AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: Bill Ebner on September 23, 2016, 04:48:46 PM
-
I just read on another Forum, that current research shows that RCA 19 was made by Andreas Albrecht in 1750 for a Delaware. Is there any published research, or information available that would explain this? I think this is really fascinating.
Thanks,
Bill Ebner
-
Where did you read this? I'd like to see it.
Anyway: recently (within the past few years, I believe, but don't quote me on it) another rifle which is fairly similar to #19, although shorter with some differences, popped up. However the stock work is very similar, and the barrel has the very faint remnants of a signature - or marks which look like they *might* have been part of a signature - which the owner claims are "Albrecht A Bethlm"or something like that, basically the same marking or similar to what is present upon the signed Albrecht lock plate. It is VERY interpretational. Some agree, some do not. The pair were displayed a few years back at the Baltimore show however they were in a glass case and I do not believe (again, AFAIK), anyone else has been permitted to handle or examine them other than the owners and a couple of other individuals involved in the display and publication. They were selling a small publication putting forward this theory that the short rifle (the more recently found piece) was Albrecht's personal rifle, and that #19 was the rifle referred to in the Moravian records (see Lienemann's work) that Albrecht built in @1750ish for the chief of the Shawanos (sp?). The symbolism present upon the #19 engravings was allegedly very personally important to the chief.
The entire 'package,' i.e. the two rifles, the purported signature and the publication laying out the entire theory has been hotly debated in some circles. So currently, depending upon to whom you speak, #19 is either the "chief's rifle" built by Albrecht, or it's not. I'm not sure how much of my own opinion I should interject and it's probably best if those who wish to compare should try to figure out how to arrange a viewing, if they are still being displayed at any upcoming shows, or otherwise perhaps some copies of the publication are still available.
I'm very surprised that good, detailed large resolution photos of the newer (in terms of being found) rifle and the purported signature have not been published or made available, even if a fee was charged. The photos in the little booklet are unfortunately not that detailed. Some seriously detailed photos would go a long, loooooong way toward settling the debate.
-
Any mod out there, this should be moved to Antique Collecting, will probably attract more discussion there.
-
Eric,
Thanks for the information. I was searching previous posts while you were typing. I turned up these 2 that contain some related info.
July 2013
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=27187.0
May 2012
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=21993.0
And, yes, I will move the thread momentarily. Dennis beat me to it.
-Ron
-
Albrecht had a personal rifle? I wonder what the evidence for that might be.
Whatever gunmaker may have produced RCA 19 (even if it was Albrecht), there is no convincing evidence that this was the rifle that Albrecht stocked in summer 1752 for the Shawnee chief.
We know the names of quite a few people for whom Albrecht stocked rifles in the 1750s. Would be quite a feat to link any surviving rifle to one of these people rather than another.
[I've read the "small publication" that Eric refers to, if it's the one called "The Beginning of the Pennsylvania Long Rifle: The Transitional Rifles of J. Andreas Albrecht."]
-
http://frontierfolk.net/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=51421
Here is the link to Frontier Folk, where I first saw this. Thanks for your replies; this discussion is very interesting to me. And to the links to the previous posts on this subject.
Bill
-
The pamphlet that I have (I think the one Eric refers to), says, for instance:
Albrecht's apprentices, mostly drawn from the boys school, would learn the trade in Bethlehem and once learned would move to serve as journeymen in one of the 5 mission gunshops: Nazareth, Gnadenhutten, Gnadenthal, Friedensthal, Christiansbrunn.
Not sure where to start.
A. Nazareth, Gnadenthal, Friedensthal, and Christiansbrunn were not "missions." They were an integrated economy a few miles north of Bethlehem, populated, like Bethlehem, with mostly ethnic Germans and other whites. Gnadenhutten was a mission station (destroyed in 1755). There is no evidence that it ever had a gunsmith, let alone one trained by Albrecht (who did not have any apprentice before 1755). Friedensthal was just a mill; Gnadenthal was a small farming community next to Christiansbrunn.
B. There was never a "gunshop" at Gnadenthal, Gnadenhutten, or Friedensthal. Nazareth had one only after William Henry opened one in 1780.
C. Christiansbrunn of course had a gunshop--but Albrecht's apprentices did not move there as journeymen. They were trained there! When Albrecht was in Bethlehem (1750-1759), he did not have an apprentice. Presumably, any help he needed in the shop came from the locksmiths/blacksmith, since he worked in their building. There was no free-standing gunshop in Bethlehem. He got an apprentice when he moved to Christiansbrunn in 1759 because he could no longer count on such help.
D. None of Albrecht's apprentices when he worked at Christiansbrunn (he had only one: Oerter) or later in Lititz (Weiss, Henry, sort of Levering) ever worked at a mission station. Kliest, the locksmith with whom Albrecht worked in Bethlehem, did work for a time at the Indian town of Shamokin. [Note: Albrecht did have an apprentice before Oerter, Peter Rice, but he didn't last long and went on to another trade.]
E. Most important: the underlying notion/picture that Albrecht was training a fleet of young gunsmiths who then fanned out to populate Moravian missions is entirely inaccurate and incredibly misleading. He wasn't training many gunsmiths/gunstockers; the few he trained didn't work at any missions, ever.
That's just one sentence.
-
Yes, that is the booklet/publication I referenced. Frankly, the booklet is really kind of inconsequential to the debate surrounding the two rifles and it definitely is possessive of errors. What I believe (jmho) is the best way to examine the situation is simply to carefully examine the pieces and then one can reach their own conclusions.
Some of the photos that have been circulating out here in internet land were not to supposed to be circulated, and I'm not really clear on the "why" of that. If one is confident in an attribution or opinion, careful examination by others is not a threat. Good clear photos of the remnants of the signature, without enhancement, should put the matter to rest, correct?
-
Comparing the two rifles could tie both to Albrecht--which I don't dispute at all as I'm no good at deciphering rifles as you and Bob can. But comparing the rifles couldn't tie one to the Shawnee chief (though I guess this would depend on it being Albrecht's: ok, I get it). But, even if the other rifle was by Albrecht, any argument that links it to the Shawnee chief depends, it seems to me, on his understanding of what Albrecht was doing as a gunstocker and on that engraving of the panther on the trigger guard.
