AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: spgordon on December 02, 2019, 11:30:22 PM
-
Hi all:
I am trying to read Wallace Gusler's article "An 18th-Century Moravian Rifle Gun from North Carolina"--which I thought was printed in four issues of Muzzle Blasts in 2005: January, March, July, and November.
I have each of these--but the November 2005 issue ends (as do the previous ones) by referring to "the next article."
SO: Was there a next article? Did the article extend into 2006 issues of Muzzle Blasts?
I've found online a couple of bibliographies of Gusler's articles in Muzzle Blasts and both of them indicate that the article extended only over these four 2005 issues...
Also, semi-related: Eric K, did you take down from your website all of your articles? If so, why?!?!
-
As far as I know, the November 2005 installment was the end of it. There has been some further discussion online here and there although I don't believe Wallace posts much here if at all anymore. There should be some very good archived discussions back around that period (early 2000's).
One very interesting more recent development was the silver mounted restock dated 1785 for John Calhoun in SC that popped up at auction a few years back. Raised some interesting questions and possibilities. As in (imho) Jacob Loesch.
I'd love to re-initiate some discussion of that rifle (42) as, speaking only for myself, my thoughts have changed somewhat.
-
Correction: Colhoun, not Calhoun.
Scott are you familiar with the silver mounted 'restock' I mentioned? I saved the auction pictures and can post. If I understand things correctly, I believe (per Michael Briggs info) that one of the universities down there (SC I assume) bought it because of the John E Colhoun connection, despite the fact that only the furnishings are really the connection.
I had to completely rebuild my website from the ground up as Apple no longer supports iWeb, nor will it run on newer Apple computers. I hadn't been able to update or modify it since @ 2015, so I switched over to Everweb which operates somewhat similarly. I'm currently rebuilding it from scratch and I'm going through and editing/updating the articles before I repost them. Bob's two books are now out so I need to go through and cross-reference the NH County Moravian stuff with his work as well as your own, as you two guys are "the man" in that regard. Thanks for asking!
-
Eric, I am very glad that your articles will be back online and available!
I've seen a photo of that silver patchbox (J. E. Colhoun) in the draft of Michael Briggs's book, yes. The book states that the rifle is at Clemson University.
-
Gentleman, I have had many hours of intelligent conversations with Mr. Gusler. If he believes a Moravian rifle made in NC actually exists or a documented Moravian gunsmith worked there I am in favor of allowing the various suspects to be fully examined and put forth on this forum.
There is one competent and historically knowledgeable collector in the NC Moravian sector who should have a say in the discussion. Do not sell Mr. Gusler short. Present the evidence and begin the documentation and potential. There might be a few surprises. Regards, HIB
-
Hi Henry,
I don't think Scott or Eric were discounting anyone's hypotheses particularly Wallace's. I believe they would love to stimulate this discussion about Moravian gun making in the south again in light of more recent scholarship such as that by Bob Lienemann. I would love to see that discussion happen as well.
dave
-
I just want to read the article! I know nothing about this rifle or the debate about it--so I'm in no position to dispute anything! But I am eager to learn about it, which is why I was asking about the issues in which Mr. Gusler's article appeared.
-
Often, when this particular rifle enters a discussion (either here, or at KRA, or via personal discussions etc.), it leaves a trail of heated debate, occasional insult and quick tempers in its wake. I have no idea why, but it does.
Nobody here is discounting or insulting Wallace. I too have had many interesting discussions with him and have always found him to be both knowledgeable and a gentleman. My sole mention of him a few posts above was a notation that he doesn't post here anymore - or at least, he hasn't in a very long time. I miss a number of guys who no longer post here, including Earl and Gary.
Until a signed Valentine Beck rifle turns up, I would assume that one hypothesis may be politely met with another hypothesis with no insult intended to the original hypothesis. There are multiple theories about where this rifle may have been made, and by whom.
-
There is little Doubt V. Beck made guns in PA and NC. Figuring out which ones were made where is the difficult part. And, are there any signed examples of his work?....it's been a years since I read any Moravian stuff, VERY short memory here...LOL
-
I am not aware of any signed work. His time spent gunstocking in PA was extremely short, perhaps no more than a year or so, and his time spent gunstocking in NC - according to what timeline I've been able to work out via Adelaide Fries translations of the NC records - was also fairly short, as the War interrupted and then he was fairly devoted to pastoral duties after the War. By the time approval was given to resume gun work following the War, Jacob Loesch was operating the shop in Salem. That's how I read the records Fries translated, anyway.
