see what parts you think should be preserved. What are your view points on a gun that was converted to cap, but only the drum remains and any hints of the original lock are long gone? Or a stunning carved rifle that has had its lock panel totally obliterated by a grossly over sized and ill fitting hardware lock when it was converted in 1870? State of the art? I think not. If it looks like a dog chances are it will be treated like a dog and eventually end up in the trash, then poof, all of the history and artwork that could have lived on to inspire future generations will forever disappear. ;D
-
Sorry James. I was typing as you were posting. You do make a great point!
-
Enclosed are three images of flintlock guns converted to percussion using different principles which shows the history of the guns , I personally cannot see why guns like these should be reconverted back to flint .
Feltwad
A left hand flintlock converted to percussion by Patrick Liverpool Lady Gunmaker
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi79.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj152%2FRamrod_2006%2FP1010014_zpsxlycvxjr.jpg&hash=5bb4863621d68fa6a40177cd2f21e15b2624dbee) (http://s79.photobucket.com/user/Ramrod_2006/media/P1010014_zpsxlycvxjr.jpg.html)
A lock close up of a flintlock conversion
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi79.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj152%2FRamrod_2006%2FP1010008_zpsac7t7slk.jpg&hash=e655129b3d0e721ba06c3c80c26cee486e01b579) (http://s79.photobucket.com/user/Ramrod_2006/media/P1010008_zpsac7t7slk.jpg.html)
Three flintlock to percussion conversion using the drum and nipple principle
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi79.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj152%2FRamrod_2006%2FP1010006_zpsmyhgbikk.jpg&hash=a68056ba5aa3c40b65d8fe38ad310347088334dc) (http://s79.photobucket.com/user/Ramrod_2006/media/P1010006_zpsmyhgbikk.jpg.html)
-
In the end it is the decision of the owner to determine work done on the property they own at the time they own it. Many rifles and fowlers we admire now have had multiple makeovers. Prime example is the Andreas Albrecht rifle shown as No. 46 in RCA. Using the guidelines of leave as it is due to its history, this should have been either left as it is in RCA, conserved as a percussion or restored as a flint as it was originally built. My personal opinion is that the rifle was very well restored as it could have originally been as made. Again the owner makes the decision on the future of the firearm. Tim
-
Here is what I'm talking about. This Jaeger was literally being broken up for parts when I bought the remainder of it. What you see of the lock is what was left.
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi155.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs316%2Ftheresasink%2FEarly%2520Jaeger%2FEarly%2520Jaeger%2520032_zps2txwsqom.jpg&hash=b9d459e7e3569c4240cd34e4bf858dd89fdd16e4)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi155.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs316%2Ftheresasink%2FEarly%2520Jaeger%2FEarly%2520Jaeger%2520031_zpsms7eaifk.jpg&hash=49243ebc5929ebe5b6a5b94797cde1242a4d4116)
(https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi155.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fs316%2Ftheresasink%2FEarly%2520Jaeger%2FP1120089_zpssof1bkhr.jpg&hash=d78c63d433dacda803120c0ba09f07bb2e3ca27b)
-
In the end it is the decision of the owner to determine work done on the property they own at the time they own it. Many rifles and fowlers we admire now have had multiple makeovers. Prime example is the Andreas Albrecht rifle shown as No. 46 in RCA. Using the guidelines of leave as it is due to its history, this should have been either left as it is in RCA, conserved as a percussion or restored as a flint as it was originally built. My personal opinion is that the rifle was very well restored as it could have originally been as made. Again the owner makes the decision on the future of the firearm. Tim
Well said.
This point can be argued to death, the bottom line is that it doesn't matter what you as an individual thinks, it's up to the current owner. Nobody is proposing fraud or enhancing an old gun. Much like glueing cracks or replacing missing chunks of wood, a well done re-conversion restores the longrifle to its original character. If you own one and want to keep it as a converted percussion rifle, by all means do so. But don't tell me what to do with my rifle, it's none of your business.