-
Yeah, while a valid signature on the one might provide the proof of an Albrecht rifle, and comparison to #19 may then warrant a determination that both were stocked by the same hand, the issue as to whether or not #19 is THE chief's rifle makes for a very interesting theory, but unfortunately an unprovable one without any period description of said piece, or any determinative marking upon #19.
-
I have pictures of. Both rifles side by side, unfortunately I am not permitted to post or share them. Sorry. I HAVE let's few members of this forum see them in a other format though. Maybe they wish to come in? Ernie Cowan(?) In Chambersburg had them for a year in his shop. I believe be has a bench copy of. Both guns are obviously made by the same hand they share about 21 similar features, one being the lock plate fits perfectly in the 19 gun. Andrew Newman did a bit of research in the Moravian archives. He had an article written, but was basically poopooed by a well kwown collectors association.. It seems documentation gets in the way of collectors values and beliefs. I saw this happen when Gladysz was doing his research on the french trade gun book. Andrew Newman is on Facebook. He is a good guy and I'm sure would be happy to answer questions. I've met Ernie a time or two and has pacified my curiosity also. And for what its worth, all the castlings from both guns
.were reproduced and are available from Larry Zorne. As for the sharing of pictures, I'm sent things from different people asking not to share for a variety of reasons. Some being I pending articles or books,owner privacy, or just for personal consumption.
-
One detail that might not be known about #19. The rear sight has been moved forward two times while the lugs have not. The Delaware chief was about 80 when he had the gun built. If we're going off the published info. I know a few more also.....
-
The article that Eric and I mentioned was signed by A. Newman and E. Cowan--so perhaps it's the one that was poo-poohed by some publication?
That article did involve some work in the Moravian Archives--translating some entries from diaries (which, to be honest, were already in print). The author's identification of the Shawnee chief who visited Bethlehem in 1752 as Paxinosa is accurate. And the article involves some other interesting work. But other parts of it are riddled with errors and misleading information, one instance of which I mentioned above.
I can't assess at all the comparison of the two rifles, so I don't want anything I say here to be taken as quarreling with the claim that both are made by the same hand.
But the authors really mess up in their account of Albrecht's career and in their understanding of Moravian gunmaking. Their explanation about why they think one of the rifles was Albrecht's "personal" rifle doesn't really make sense. (It may have been made by him, sure.) And the stuff about the other rifle being Paxinosa's ... pretty shaky.
-
The way I understand it, the Moravians were a communal society, if it was for sale it went to the common collective, personal property was different. Maybe that's why we see few signed guns by Albrecht.? Andrew wrote another article to be published, complete with good pictures. But it never happened.
I say this again, if you're serious, contact Andrew. He might share to people genuinely interested.
-
Right, the Moravians were communal from 1741-62 in Bethlehem and many people believe that, because of this economic arrangement, craftsmen did not sign their work. Possibly true.
But the publication we're talking about makes exactly the opposite argument. It suggests that Albrecht's signature from 1750/51--during the communal period--means that this must be Albrecht's personal rifle.
This makes no sense. Why would Albrecht need to sign his own rifle? We have many, many signed longrifles by many, many makers. In no instance whatsoever does the signature mean that it is a personal rifle: these are rifles that were sold to others. The signature probably functioned, in some sense, as a claim of responsibility for the workmanship. Later, Lancaster gunsmiths were forced to put a mark on their work so barrels that failed, for instance, could be traced back to the owner.
So why, in this instance uniquely, does a signature on the barrel mean that the rifle was the maker's personal property? It is the opposite of everything anybody ever said or thought.
Moreover ... the communal ethos would have made it less likely that Albrecht would have signed a "personal" rifle than one that left the community. And ... we have no indication whatsoever that Albrecht had a personal rifle! Why would he have had one? He did not need one as part of his life in Bethlehem in 1750-51. We have an exact count of all the guns in Bethlehem in 1763, I think--so, yes, later than 1750/51. But there are very few. Almost none are owned "personally." The entire group of single brothers (100+ men, I think, but don't quote me on that) had 8 guns. Presumably, these particular single brothers needed them for their assigned tasks--although it's certainly possible, too, that some had brought them over from Europe, etc.
But there's no reason to even think that Albrecht had a personal rifle or would have ever needed one.
Weird thing is that there's no reason for the author to even suppose this. It's not necessary to their argument that the two rifles are by the same hand or that the other one was Paxinosa's. The twin rifle could have just been one that Albrecht made. There's no need to explain his signature on the barrel ... it's unusual, for sure, but we really have no information about whether Moravian craftsmen signed their work or didn't. The authors of the article state as a fact that artisans were "prohibited" from signing the goods they produced. This is pure fabrication: no such prohibition existed and no evidence of one has ever been found or cited!!
-
I have asked for permission to post pictures. That's all I can do and say for now.
-
I just don't understand all the need for such "secrecy" on a new gun like this popping up. It helps no one. Fat chance some bum from Iowa is ever going to get to see this gun...... :P
-
I can see this is going to get argumentative. I would really like to see 'Tatonka' pop back in as he claimed it was his rifle.
I can't add much more of value here. Far be it from me to question either Scott or Bob when it comes to Moravian research.
I get the theory that #19 is the chief's gun, but what I have not seen is the "proof." I've read the theory, it makes a good story, but again, with no period description of the gun, no signature on it, no marking on it that directly points to Paxinosa, it can't be proved.
Furthermore, the biggest question that has been raised in any discussion I have had re: the more recently found short rifle (@31" barrel) is the validity of the signature, or I should say the very faint markings which are interpreted as the signature and the evidence of heavy rusting or corrosion around/over the barrel and signature that has been removed. I suspect this is why there is so much resistance to accepting the validity of the whole package. Lately I should add, this exact issues has arisen on quite a few other pieces as well, so it's not like this particular rifle is specifically being singled out.
-
Isn't the "secrecy" due to the concern (by the owner) that disagreements (skepticism, suspicion) about the attribution of the rifle will lower its value? I can understand that. Though that is only the owner's concern: everybody else's concern ought to be to give their best, honest assessments of the object and the evidence surrounding its production, distribution, etc.
And, Eric: you've done a lot of superb research yourself! And the research usually just makes theories seem more or less likely. (In some cases, though, research is conclusive: we know when Albrecht had apprentices, who they were, and where they worked.) I would welcome challenges to anything I propose: it forces me to think about things and try to offer good/better claims....