-
I am not aware of any signed work. His time spent gunstocking in PA was extremely short, perhaps no more than a year or so, and his time spent gunstocking in NC - according to what timeline I've been able to work out via Adelaide Fries translations of the NC records - was also fairly short, as the War interrupted and then he was fairly devoted to pastoral duties after the War. By the time approval was given to resume gun work following the War, Jacob Loesch was operating the shop in Salem. That's how I read the records Fries translated, anyway.
Yes, I recall the same. It seems for a trained gunsmith he spent very little time actually making guns. I have wondered if it is actually wise to attribute any existing guns to him....maybe yes but most likely no due to such a small production number.
-
I am not aware of any signed work. His time spent gunstocking in PA was extremely short, perhaps no more than a year or so, and his time spent gunstocking in NC - according to what timeline I've been able to work out via Adelaide Fries translations of the NC records - was also fairly short, as the War interrupted and then he was fairly devoted to pastoral duties after the War. By the time approval was given to resume gun work following the War, Jacob Loesch was operating the shop in Salem. That's how I read the records Fries translated, anyway.
I don't write the following to dispute that Beck produced work in PA and in NC.
But it is worth noting (or arguing, I suppose) that the presence of Valentin Beck and Albrecht and Oerter in Moravian communities in Northampton County, say, in 1763 does not mean that they were all working at stocking guns. There was not enough work for all these men to be laboring in a gunshop. So maybe they all learned from one another? Or maybe it means the opposite: one or more of them were assigned to other work and so were not present in the gunshop at all.
The Moravian system deployed people where skills were needed, and individuals often did not work at trades in which they had been trained. Both Albrecht and William Henry II are examples of this: many years away from a gunshop working at a different trade, Albrecht as an innkeeper, Henry as an architect and joiner. (We know that Henry had to beg authorities to allow him to return, after almost a decade, to the gunmaking business.)
All of this is just to say that the presence of Beck in Northampton County doesn't really tell us much about how much time he spent in the gunshop--and the simultaneous presence of Albrecht (and Oerter) does not mean there was more activity in the gunshop. Unless the demand for repairs or new product changed, some of these men would have been deployed in other trades/occupations/activities.
-
Scott - his lebenslauf states that after traveling to Bethlehem, he "..."...worked at my profession for a while there, then went to Nazareth to serve the children in the Anstalt." As I understand it, partially from piecing together info in his lebenslauf and partially from info Bob provided me years back, it would appear Beck initially filled Albrecht's position as a gunbstocker in Bethlehem when Albrecht went to Nazareth to teach the children, then when the gun shop at CS was completed and Albrecht went there to work, Beck next filled Albrecht's position as a teacher in Nazareth (which he noted also in his lebenslauf as being somewhat unpleasant to him, at least initially). Looking back at his timeline, it would appear that he was only working in Bethlehem "at [his] profession" for a few months before being sent to Nazareth to teach. Whether or not he worked there in any gun stocking/smithing capacity or whether he at any time worked at CS, I couldn't say, but it doesn't seem likely. By 1764, he travels with a bunch of kids to NC. So in reality, while there is some evidence in his own words that he did perform gun work in Bethlehem for a very short period, as you are noting it seems unlikely he did so after being sent to the school at Nazareth shortly thereafter.
-
Eric, right: we know from the lebenslauf that he worked "at his profession" briefly in Bethlehem: Albrecht was already in Christiansbrunn then.
I don't think there is any evidence for the rest of the timeline that you suggest there. Albrecht was gone from Bethlehem for two years before Beck arrived, already working with the children--and, presumably, working also at Christiansbrunn or traveling to Bethlehem to work on gunmaking? How much gunstocking/making was Albrecht doing at this point (i.e., when he was in Christiansbrunn and before Beck arrived)? We have no idea, really, but he must have been managing to do both (mostly working with the children). And there is no evidence at all, at least none that I know of, that when Beck went to Nazareth Hall Albrecht resumed gunmaking--i.e., in 1761. That is entirely speculation. In fact, given that Oerter was at Christiansbrunn as of 1760, presumably Albrecht was persistently involved in some way in gunmaking in these years. We just have no idea what these two men were doing, but there is no reason to believe that they were swapped in and out of Nazareth Hall in the way you describe there.