-
Ah, yes, apples, and oranges, will always make their way into the debate. I was speaking of complete functional guns, that have been converted from flint, to percussion, and back again. Not total train wrecks, rescued from the scrap heap. The restoration shown is totally amazing, I must admit.
Hungry Horse
-
On the whole I believe in doing as little as possible to these things. I am 100% in the private property camp too. If you own something it's your right to do with it as you please. I do think that flintlocks are just naturally more appealing than percussions, but if a gun has been converted neatly than I would leave it alone. But a hack job or missing the lock, heck, why not try to make it right?
And now a shameless plug for Ron Luckenbill, Lucky R A of forum fame, who did an amazing resurrection of the Jaeger!
-
That he did!
-
I personally cannot see why guns like these should be reconverted back to flint .
Feltwad
I agree and if I owned the gun I would probably make the same decision as you. BUT I know for sure that if I owned that gun and did for some reason pay someone to do a re-conversion on it and later decided to sell it I would never offer it for sale without revealing the re-conversion re-regardless of how good or bad the re-conversion was.
I know that there are many others that would never reveal the restoration unless asked, others that would lie about it. Those kinds of folks have to live with and answer for their own shortcomings.
Dennis
-
This has turned into a very interesting discussion and I just thought I would give a few of my thoughts. Being a student of the Kentucky rifle I have always leaned heavily on the writings of Joe Kindig Jr. I realize that his book is dated and that there has been a lot of new information learned and introduced since 1960, but this subject is not about new facts being presented. I regret that I never got to meet Joe or even had the opportunity to correspond with him. Even so, I have to say that after getting into this study, I feel I can consider him a true mentor to me on the American longrifle. In his own words; "Since imported locks were used on the majority of Kentuckys made after the Revolutionary War, locks are of little or no importance as a detail of any maker's work." I hold Mr. Kindig's opinions in high esteem. He called the percussion conversions done to flintlock rifle's back in the period......"mutilations" I have a bit more to say, but have some chores to do. Hopefully will get back to finish this reply. and
-
I'd like to think we've come a long way in the last 50 or 60 years. Kindig was basically expressing contempt for any aspect he wasn't interested in... if it wasn't made here, it wasn't important. Personally, I find the mechanics of the gun trade more interesting than the nuances of stock carving but it is now virtually impossible to draw any substantive conclusions from surviving long rifles because the overwhelming majority have been fiddled.
We've had a few threads lately bemoaning the lack of new people coming into collecting. I strongly suspect that, aside from the price issue (which may be a red herring), there is also the dramatically increasing interest in all arms collecting in applying to arms the standards common to other areas of antique collecting. One need only look at the forums that deal with collectors of K98k Mausers to find people who decry virtually all "restoration." I doubt there is a single area of collecting where the artifacts have been more fiddled than long rifles and, as such, it is genuinely off putting to collectors looking in from other areas, where this sort of thing is discouraged. Thirty years ago a good friend, perhaps the doyen of Federal period sword collectors, told me he'd like to have a Kentucky rifle (he could afford nearly anything he wanted)... but that he wanted one that was not reconverted or otherwise "improved." He finally bought a converted N. Beyer rifle from a close friend. To my friend, the conversion was the guarantee that the rifle hadn't been messed with.
-
One need only look at the forums that deal with collectors of K98k Mausers to find people who decry virtually all "restoration." I doubt there is a single area of collecting where the artifacts have been more fiddled than long rifles and, as such, it is genuinely off putting to collectors looking in from other areas, where this sort of thing is discouraged. Thirty years ago a good friend, perhaps the doyen of Federal period sword collectors, told me he'd like to have a Kentucky rifle (he could afford nearly anything he wanted)... but that he wanted one that was not reconverted or otherwise "improved." He finally bought a converted N. Beyer rifle from a close friend. To my friend, the conversion was the guarantee that the rifle hadn't been messed with.
I'm not a Mauser collector but I would assume there are thousands to choose from. Your friend had maybe twenty or so N. Beyers to make his choice from. I don't think you can compare the two. Kentuckeys are a different breed. As you say Joe the majority have been fiddled with. They were fiddled with from day one. Most were used and used up! IMO that doesn't take away from there collectability. That's unfortunate but that's the history of the longrifle.