-
That's pretty much always been the concern, probably! Also, I do somewhat understand the concern about photos being dispersed far and wide when there is an intention to publish, as if everyone has the photos, then nobody will buy the book or magazine. We're heading toward all internet publication anyway though if you ask me (which nobody did) so I think that ship has sailed.
Thank you VERY much for the compliment Scott, a compliment like that coming from you means the world to me!
-
Scott / Eric,
A very interesting read, great stuff. Thank you.
Buck
-
Don't thank me, I'm just blabbing a bit. There are others 'out there' who have actually handled directly these two pieces, or own them, who would be more suited to commenting on specifics.
The publication which was put out may still be available?
-
RCA 19 was publicly displayed at the TN KY rifle show in Knoxville Tn this past April. I met the owner a most gracious custodian of this treasure. I not only was able to see all of the rifle but held the rifle and examined it closely. I was encouraged and did remove the patchbox to look into the cavity. Permission was given to photograph the rifle which I did. It was a great experience to hold RCA 19. My first thought was how trim the rifle was compared to my expectations based only on photographs. The barrel was to my recollection thinner and lighter than I expected. I was told there was another rifle possibly by the same hand, but with an octagon barrel instead of the octagon to round barrel on RCA 19. This was never stated as an absolute just a possibility. I am certainly not qualified to comment on the rifles but I can say the owner of RCA 19 was very friendly and courteous and allowed my friends and I to hold a treasure.
-
I agree the connection of RCA 19 to Paxinosa is speculative. It is a most interesting gun to me, and one I would think is a good to strong candidate for being made in the 1750's-1760s timeframe. The furniture is fascinating. Building off the dimensions in Rifles of Colonial America yields a great handling gun. So far my favorite ever to build. After my first build of this gun I purchased the castings sets and they are very good. It was really interesting to see if I had come close with my hand-made buttplate and guard for my build. Pretty darn close.
Let's face it, a lot of the attributions of early rifles are tenuous and based on one person's eye, seeing something that clicks in their mind with something else. Could it be an Albrecht rifle? Sure, why not? He was trained across Europe and could work in many styles. Look at his signed Lititz rifle for example, and compare that to Christians Spring work. Shows an ability to work in different styles. The only value to me if the smooth rifle was strongly attributed to Albrecht would be nailing down a place and timeframe.
I like the current trend that attributions based on bits of data are scrutinized and debated openly. I consider the Paxinosa connection an interesting theory about the guard engraving.
The idea that there is a personal rifle of Albrecht is perhaps a bit weaker.
I love that castings are available. Heard a lock was in the works and need to check if it is out there yet.
-
One of the things that concerns me about the use of the panther engraving to link this rifle to Paxinosa is this: we know of many, many other animal engravings or carvings on early longrifles. Do we assume that the engraving/carving of a dog or a deer (or a lamb--or a griffin!) means that the rifle was the property of an Indian whose "totem" was that animal?
Panthers, by the way, appear in a lot of early American fiction--including Charles Brockden Brown's Edgar Huntly (1798) and James Fenimore Cooper's The Pioneers (1823)--both set in the 1790s Pennsylvania and upstate New York. So they aren't particularly unusual animals...
Scott
-
There are several early rifles with animal figures, for sure. The furniture on RCA 19 may be recycled from one or more earlier guns. I say that because the buttplate is of rifle style with a square toe but has a form on the top extension often found on French smoothbores. Yet the guard is of rifle type. This rifle remains a mystery to me, as do all unsigned early originals.
-
Interestingly -- we know that Bethlehem gunstockers often restocked or repaired rifles using the furniture that a customer--often an Indian--brought with him. So in October 1758 an Indian who arrived at Bethlehem brought “both Lock & furniture” and needed a “new Stock." He arrived with another Indian who had a “Barrell & Lock” and received just a “plain Stock without furniture.”
-
There are several early rifles with animal figures, for sure. The furniture on RCA 19 may be recycled from one or more earlier guns. I say that because the buttplate is of rifle style with a square toe but has a form on the top extension often found on French smoothbores. Yet the guard is of rifle type. This rifle remains a mystery to me, as do all unsigned early originals.
I believe that BP was purpose made for this rifle. It is 5" tall and square toed. Too tall to have been cut off at the bottom and squared up from an old French trade gun BP.
-
Makes sense, Mike. I had to peen the Dickens out of a trade gun buttplate to stretch it long enough on my re-creation of #19. I have a really rounded cross peen hammer good for that kind of thing. The buttplate and guard look good together and could certainly be purpose-made for this gun. If so then that might lean against it being an Albrecht gun, unless, of course, Paxinosa was partial to French trade guns :-) and Albrecht was feeling eager to please. I say may lean against, because it seems the Christians Spring gun smiths normally had several styles of furniture they used over and over. All speculation/hot stove conversation.
-
Interestingly -- we know that Bethlehem gunstockers often restocked or repaired rifles using the furniture that a customer--often an Indian--brought with him. So in October 1758 an Indian who arrived at Bethlehem brought “both Lock & furniture” and needed a “new Stock." He arrived with another Indian who had a “Barrell & Lock” and received just a “plain Stock without furniture.”
In terms of economics, what would one charge an Indian to build or stock up a gun? What sort of goods or money would an Indian have? By today's standards there is the convinience of instant money (credit cards) and that green stuff (cash money) is a standard 'script' accepted everywhere, but step back 200 plus years what would an Indian use to purchase goods or services for such an essential as a gun? It is surely easy to believe such items as foodstuffs were bartered, but I often wonder about this.....after all, nobody does anything to earn a living for free.
-
Let's remember that gun mountings were available via Philadelphia very early on. Most were imports (and some were advertised as "finished") but by the 1750s IIRC there were at least two local founders offering gun furnishings.
Also, we have absolutely no way to determine *when* the furnishings on #19 were engraved. One thing I will say, the engraving on the guard - neither the dog or panther or whatever it is, nor the face on the forward portion, have the "look" of professionally engraved import mountings. Not saying that the mountings can't be imports, because frankly they are more likely to be imports than not, but the engraving certainly does not look like typical European commercial engraving to me.
-
A series of entries in Moravian ledgers proves that in the mid-1750s they were purchasing gun locks and "gun brasses" (and guns themselves).