Imagining these two were being coordinated in some way related to gunstocking assumes that gunstocking was a priority for Moravian authorities, which I don't think it was. They needed people to work with the children and there was little demand for gunstocking. It could easily be that both Albrecht and Beck were primarily working with the children--and that somebody had to scramble to complete some gunmaking work when a need arose.
The gunshop at Christiansbrunn was built--I believe--only when the French and Indian War flared up again in late summer 1763. There is no evidence that there was a plan for a gunshop earlier or that Moravian authorities worried too much about gunmaking--as they did about other trades. There was some talk about setting Beck up in Bethlehem after 1762 as a gunmaker; that didn't happen. They did recognize the value of gunmaking for mission work and so made sure that somebody was training young gunmakers (Oerter).
All of this is to say: we really have no idea about Beck's or Albrecht's gunmaking activities in these years, except that Beck worked a bit in Bethlehem after his arrival in 1761. But we do know that there was not a "position," so to speak, at Nazareth Hall that either Albrecht or Beck occupied and, while one was doing that, the other was gunmaking...
i hope that all made sense.
-
SAs I understand it, partially from piecing together info in his lebenslauf and partially from info Bob provided me years back, it would appear Beck initially filled Albrecht's position as a gunbstocker in Bethlehem when Albrecht went to Nazareth to teach the children, then when the gun shop at CS was completed and Albrecht went there to work, Beck next filled Albrecht's position as a teacher in Nazareth (which he noted also in his lebenslauf as being somewhat unpleasant to him, at least initially).
Maybe a simpler way of putting all this is to say:
Beck couldn't have filled Albrecht's position as gunstocker in Bethlehem when Albrecht went to Nazareth to teach the children--because Albrecht left Bethlehem for Christiansbrunn to teach the children in 1759 and Beck did not arrive until 1761.
And, Beck couldn't have next filled Albrecht's position as a teacher in Nazareth when Albrecht went to work in the gunshop at Christiansbrunn in August 1763--because Beck had been in Christiansbrunn since 1762 and was, since 1762, working with the children.
-
Got it, it does make sense. It's tough to juggle these guys around and try to figure out what they were doing. But we can say that - according to Beck - he worked for a few months in Bethlehem doing something gun-related. We just have no idea how simplistic or involved it may have been.
In NC, I don't believe he could have worked for more than about 10 years before the War broke out, and it remains something of a mystery as to whether or not he ever returned to gun-type work afterward. My interpretation of Fries translations of the records leads me to believe he did not, although he certainly was clashing with Jacob Loesch over the casting of pewter spoons.
-
Maybe I was oversimplifying it? I don't necessarily mean that there were official "positions" but rather in a somewhat severely lineal way of looking at it, Beck did seem to follow along the same path as Albrecht despite others perhaps being in-between so to speak.
Reading his lebenslauf, the guy apparently was quite well-trained with a good breadth of travel within Germany. Despite no surviving signed pieces, one would *assume* he was capable of very high quality stock work. And then they put him with children. It can be difficult for the modern mind to grasp!
-
It can be difficult for the modern mind to grasp!
It is!
Our impulse is to find reasons to believe that these men were working the gunshop, where they belong.
It was told to me with some confidence that after 1762, when "free schooling" supposedly ended for any Moravian child, the enrollments at Nazareth Hall declined precipitously and so Albrecht would have been no longer needed there and could return to the gunshop. It took me a while to dig into the archives to explore this. What I found was that there was no significant decline in enrollments at Nazareth Hall during these years (1761 to 1766, when Albrecht left for the Sun Tavern). In 1761, there were 98 students and 119 individuals in all, including 14 teachers, assigned to Nazareth Hall, while in 1766, there were 85 students and 107 people in all. There were thus only 15 fewer students by 1766, and the staff had actually grown slightly, from 21 in 1761 to 22 in 1766. (In 1763 and 1764, there were 106 students, more than in 1761.)
We want to get these men into the gunshop--but Moravian authorities weren't, it seems, similarly motivated!