-
Maybe my take on collecting longrifles is different than others. I don't really consider myself the "owner" of the guns in my collection. I am the caretaker of them, and as such, I feel I have a responsibility to preserve as much of their individual history as I can. When I refer to their history, I mean all their history, not just the part that falls into my realm of interest.
Hungry Horse
-
I still maintain that there is a world of difference between changes made during an artifacts working life and those made by latter day collectors in order to enhance their value or appearance. These are simply not the same thing at all. Regardless of how good anyone's research is, it is simply impossible to "KNOW" what something looked like 100 years before any of us were born.
Add to that the notion that knowledge continues to grow. I have handled any number of Long and Short Land Pattern British muskets, "restored" by the experts of 40 years ago, that are identifiable across the room as having the wrong parts. But... many of those are still circulating and still miss leading people. Is that really what collectors should want? There are very good reasons why virtually all museums undertake the absolute minimum to stabilize relics. We simply cannot know what will be learned in the future.
-
Curious.
If I propose to stabilize, preserve, conserve ....bag and tag the parts. Make no changes whatsoever or alterations that can not immediately be restored.
How have I altered or changed the integrity of the original?
The unalterable bastardization (is that a word?) Was done by prior hands.
Restoration involves consideration. In consideration we should give some weight to the original intent. Not alteration
-
We keep calling the conversions from flint to percussion back in the day hack jobs,mutilations, bastardization and such.Keep in mind that back in the day the flintlock became obsolete and was replaced by newer,better technology. For most it was cheaper to get your gun converted than buy a new one.These where tools like a shovel,pick or your mule.Ever up grade any of your own stuff these days?Me personally I would leave the rifle as it is but its your gun do what you want to it but if it's for profit and you plan on not telling a future owner about a reconversion that's another story.
-
I think most conversions were fairly well done... "workmanlike" might be the best term. Regardless, they were done in period in order to prolong the working life of the gun. I actually find some conversions at least as interesting as the original gun might be... I'm thinking of perhaps the only surviving, untampered with, Cookson fowler (dating from the late 17th century) that remained in everyday use so long that it was converted to percussion. I've seen 1st quarter of the 18th century, silver mounted Queen Anne pistols that were skillfully converted — a real testament to the quality of the original work.
-
I always make a new flint lock to replace the percussion conversion lock. If it is a drum and nipple conversion, a vent liner replaces the drum; if it is a rebreech conversion I make a new flint breech. All the original parts are left original so both ignition systems are available for use.
Hen. (in the UK)
-
I like history. When a gun was converted to, and presumably used as, percussion that is part of its history. In my dreadful youth I reconverted a North pistol to flint. Yeah, my workmanship was OK but in the process I discarded that drum, with the metric threads which North used.
If one collects Kentuckies one has little choice, as the larger number of flint rifles have been reconverted. I personally do not like modern castings stuck on my rifle but it does not stop me from buying it, if I can.
I have a fine carved & engraved (attributed) John Haga, done by replacing the original lock with an unused flintlock, like those Dixie had barrels of in thee 1960's. Try not to think of it. Then two flints one of which I believe original (rifle #3, pp83-84 Dillin) the other either original or an excellent reconversion. I don't intend to run any cameras down the bore to check.
I own two flint rifles converted to percussion and not in my lifetime will anyone mess with their locks.
Oh, and my Bodenheimer (attributed) is an early percussion rifle made using a converted flint lock. Waste not, want . . .
Well, that's sporting rifles. Whether or not you like reconversions, that's mostly what you are stuck with these days. Its one reason I like flints converted to percussion, there is an excellent chance that they are for real.
To me, a military rifle or musket is a different matter. They are not works of art, they are 3D history. For myself, reconverting one to flint does not simply lower the value, it absolutely destroys it. I would not own a reconverted musket any longer than it took to sell at a give-away price.
I like hen's approach, I just doubt that it would be done here in the USA