Regarding payment, how Indians in particular paid, etc.: the Moravian gunstockers/gunsmiths had the unusual luxury of not needing to worry about earning a living. The communal economy (1741-1762: Albrecht, the first gunstocker, arrives only in 1750) ensured everybody food, clothing, housing, medical care, etc., in exchange for their labor. Albrecht was in Christiansbrunn when the communal economy in Bethlehem ended--but it persisted in Christiansbrunn until 1771, so he always worked (until he moved to Lititz) in an economy in which he did not need to worry about "the bottom line." However, to pull his weight he needed to work--and this gets back to the point I made in an earlier post. There wasn't full-time work for a gunstocker in the Moravian communities. So he was assigned to other duties ... and when an additional gunstocker (Beck) arrived (1761), authorities had to find something for him to do or somewhere to send him where a gunstocker's work was needed.
We know that Indians paid, at least in part, in goods rather than cash. In 1750 at Bethlehem, for instance, the gunstocker earned only £0.3.0 (Albrecht had arrived mid-year). But the following year, when most of the work was for Indians, the gunstocker's trade earned £4.3.3½ in cash--and more than £6 worth of venison, deer skins, and butter. So more in trade than in cash.
Most of the work of the gunsmith in Bethlehem throughout the 1750s was for Native Americans. This is why, in our recent article, Bob Lienemann and I propose that "during the 1750s the gunstocker’s activity contributed more to supporting mission work than it did to the General Economy." The Moravians needed a gunstocker to service the Indians' needs (and train the next generation)--but he did not provide an urgent service for the residents of the Moravian community itself such as the shoemaker or the butcher. It's worth noting that when the Moravian settlements needed weapons to defend themselves in the mid-1750s, they purchased them from New York.
Scott
-
Not that it would make any difference....but I'd like to see if that BP was a casting or hammered out of sheet. Sure would say alot about where it was made. French made BP's with a square toe would have been highly unusual. Original French trade gun BP's I have examined are really thin, not enough thickness there to peen out to a square toe. You'll also notice the lack of a pin through the upper finial which you would have with a casting.
It seems Shumway had printed an inventory from one of the early gunshops and it mentioned imported german barrels, but with out specifics. Either of these barrels could have been made in german lands. I have read that # 19's barrel was of lesser quality with inclusions etc. and would not have been suitable quality for export and was therefore American made. I have seen jeager barrels with brazed repairs that looked to be made at the time of manufacture so that kind of shoots down the "too poor of quality for an export theory". At least in my mind.
Fine entertainment. ;D
-
Scott, that info is just awesome.....learn something new everyday. Wonder what everyday life was like back then. These little glimpses of the mundane stuff help knit an interesting picture of what life was like.
-
Scott, that info is just awesome.....learn something new everyday. Wonder what everyday life was like back then. These little glimpses of the mundane stuff help knit an interesting picture of what life was like.
Yeah, it's the best thing about working with Moravian materials: they record so much that you get an incredible glimpse into daily life in the eighteenth century.
-
This has been a fascinating and very educational discussion; thanks for all your comments. I hope that we can continue it now, or in the future as other information may become available. I am really interested in guns of this early period and like some of you have done, plan on building a copy of 19. Reading your opinions of the engraving, barrel, lock and the furniture is priceless.
As an example of the work being done for Indians, William Reichel's book, "Count Zinzendorf and the Indians" mentions an Account of the Brethren, April 1757, work done for an Indian by Daniel Kliest, locksmith:
"To new stocking a rifle gun, new brass mounting for rifle gun, a bullet mold, a screw and a drawer, new boreing the barrel, cleaning the outside, a new trigger, cleaning the lock and 2 screws."
-
FYI, I have been given permission to post the photos that I have of the two guns side by side. I'll also share some other things that I know about the 19 gun. Please be patient.
-
Eric, Scott and Rich, I just sent an email copy of the published essay to you in case you don't have it. If anyone else is interested send me a PM.
-
Thanks for the courtesy Tom, I do have a copy. I would have liked to have posted it here right at the beginning but I'm not clear if the booklets were being sold for a fee or being published free of charge and I did not want to damage any income of the three authors involved, not to mention copyright issues. If any of you know the authors and it is no longer being published, maybe it could be posted here along with the page detailing the dimensions of the short rifle? Would go a long way toward enhancing the discussion for those who have not been aware of the more recently discovered rifle.
-
All the attribution of these superb early rifles hinges on the signature on the newly revealed rifle. Like most really old rifles with a signature, the signature is subject to interpretation. The parts of the brochure associating Paxinosa with RCA 19 are a plausible theory but seems, in the brochure, to be recounted as an eyewitness account.
I hope none of the debate reduces enthusiasm for these fine early rifles. To me, finding a short-barreled rifle with similar architecture and shared furniture lends support to the idea that RCA 19 is in the "very early" category, perhaps pre-dating the Schrit rifle or the Marshall rifle. More in the "tulip rifle" timeframe.
-
I don't think any level of debate detracts from ANY rifle. The surviving pieces can stand alone in their own right, independent of 'story.' In this particular instance, we begin with #19 which many have admired since George first published it back in RCA1. It's a great piece and it fits to a T the image many associate with a very early American rifle/smoothrifle. Then we have a shorter piece turn up, and it does seem to have been stocked by the same hand or at the least in the same shop or to the same pattern. It too is a wonderful early piece in it's own right, and there's really no doubt as to the fact that it is a great early American piece. In fact in some regards conceptually it reminds me very much of mid century German martial rifles and given Albrecht's martial background, this may lend some credence to the possibility that he was responsible for it's stocking. I think the interpretation of the potential markings atop the barrel and the subsequent development of the Paxinosa association with 19 are simply another layer of interest to be added. The two pieces do not need proof of association, nor do either need proof of maker or proof of owner, to be extremely fascinating in their own right.
-
I have now seen the color version of this brochure. Architectural profiles lead me to believe they were built by the same hand. One interesting note, and I'm not sure if I'm getting this clearly from the brochure, but it seems the acorn finial may be a replacement on #19? It may have originally had more of a flame front finial on the TG? If so it sure eases my mind about it's "earlyness". I have always been uncomfortable with that acorn finial, never looked right to me.
-
Mike, had the same concern and changed the finial on my rifle based on 19. Turns out I was right or lucky. I'll take it.
-
No worries Alex!