-
Hi Scott and Eric,
This is a great discussion. Even reading Lienemann's books you get the impression that the real motivation by the Moravians for any gun making activity was to serve and minister to native Americans. Perhaps, that was a hook to bring missionaries into contact with them. How do you think the Moravians responded to events in 1755 when Braddock's army was crushed? The panic in the colonies was wide spread and even some Quakers were hectored into no longer turning a blind eye to the war. Also if the gun shop at CS was operated intermittently based on discontinuous periods of demand before the Rev War period, how do you think it was maintained so as to not fall into disrepair during slack periods? Was it used for something else during those times?
dave
-
Dave,
The Moravians fortified Bethlehem, Nazareth, and the satellite communities in 1755/56 and again in 1763 when they felt threatened by the collapsing frontier after Braddock's defeat. The erected pallisades and watch towers and distributed guns around the settlements. In 1757 Northampton County officials reported to provincial authorities that five persons at Bethlehem kept an armed “Night Watch” and an additional “44 single men and 25 married . . . have Arms,” while at Christiansbrunn “18 of the Singlemen have arms . . . and frequently go out with some of the Indians, who are paid for that Purpose, in ranging Parties . . . to see that no Indians are lurking about." In 1763, as the Indian war flared up again, Bethlehem’s authorities inventoried the guns on hand: eighty-eight in all, nineteen provincial guns stored in the brothers’ house, forty-one guns with Andreas Weber (steward of the boarding school), eleven guns with the locksmith, nine guns possessed by married men, and eight guns possessed by single brothers. On August 10 authorities assigned people and guns to different locations—the tannery, the waterworks, the stable, the tavern—and established two companies that would have no fixed location but “rather will rush to help where they are most needed.”
It is crucial to realize, though, that these arms were not produced by Moravian gunsmiths: they were purchased from New York. The merchant Dirck Brinkenhoff reported in December 1755 that Moravians in Bethlehem had sent to New York “to purchase some small arms & to borrow as many more as they could.” With “about 60 small arms, 7 or 8 Blunderbusses & 2 Wall-Pieces,” Brinkenhoff added, “they are determined to make a vigorous Defence.”
-
As far as the Christiansbrunn gunshop goes: it is built only in August 1763. Before that, Albrecht and Oerter must have worked in the smithy at Christiansbrunn or in the brothers' house. Anyway, once the gunshop at Christiansbrunn is built and Albrecht has Oerter as an apprentice (as far as we know, he never had an apprentice from 1750-1759 when he was in Bethlehem), there is probably more sustained (though perhaps low level?) activity there. I think (going from memory) that the first "new rifles" appear in inventories in 1764? Before that, stocking a gun seems to have happened only on demand. But the building of the Christiansbrunn gunshop, which (I think) is built only because of the renewal of hostilities, inaugurates a new phase regarding Moravian gunmaking: authorities seem to have made a commitment to generating a small inventory of new products (not just stocking a gun when one happens to be requested by one of the Moravians' trading partners).
-
I think 1763-1764 were extremely eventful in terms of arms availability in NH County. Not only does the CS shop commence operation but likewise Johannes Moll moves from Rockland twp (Berks Co.) to Allentown, very likely to fill the regional vacuum that perhaps the Moravians also were quick to identify.
-
Hi Eric and Scott,
I agree that 1763-64 was a momentous year and it showed how quickly the wall against dangers on the frontier could collapse and those dangers move east. Despite Henry Gladwin's heroic defense of Detroit, Pontiac and his native American allies rolled over the forts like they were mowing grass. Moravians went through panics in 1755, 1763, and then again in 1778 when Joseph Brant and John Butler raided central and eastern PA from NY. I wonder if the gun shop at CS assisted in arming Sullivan's campaign in any way? The troops must have marched past pretty close to Nazareth heading for Wind Gap.
dave
-
BTW Scott, some very useful and interesting information! Thank you for posting it. It's helpful to me as I try to edit all my old stuff and of course I will credit you.
I'd also love this discussion to focus on the rifle (#42) itself as my perspective has changed somewhat since we all first began to debate the issue back in 2005 when Wallace began the MB article string.