-
Like Alex, I have discussed these two arms with their owners and researchers over a few years. A friend suggested this thread is a little like arguing about a ghost – we have not seen photos nor has anyone posted a specific position or argument here for debate. A publication and exhibit were developed a few years back, but research and careful recreation of both the smooth rifle and rifle have continued. There may be new and improved info to share at some point. Components are being developed so that we can stock up good versions of each. I am trying to be patient to allow these men who are putting much effort into their work to present their case when ready.
The owners of these great old guns – public or private – usually have considerable investment in time, pride and dollars. I agree that debate does not detract from an old piece. But it can jump the gun on research, hurt feelings, diminish respect, mess with values, interrupt study, etc. Right or wrong, that’s where we are. Debate is fun, informative, but can sometimes push folks and their guns away – where we may not get to see them and add to our understanding. This has happened with a number of collectors and students who no longer post here.
Both the smooth rifle and short rifle are very important early guns, stocked by the same man / shop. Few such examples exist. Archival research is a fine addition to comparing details of profile and decoration. I hope we can support and respect the efforts of those involved, study carefully, and then follow their - or reach our own conclusions. Bob
-
Bob and I have discussed this issue (not the rifles, but the issue he writes about here) many, many times over the years, so he will not be surprised that I feel differently--or that I'm posting my thoughts here! I'd just start by noting that it sounds like this discussion has led to a list member receiving permission to post photos, though they have not been posted yet.
The owner has shown these two guns publicly and written and circulated a publication about them. So specific positions and arguments have been made about them. Bob, you yourself made such an argument/take such a position when you say at the end of your post: "the smooth rifle and short rifle are very important early guns, stocked by the same man / shop." The publication makes several others: one of the rifles was made for Paxinosa, the other is Albrecht's personal rifle, etc.
I understand that the "interests" of the owner(s) and the "interests" of others who want to learn about these guns may not coincide. It is certainly true that, while these guns (or others) are in private hands the owner can choose to do anything he or she wants to do with his property. As Bob says, debate (or the new facts/interpretations in which debate may result) may hurt feelings or "mess with values." My feeling is that, once the owner makes the guns public (by making claims about them, by showing them, by writing publications about them), these concerns must give way to others. In this particular case, the owner has made his conclusions about the guns very clear and published them. If he has agreed to make good photographs of them public, it may be that he is eager to learn more about the guns rather than protect what he already believes. Or, maybe put better, he is confident that learning more about the guns will confirm his account of the guns. So I say: let the debate continue! (Ideally, with new photographs available.)
If one thinks that debate is just fun and entertaining, I can see why one doesn't value it. But if one thinks that debate is the way that you learn the facts or truth about something, it plays a very different role in the process. It's only through debate and research, not through dutiful silence and deference, that one learns new things (facts and possibilities for interpretation).
-
Hi,
As someone who has published frequently in scientific journals, I know this process as a kind of "peer-review". Some handle peer-review well and others do not but it is the surest path to reliable knowledge.
dave
-
By "Fine entertainment" I only meant that the conversation on these guns is very interesting and I'm learning alot of new things....which "entertains" me. Wasn't meant as a negative.
This isn't an "argument" but rather a discussion or maybe a "thinking out loud session". No reason I can see for anybody to get hurt feelings for just discussing the possibilities . I greatly appreciate the people that have contributed to this discussion. There are several other old guns I'd like to have this same kind of discussion about.
Now, what really burned my butt is when everybody decided the Bullard rifle was actually built by Newcomer......now that was annoying! ;)
-
This isn't an "argument" but rather a discussion or maybe a "thinking out loud session". No reason I can see for anybody to get hurt feelings for just discussing the possibilities . I greatly appreciate the people that have contributed to this discussion. There are several other old guns I'd like to have this same kind of discussion about.
Agreed! And I didn't mean, at all, to criticize you (or anybody) for calling this discussion fun or entertaining. It is! I just meant to emphasize that it has another function or result: it helps arrive at the truth, or better interpretations, or new information, or even new facts. I'd think that's why you make things public--to learn more. Showing things just to your like-minded friends is the way to guarantee you just hear what you want ... an echo chamber.
-
I have a couple of pictures of the rifle on my blog under "TN/KY Show" April this year. One shows a different way of doing a wooden patchbox. Since it was a public show, I don't see any reason not to show them. www.bricestultzhisblog.blogspot.com (http://www.bricestultzhisblog.blogspot.com)
-
I have a couple of pictures of the rifle on my blog under "TN/KY Show" April this year. One shows a different way of doing a wooden patchbox. Since it was a public show, I don't see any reason not to show them. www.bricestultzhisblog.blogspot.com (http://www.bricestultzhisblog.blogspot.com)
Thanks for the pics. I have seen box cavities done like that on several Germanic rifles. Always wanted to do one like that but never had the guts. :P
-
Yes, Mike is 100% correct, this was a fairly common way of cutting a wood box mortise and it can be found upon many German martial rifles in particular. To those who have not tried it out, I would *seriously* encourage you to try it. Not only do gouges cut with less effort than flat chisels (imho) but it is much faster and easier to cut a box mortise in this manner.
Re: the discussion revolving around challenges to proffered hypotheses. I am no academic and Prof. Gordon is certainly better placed to comment upon the world of academe than most of us. However, it seems to me that is is *only* within our little bubble of early arms collecting that the concept of 'deference' or lack-of-challenge is considered the norm. Or it used to be, not as much anymore if you ask me. In pretty much any other field of interest and certainly within the academic world, as I have skirted along the edge of it many years past, any theory or hypothesis is almost immediately challenged. Why shouldn't it be? Any postulation ought to be able to stand on its own merits. I think this has been changing primarily due to the near-ubiquitous access to the internet now, and people who previously did not have access to good study of these pieces now can do so via good photography that is nearly instantaneous and free vs. the long drudgery of getting things published in books. Furthermore, some collecting organizations, in order to stay vibrant and so as to avoid the slow withering death of exclusivity, have been a bit more relaxed in admission of new members (as is always necessary, if you ask me, which nobody did…) and "fresh blood" is always a good thing as it carries with it the cleansing breeze of new ideas and the disruption of stagnation.
-
Yit seems to me that is is *only* within our little bubble of early arms collecting that the concept of 'deference' or lack-of-challenge is considered the norm. Or it used to be, not as much anymore if you ask me. In pretty much any other field of interest and certainly within the academic world, as I have skirted along the edge of it many years past, any theory or hypothesis is almost immediately challenged.
Very interesting. I also think that this is the case--and I think it's the case because so many of the objects we study (and admire) are in private hands. If you study early American ceramics--or paintings, or books, or cloth--you're studying objects that, for the most part, are in museums or public collections. Most early American arms remain in private hands. It is fantastic how willing these private owners are to share their objects with others. They are generous to do so. The simple fact that they are still in private hands, though, makes discussion or challenges delicate, because, as Bob said, new research or interpretations may undermine the value of an object that somebody may have purchased at great cost. It's a major complication to "open" research. This doesn't come up when you're writing about a Rembrandt or a minor painter, whose works are in museums. But it is what it is.
I also totally agree that the internet has made this issue almost irrelevant, for better or for worse. The internet has enabled images to circulate widely--but even more so for opinions and interpretations to circulate widely. That door cannot be shut. The days of exclusive access to control opinions about things are just over. Sure, one can refuse to display or exhibit an item--but nowadays even that doesn't stop discussion, speculation, conclusions, etc. This list is an example of the positive results of the free exchange of ideas that the internet has enabled.
-
Thanks for sharing the pictures! Love the patch box detail. Is it known if the patch of cavity of the similar rifle has a similar cavity?
-
Yes, Mike is 100% correct, this was a fairly common way of cutting a wood box mortise and it can be found upon many German martial rifles in particular. To those who have not tried it out, I would *seriously* encourage you to try it. Not only do gouges cut with less effort than flat chisels (imho) but it is much faster and easier to cut a box mortise in this manner.
Re: the discussion revolving around challenges to proffered hypotheses. I am no academic and Prof. Gordon is certainly better placed to comment upon the world of academe than most of us. However, it seems to me that is is *only* within our little bubble of early arms collecting that the concept of 'deference' or lack-of-challenge is considered the norm. Or it used to be, not as much anymore if you ask me. In pretty much any other field of interest and certainly within the academic world, as I have skirted along the edge of it many years past, any theory or hypothesis is almost immediately challenged. Why shouldn't it be? Any postulation ought to be able to stand on its own merits. I think this has been changing primarily due to the near-ubiquitous access to the internet now, and people who previously did not have access to good study of these pieces now can do so via good photography that is nearly instantaneous and free vs. the long drudgery of getting things published in books. Furthermore, some collecting organizations, in order to stay vibrant and so as to avoid the slow withering death of exclusivity, have been a bit more relaxed in admission of new members (as is always necessary, if you ask me, which nobody did…) and "fresh blood" is always a good thing as it carries with it the cleansing breeze of new ideas and the disruption of stagnation.
Eric, I had assumed this box was done with a boring bit drilling out the cavity from the back to the front.....I guess I may be wrong in this case? It seems I have seen german box cavities cut with a boring bit before, the evidence left behind by the mark of the bit on the front face of the box cavity...maybe that was in a parallel universe.... :-\
-
You can do it both ways. I like to use gouges, as if they are thin blade and very sharp, the wood literally melts away like cutting into a bar of soap. I've seen the boring bit evidence too but I prefer to just hog it out with gouges myself. Actually I've seen a couple via pieces I bought through Herman Historica auctions that largely appears to have been bored in through the butt end with a spoon bit, as the forward portion of the cavity was also fairly concave (in other words an inward dome, no evidence of screw auger type w/ blades).
Some may be a combination of both as they are generally (at least those I've seen) tapered from back to front. They may have been hogged out with a spoon bit or auger and then opened up to a larger degree with gouges which have obscured the boring evidence.
-
Interesting. Do you suppose they camped a piece of wood on the side when drilling so as to do a full hole or just placed the bit with part of it hanging outside the wood and bored it?
Sorry to get off subject here guys, I have seen this sort of box for years and finally found somebody that knows something about it and has done it first hand...hard to find this kind of info at times, and thank you Eric for volunteering the info.
-
I have a couple of pictures of the rifle on my blog under "TN/KY Show" April this year. One shows a different way of doing a wooden patchbox. Since it was a public show, I don't see any reason not to show them. www.bricestultzhisblog.blogspot.com (http://www.bricestultzhisblog.blogspot.com)
Thank you for the pictures! No. 19 is a fine looking gun, I would love to see a side-by-side album of it and the other gun that is likely made by the same hand. It will be interesting to read of future developments within the community relating to the history of these two early (smooth) rifles.
At another entry on your blog you claimed that Mike Brooks was a "real person," come now, stop pulling our leg! ;D
dave
-
A man with Iowa tags on his car showed up at sqrldog's house looking for a puppy. Thinking he was homeless we took pity and let him in and fed him. Whereupon, he revealed his true identity, and we had a good chat plus a flintlock show-and-tell. He disappeared a day later. We still wonder if he was real or a fleeting figment of our imagination, but sqrldog came up minus a puppy so he must be real.
-
Thanks for sharing the pictures! Love the patch box detail. Is it known if the patch of cavity of the similar rifle has a similar cavity?
Yes, Rich, the shorter gun has a nearly identical round bottomed butt trap.
Bill Paton
-
Mike, other than seeing some evidence on the forward portion of the cavities, I'm not really sure how this was being accomplished exactly other than my own experiments with it. You can do it with a screw auger bit - carefully - without the need to clamp a piece of wood on the side of the butt, but I don't believe screw auger bits were available pre-1770s (iirc). A forstner bit can do it of course. To use a spoon bit or a spade bit of any kind, if you want to use the bit to set the depth for the floor of the cavity and leave it partially exposed, you've got to clamp a piece of wood.
Of those that I have seen however, I don't think bits of near-mortise size were always being used. I think a hole was bored undersize (completely within the stock) and then the remainder simply hogged out with gouges. Don't get me wrong here - it's not like I've seen huge quantities of boxes done like this, just a few. But they all showed quite a lot of evidence of gouge use and they all were tapered rear to front, which can't be done with a bit alone unless it's a special-made spoon/reaming bit. Have not seen any evidence of this.
-
I have a couple of pictures of the rifle on my blog under "TN/KY Show" April this year. One shows a different way of doing a wooden patchbox. Since it was a public show, I don't see any reason not to show them. www.bricestultzhisblog.blogspot.com (http://www.bricestultzhisblog.blogspot.com)
You got a neat Blog.....really enjoyable. It's now a favorite.
-
Round bottomed butt trap construction.