I think the J.E. Colhoun restock, dated 1785 w/ silver furnishings, is of great importance. I also have some thoughts about the box and side plate on 42, after having the opportunity to handle and examine the piece on different occasions, which probably are quite contrary to conventional thought (although after a number of private conversations with many here, and elsewhere, they are perhaps not quite so unconventional after all).
-
I wonder if the gun shop at CS assisted in arming Sullivan's campaign in any way? The troops must have marched past pretty close to Nazareth heading for Wind Gap.
Interesting possibility. The only "contract" we know about related to the Christiansbrunn shop was one by which Oerter agreed to supply 500 stand of arms to the state of PA. Traces of this contract appear in the receipt that Walt O'Connor once had (printed in Bob's Moravian Gunmaking I) and one notation in a daybook--and in an 1801 letter from William Henry, who took over the shop when Oerter died in 1777:
I had spent better than three years at Christian Spring . . . where Br. Oerter the former master workman, then myself with four five and some times six hands were employ’d in the work in the finishing 500 stand of Arms for the State and where I had in that time more than one thousand stand [of ] Arms to repair for the U States army, besides various other parts of the Military accoutrements were made, in the midst of war, tumult, and surrounding danger.
I haven't been able to find any mention of this contract in any non-Moravian records (i.e., in the state archives in Harrisburg or the Hist. Soc. of PA). Still looking!
Henry's letter makes it sound like the Christiansbrunn gunshop was swamped trying to manage this contract for 500 stands of arms for the state just at the time that Sullivan's Expedition occurred.
-
Scott is there any possibility that work on PA state arms during the war occurring at CS may have been "funneled" (for lack of a better way to say it) through someone in Bethlehem?
"There were some time ago between two & three hundred old Arms in bad order left at Bethlehem by the Continental Troops passing thro' the Place, & Mr. Okely, who had the care of them, wrote about two months ago that he was putting them into the hands of Workmen to be repaired..."
Board of War to Timothy Matlack, October 18, 1777
(1 PA Archives V, 685)
Who might the "workmen" have been? This does not seem to in any way tie into the work being done over in Allentown by Cowell and Tyler as Cowell dealt with the continental congress directly and there are copious references of this available. While there are many references in the archives to Bethlehem during the period the Brits were occupying Philadelphia, I don't believe I ever have uncovered any reference to arms makers or gunsmiths or whatever actually working on arms in Bethlehem. So who were these Workmen?
-
I don't think I had ever seen this quotation before. I wish I had! Thanks.
I think it is likely that the "Workmen" were the folks at Christiansbrunn, the "four five and some times six hands" that Henry recalled: Henry himself, Weiss, Loesch, Levering, Hantsch. Authorities diverted a lot of labor to the Christiansbrunn gunshop in these years.
Matlack indicates that these were "Continental" arms, not PA state arms. So perhaps they were the arms that Henry referred to when he said that, in addition to the PA contract that Oerter had secured, he (Henry) had after he took over "more than one thousand stand [of ] Arms to repair for the U States army"? Maybe?
So now I want to find that August 1778 letter from John Okely to the Board of War about these arms!
-
This is fascinating guys. Thanks for taking the time and sharing.
Tim C.
-
Hi Eric and Scott,
Thanks to both of you for a lot of great information. Eric, I understand your desire to get back to the rifle in question. I am not trying to change the discussion but it seems to some extent that speculation about Beck and the rifle attributed to him are based mostly on where he worked and for how long. It seems to me that the larger context of what was happening around the Moravian settlements might provide more insight. For example, both of you mention that Beck was at Nazareth during 1761-1764 and I believe, Scott, you said he was teaching school. Prior to that he was in Bethlehem for a few months only. It is unlikely, he could have made the rifle in question then. He goes to Nazareth to teach and while there, Pontiac's rebellion happens. The gun shop at CS might have been affected by that and pushed to produce arms for defense or sale to worried civilians. Is it not plausible despite the surviving documentation Scott mentioned, that Beck was recruited to assist making guns during that period or was the shop oblivious to those external events? The emergency lasted until 1764, when he left for NC. I am not trying to desperately place Beck at CS but Moravian records might not cover every detail and forces acting outside the Moravian bubble might force them to change plans.
dave
-
snip...