A jaeger wender signed “IOS REINGRUBER IN ELLWANG” has such a cavity. The front of the cavity is flat, as is the rear surface, which appears to have a mark from a round nosed chisel on the rear surface. The box was not cut from the butt as a photo on this thread shows, but was cut straight in from the side of the stock with about 3/8” wood separating the box cavity from the butt plate. The bottom of the cavity has gouge marks running back to front and front to back. The sides have gouge marks running from the sliding door dove tail down toward the bottom of the cavity, and they undercut the narrow part of the dovetail slightly. There is no taper to the cavity back to front. No attempt appears to have been made to smooth out the gouge marks inside the cavity, although the stock itself is relief carved and finished nicely.
Ellwangen is a town between Stuttgart and Nuremberg in South central Germany a bit East of the Palatinate where so many German immigrants to NY and PA were said to have come from in the early to mid 1700’s.
Der Neue Stockel lists a J B Reingruber in Innsbuck about 1780.
-
Bill, on that one, does the cavity extend all the way to the buttplate or have a ledge of wood between the cavity and the buttplate?
-
It does not go all the way to the butt plate, but has a 3/8” ledge of uncut butt stock wood left in place separating the cavity from the butt plate, as usually seen in patch box cavities.
Bill Paton
-
I've seen them done that way also, and I think it's more common or typical. But these big hogged out cavities are pretty cool when you find them. IIRC, RCA 109 (hope I have the number correct, the cherry stock military looking rifle) has a good cavity cleared out all the way back to the buttplate, but I don't remember now if the mortise floor is dished/gouged or flat. Also I had looked at a super carved Allentown area buttstock that some idiot turned into a lamp that was done like that, cleared to the buttplate and dished floor, and Deshlers rifle was also done like that - cleared to the butt, gouged/dished floor. I'm not really sure if it can be looked at as a regional thing - I don't think so - or more a matter of training and experience.
-
So whatever happened to the photos? This has been probably one of the most interesting threads here in quite some time and it's now stalled. For everyone to continue, and it sure seems like many are eager to do so, we all need to be on the same page.
-
Could somebody who knows Alex E email him directly? It is easy to not keep track of what's going on here in the thread....
-
Gentleman, the photos were only minutes away from being shown on the board the other evening. Literally I was asked last moment not to do it as per the photos owners. A couple things to share though.
The carving on both guns is virtually identical. Top and bottom moldings run the stock/forestock in a European style. The lock plate from the Germanic gun fits the 19 gun perfectly, with the exception of some internals.
A single bowed Germanic triggerguard on the Germanic gun.
And the barrel on th19 gun is quite thick,thick enough to dovetail a front sight in. It looks as it it were to be an octagon barrel and was just rounded from the transition forward.
The Germanic gun looks just like a European civilian arm of the period.
Both patch boxes do have a round bottom as discussed..
There's more but I probably should stop there.
I tried guys! :)
-
Disappointed! ???
-
Myself also. They would have been enjoyed.
-
Not sure I'll ever understand this sort of not-unusual-around-here situation.
-
I'm calling the Sheriff. >:(
-
This thread reminds me of the good ole days here on the ALR! A real learning experience!
-
Just a note...The patch box on the southern rifle called "woodsrunner" was scooped out in similar fashion, with a rounded bottom...The gouge marks are still visible...The back side of the box is seperated from the butt plate by about 3/8 inch of wood, but the overall technique is the same...Very sad photos of these old guns are not being posted, as we all enjoy seeing and discussing pieces of our American heritage.....Dan
-
Aaaaah, the days of perpetual and vigorous debate! We just need more things to argue about.
Of course I get my fill here now with my older daughter when she's home from school on weekends….
-
Maybe we should discuss chainsaws (I'm a husky guy) or maybe glock vs. pretty much everything else, or hahahahahaha sorry I couldn't help myself.
-
Sorry I'm late to the party don't know how I missed this.Hopefully this link works and can add to the disscussion.
Albrecht PDF https://1drv.ms/b/s!AlDaoXr-AqBaiwIiYotPPZQh4n6g (https://1drv.ms/b/s!AlDaoXr-AqBaiwIiYotPPZQh4n6g)
Mitch Yates
-
I wasn't aware that I was doing so many things incorrectly, and held so many wrong opinions, until my kids enlightened me of the errors of my ways. Naturally, they expect that I pay them for this advise ;D
-
Yep, that's the booklet that was put out a couple of years back iirc.
I think most of the 'debate' surrounding the two pieces is going to revolve around the attribution of maker and attribution of maker/owner for #19. Most if not all who have either viewed the two pieces first hand or viewed photos of them (there are better photos 'floating around' as Alex here has noted) will fairly quickly conclude the two pieces are definitely related. I would be surprised of anyone tried to argue that case. the remainder of the hypothesis flows from the markings atop the barrel of the short rifle. The problem here is that it has been heavily corroded and cleaned, and the markings are extremely difficult to make out. So one has to make somewhat of a leap of faith to interpret the marking as indicating Albrecht.
I know that there are technologies that could very likely render the signature more readable without damaging the barrel. I have not researched the variable options extensively because I personally have not as yet needed them, but I know there definitely are options which could examine the disruption of the metal following engraving which would very likely improve the likelihood of an accurate interpretation. Perhaps some metallurgists out there may chime in?
I'd be willing to kick in some $$$. I think it's important enough to want to really ascertain this for certain. If the signature could *conclusively* indicate Albrecht, the Paxinosa theory for #19 becomes a whole lot more believable if not provable.
One question which might arise is, if the short rifle can be proved to be old AA, why sign that and not #19? Especially given that the natives early on could be considered a primary customer. Probably a question that can never be answered.
-
Hey Bob in the woods, I guess you must get a weekly "bill" too? ;D
-
One question which might arise is, if the short rifle can be proved to be old AA, why sign that and not #19? Especially given that the natives early on could be considered a primary customer. Probably a question that can never be answered.
This is a great question--and I'd love to hear a discussion about why researchers think craftsmen signed the barrels (or locks) or whatever generally. I wrote before that, at least in part, a signature served to indicate who was responsible for the work in case something went wrong. Sometimes such signatures or other marks were required in later contracts. So in these cases, the signature doesn't indicate anything about pride in craftsmanship: it's required by external authorities so faults can be traced back to the makers.
It is often said that the lack of signatures on Moravian arms stems from the fact that these arms were built in a communal economy. In my opinion, there is no evidence for this claim. Most hand-made stuff wasn't signed in early America--furniture, for instance, or paintings--and these other craftsmen weren't working in communal economies. There is no evidence that Moravian practice changed after 1762 (when the communal economy changed in Bethlehem) or 1771 (when it changed, sort of, at Christiansbrunn). The Moravian painter John Valentine Haidt didn't sign his history paintings or his portraits before 1762 and he didn't start signing them afterwards (he died in 1780).
The pamphlet to which there is a link above states as fact that signatures were "prohibited" due to the communal economy: again, no such prohibition existed, as far as any evidence has ever been found, and so this is one instance in which the pamphlet states as fact something that is a speculation and, once one explores it a bit, an unlikely one.
-
I would also contribute to a fund to have some modern wizardry attempt to reveal the fuzzy signature. Hundy.
-
So what type of process can be used? I have experience with spectography to determine composition and magna fluxing, but neither would really work here I don't believe. We're not really concerned with the composition of the barrel (spectrographic analysis) and I *think* for magna fluxing to be useful there needs to be an actual crack or something to break the magnetic field. However, I swear I remember reading a few years ago about some type of process which could essentially "view" the structure and determine areas under the graver which had been compressed. Or something like that.
I'm deadly serious, I'd be good for a nice chunk of change.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/scientists-develop-a-technique-to-find-serial-numbers-that-have-been-filed-off/2015/05/11/45e76fce-d489-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html
http://gizmodo.com/electron-microscopes-can-reveal-filed-off-serial-number-1687453836
Maybe something here you could use.
Robby
-
That is EXACTLY what would work.
So who has an electron microscope out in the garage? Anyone? Bueller? :P
-
Can't get a gun barrel into a medical school. Couple years ago I could have got it done on the DL.
-
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/scientists-develop-a-technique-to-find-serial-numbers-that-have-been-filed-off/2015/05/11/45e76fce-d489-11e4-8fce-3941fc548f1c_story.html
http://gizmodo.com/electron-microscopes-can-reveal-filed-off-serial-number-1687453836
Maybe something here you could use.
Robby
I doubt this would work in the case of an engraved signature. The article states the process "determines whether a grain’s crystalline order had been jostled from a violent event such as a blow from a symbol-bearing die or a shot of heat from a laser."
-Ron
-
I would start with simple; a die penetrant inspection.
After that, I would get the barrel under (high) magnification with an NDT specialist experienced in the art of interpreting fatigued surfaces. First let him look without knowing exactly what he's hunting except that it's an engraved "signature", and if that is not productive, then look with an example signature alongside to help look for landmarks.
In the mean time, I would hunt up a university lab with a materials science and archeology department on campus to work up a collaboration to get the gun under a scanning electron microscope. Don't let the gun come under direct unsupervised control of anyone in either department, especially grad students!
-
Would examining the signature area under a different light source, such as ultraviolet, infrared, or other wavelengths, etc., be of benefit?
-
Would examining the signature area under a different light source, such as ultraviolet, infrared, or other wavelengths, etc., be of benefit?
The dye penetrant inspection is conducted under ultraviolet light or white light depending on the indicator type.
After the indicator is developed, every tiny crack, crevice, pit, and machined lap (i.e., from filing) will light up. I don't know how a rusty surface or one with "patina" will appear, likely thousands of tiny little pin points of light. But I bet if there is a pattern to be revealed, it will show up.
The questions to sort through before committing to a gun are whether anything useful can be found without a polished surface, i.e., through rust, and whether the material can be removed with basically solvent and not much else. Experimenting on a junk barrel is the way to go here, maybe one that is engraved and then artificially aged to obscure the engraving.
The cost for the materials for a white light inspection is low, maybe $50. Might be able to get the work done for a six pack at an engine shop or the airport.
Magnetic particle inspection is worth considering, too. Also inexpensive if done at the airport or an engine shop that has the equipment already.
-
There is one problem with these suggestions for closer examination... the owner won't even let photos be posted. Why? Because he doesn't want a critical study to challenge the "facts" that, in his eyes, have already been proven. Everything I've read here about ownership of RCA19 (by the "chief") and the sister rifle (by Albrect) is about as plausible as the fake histories people make up to justify modern "fantasy" rifles.
Our only hope is that these guns are sold to folks more interested in researching the reality and not speculating on fantasy. In the end the only thing that will support the ownership of RCA19 by an indian is provenance, not the meaning of a panther engraved on a trigger guard. Where did RCA19 come from? Is there a chain of ownership that can be determined? Did it originate from a tribal member? What we need is a paper trail.
Examination of the supposed Albrect gun may support that he made this, and possibly both, rifles. But it won't prove he owned either without provenance.
-
The notion that RCA19 was Paxinosa's rifle is an interesting speculation--hinging entirely on the panther engraving (which might signify many things). I think unlikely, but I can see that the evidence might be persuasive.
The notion that Albrecht himself "owned" the other as a "personal rifle" (because he signed it) is, at best, wild speculation and, at worst, just woefully uninformed. There is no evidence or even argument that could make this claim plausible.
-
I really appreciate the sharing of information about the two related rifles, setting aside the conclusions in the pamphlet. With early rifles, there can be a sense that a rifle is a "one off" and certainly RCA 19 was one of those for me with the early furniture including the buttplate choice and the engravings on the guard and buttplate, plus the very simple but effective buttstock carving. It is extremely fortunate that another very closely related rifle has been found and shared. Just when we think they've all been found, something pops up.
If we go further than, "hmm, RCA 19 may not be an Albrecht rifle or even a Christians Spring rifle" does anyone care to speculate where it might have been made? Or with rifles this early without clear offspring carrying similar motifs, is there too little to go on?
Nobody has brought up that most/all of the early Bethlehem/Christians Spring rifles are step-wristed rifles. Clearly Albrecht had the training and exposure to build most anything of the period from his journeyman days in Europe and later built a straight-wristed rifle probably while in Lititz (when in Rome...). Given that RCA 19 is a straight-wristed rifle and that it was likely made before 1770, perhaps well before then (bolstered by the short-barreled twin), that leaves me leaning toward Reading or Lancaster as other possible origins. Initially Reading, perhaps only due to the simple tang carving, but it lacks the sort of pregnant look of some early Reading rifles.
To be clear, I am not dismissing that these 2 rifles could have been made by Albrecht. To me that depends on the signature, obviously much more so than the engravings on the guard and buttplate of RCA 19.