It is crucial to realize, though, that these arms were not produced by Moravian gunsmiths: they were purchased from New York. The merchant Dirck Brinkenhoff reported in December 1755 that Moravians in Bethlehem had sent to New York “to purchase some small arms & to borrow as many more as they could.” With “about 60 small arms, 7 or 8 Blunderbusses & 2 Wall-Pieces,” Brinkenhoff added, “they are determined to make a vigorous Defence.”
VERY cool stuff, is there any further info on this purchase or what types of arms these were?
-
Dave: We know that Albrecht, who was assigned to teach in the schools, was also doing some work in the gunshop, so it is certainly possible that Beck--who is 1762 is living at Christiansbrunn and in 1764 living at Nazareth Hall (very close to one another)--could have worked in the Christiansbrunn gunshop.
The Moravians were definitely not oblivious to external events and Christiansbrunn gunshop adjusts to accommodate what were surely demands from the outside during the 1770s. We don't know exactly what motivated the construction of the shop itself in late summer 1763 (though I think it is the Indian war) or exactly what the shop produced and how the shop's products were sold--even whether they were sold to a "general public"--but it certainly is possible that Beck worked in it at times from 1762 to 1764. Just cannot know for sure.
-
snip...
It is crucial to realize, though, that these arms were not produced by Moravian gunsmiths: they were purchased from New York. The merchant Dirck Brinkenhoff reported in December 1755 that Moravians in Bethlehem had sent to New York “to purchase some small arms & to borrow as many more as they could.” With “about 60 small arms, 7 or 8 Blunderbusses & 2 Wall-Pieces,” Brinkenhoff added, “they are determined to make a vigorous Defence.”
VERY cool stuff, is there any further info on this purchase or what types of arms these were?
The Moravians saved a lot, including this invoice describing some of the arms collected in NY and sent to Bethlehem (as well as, on a subsequent page, who contributed $$ to enable this exchange):
(https://i.ibb.co/xCMJW67/IMG-5588.jpg) (https://ibb.co/vwJZpkj)
-
And here's the passport that permitted the guns to be sent.
(https://i.ibb.co/qJY9Mk0/Arms-Transport-Passport-Belcher-29-Dec-1755-a.jpg) (https://ibb.co/FH4Jbgs)
(https://i.ibb.co/tKNp0RM/Arms-Transport-Passport-Belcher-29-Dec-1755-b.jpg) (https://ibb.co/54zhQZW)
-
snip
The Moravians saved a lot, including this invoice describing some of the arms collected in NY and sent to Bethlehem (as well as, on a subsequent page, who contributed $$ to enable this exchange):
(https://i.ibb.co/xCMJW67/IMG-5588.jpg) (https://ibb.co/vwJZpkj)
Mr. Gordon,
WOWSA. Thanks so much, that is pretty spectacular stuff. Interesting to note that they didn't buy in Philly, but given the amount of post Braddock panic and Pennsylvania buying anything that went bang around the same time a scarcity of such in the colony makes total sense.
From "Of Sorts for Provincials" by Mullins
"...Pennsylvania acquired firearms from a dizzying array of sources in 1756 (seventeen total), in quantities as small as two from Leon'd. Melchoir, to the year's largest purchase of 1,500 Fire Arms and fifteen “18 Lbrs” cannon from Barclay & Sons (An Account of Arms and Ammunition 1756: Pennsylvania Archives 1756 page 25). Along with the 4,789 total firearms received that year were 29 cannon, 14 swivels, 710 tomahawks 66 Pistols, 13 wall guns, 68 cutlasses, and ammunition... "
Thanks so much for sharing that info, it made my day!
8)
-
Hmm, wish we knew more about that Leonard Melchior (1714-1777), who arrived in Philadelphia in 1732 and was a merchant. Two summers ago I found this receipt in the Moravian Archives--documenting that in 1770 the Moravians bought five gun barrels and four gun locks from him. (That's his signature in German script on the top image!)
(https://i.ibb.co/WnmGCcK/IMG-1316.jpg) (https://ibb.co/4WhKkjN)
(https://i.ibb.co/TgB9x9m/IMG-1317.jpg) (https://ibb.co/71Jsds2)
-
As an aside to this informative discussion. In 1949 two Seminole burials were discovered and excavated at Payne's Prairie in Florida. Payne's Prairie is located just south of Gainesville, FL. Parts of a rifle were excavated. The butt plate was early, wide and had several bands filed into the butt plate return. The trigger guard recovered was like the one on #42. The rear of the trigger bow was vertical. The side plate looked rather crude in the drawing and the ram rod pipes were ribbed, like on a trade gun. Wallace looked at the pictures and thought the gun was a restock. Some of the artifacts reside in the U of F's artifact collections and others have been misplaced. James Levy
-
I believe Wallace has illustrated some of the hardware found in those burials. Also, I believe the 1785 Colhoun box in silver (not to mention the guard and sideplate) is likewise somehow tied to this rifle (42). If the date on the pre-restocked Colhoun rifle is accurate and original to the time of stocking (i.e., not retroactively engraved) and the original rifle was a product of the Moravians in NC, then I can't see any other way that it (the Calhoun rifle) wasn't a product of Jacob Loesch. Loesch has been described as an "ingenious mechanic" and surely was quite familiar with Oerter's two-piece cast boxes. Are these 'beehive' versions attributable to Loesch's development and potentially carried on - at least initially - by Christopher Vogler?
Meanwhile, before my old website crashed, I had published photos of a buttstock ca 1790 + or - that appeared to have been stocked in the Allentown area and was extensively carved in a manner I believe was consistent with whoever carved #42. The majority of the gun was long gone but the buttstock had been turned into a lamp for a school shop project. This stock was at KRA @ 2006, and a number of use both viewed and photographed it, yet I have never seen any discussion of it despite the fact that I personally find it almost impossible to view it as *not* having been carved by the same guy. It is a remarkable piece of carving.
Trying to put rifle 42 into a specific box has proven to be elusive, and to my way of thinking, has only gotten more complicated as more comparisons are brought to light. The rifle seems to have have one foot firmly planted in PA and one firmly planted in NC. It gives me a headache.
-
At my age, it takes awhile, but I finally caught up to Rifle #42. For a time that piece lived out here in California and it has my finger prints on it, too. It is a truly wonderful rifle and one of the best out there. It is a big gun and appears to be a tad unwieldy, but that is far from the case. That alone makes me thing that it can't be CB product. The carving is splendid, but oddly there is no engraving at a time when engraving would sometimes appear at various place on such superior guns. The side opeming lid to the patch box is unusual and until you get to Bucks County, you don't see the same treatment, and at a later time. The carving appeared to my eye to be quite unique with a prominent plateau around the tang. The cheek rest area carving is bold and extremely well done. As I looked at the style with the opposed whorls I was remined of the later maker George Beck of Western PA, and much later the work of John Sherrry. Too many years of separation, I know, but the Beck connection might be in there somewhere as G. Beck was somewhat early. Call it a visual connection, I guess.
So, I don't have any idea who made it but thought that I would share what I do know about the gun. Wallace may be right on this one as he has been on many others.
Dick
-
Definitely a big gun, Dick, in fact I'm 5'10" plus a hair and I think it likely was made for someone bigger. Shoulders very nicely though, and despite the size and weight, it's shapely and extremely well-stocked.
Interesting that you mention the "unusual" nature of the box. As time has gone by, I too think the box seems more and more unusual. It's a very stark contrast to the exceptional nature of the stocking and carving, and while the buttplate, pipes and guard are finely filed and shaped, then you have this somewhat awkward and frankly amateurish box (not to mention the somewhat jerry rigged spring setup which interferes with the usefulness of the mortise) and very plain, 'slabby' sideplate on the gun.
On thing I'll say as delicately as possible - that is one huge, honking big hole in the stock as a box mortise. Looking at the much more competent two-piece self-contained "beehive" boxes that apparently were in use by 1785 (Colhoun rifle) if not earlier, the box and mortise on 42 would completely swallow one of those including the mounting screws...
-
Eric, seems to me that I once heard that the lid might have been replaced. Don't know, but it didn't impress me that it was. Curiously, at a time not too far removed from when #42 lived in CA, the much celebrated Oerter 'Marshall' rifle spent some time in the far west. I was fortunate to get to see it often. And, it too is a wonderful rifle, in a superlative condition when found. But, it is a big, clunky gun in my opinion and somewhat awkward to handle. Of the two I think that I like the 'mystery' rifle the best. Perhaps, some more investigation into the early Beck and his family might reveal something.
-
The issue of whether the box is a replacement is too 'political' for lack of a better way to put it to have a genuinely honest discussion about the concept. I already feel like walking on eggshells as it is, and I have no financial interest in the piece whatsoever! As you know, this is not any "mere" 10K or 20K rifle.
I would challenge anyone to tell me how - if the box was replaced early in it's life, say 20 years in or so - one would be able to determine it was not original. The enlarged mortise, the box, everything about it would be aged equally with the remainder of the rifle unless it was done by a total hack.
Just to be even more contrary, I have lately been thinking that perhaps the rifle is not quite as early as we may otherwise tend to believe, but may simply be a very conservatively stocked piece. The step-wrist design persisted well beyond the War in various areas. Simply using the brass barreled rifle as an example, if the 1771 date marked inside that box is original to time of stocking, that's probably 10 to 20 years later than the overall style of the stock architecture via 'conventional' thought.
-
In rereading the Shumway information regarding #42, I note that George raised the issue for some reason. The owner and I spoke about that and saw nothing that suggested to us that it had ever been tampered with. If replaced it may have been done scores of years ago. The mortise, the hinge, the interlor of the lid, with all the attendant dust and such, plus the dings and dents on the lid exterior appeared to us to be consistent with the condition of the rest of the rifle. Another highly knowledgeable individual who also examined the rifle came to the same conclusion. The gun seems to be in original 'as found' condition and that may argue against any repairs of whatever type.
You could be correct as to the actual time of when it was made. Not at all impossible that it could have been made sometime later than what we theorize. Everything about it, however seemed to be consistent with the earlier genre of rifles. So, I guess that it will remain the 'mistery
rifle.'
-
If replaced it may have been done scores of years ago. The mortise, the hinge, the interlor of the lid, with all the attendant dust and such, plus the dings and dents on the lid exterior appeared to us to be consistent with the condition of the rest of the rifle.
I agree 100%, I'm definitely not saying that it potentially may be a more recent replacement. Regardless, I'm not going to belabor the point because there's no way to prove it either way. As you note, for the present time the piece is a mystery!
-
No reason to believe it has to be earlier than the Isaac Berlin stepped wrist rifle or the Leyendecker patchbox, is there?
-
I built the Chambers E. M. kit, and have used it in the woods extensively. I do like it, but I agree that it doesn't "fit" me as well as some other rifles . I honestly wish that they offered a No. 42 , since I truly prefer it. It just looks like it would jump to your shoulder and should be out hunting .
-
Very interesting! I found the Marshall rifle to fit me like a glove, while 42 (to me) felt very muzzle heavy and just really "big" overall, despite the Marshall gun being bigger through the butt and wrist.
The 'fantastically carved' Issac Berlin rifles can't really date earlier than the early 1770s, given his age, and yes the Leyendecher box is dated 1771. That box is similar, but different to 42 in that the Leyendecher box appears to be a fairly substantial casting while 42 - while potentially being planished, cast sheet - is much thinner. Just an opinion, but I would tend to view the Leyendecher box as earlier based solely on substance alone, but that's probably not a fair assessment as during that period it certainly appears brass boxes were in their infancy and who knows what kind of curious developments were underway.
-
Very interesting ,indeed ! This really shows the differences in "fit " re firearms. I'm 6 ft 3 inches tall. Chambers N.E. fowling gun fits me perfectly. A bespoke gun wouldn't be any better.
-
I have enjoyed reading the many posts and responses on this topic for the last week. Most of you know that I have spent the last two years writing an upcoming book on the Moravian gunsmiths who worked in the Wachovia Tract. During this time I have had many interesting discussions on the work of these early gunsmiths in North Carolina with people I think are very knowledgeable on the subject at hand.
I have learned there are several competing theories on who made RCA #42, and where it was made. The more I learn, the more questions I have, and the less I know for sure. (laughs)
Eric Kettenburg and Steve Hench (who once owned the rifle) both believe the rifle was made in Pennsylvania.
Wallace Gusler believes it was made in North Carolina by John Valentine Beck.
Mel Hankla and Frank House were kind enough to provide me a copy of their unpublished manuscript "Origins." In this they examine the early important rifles made and used in the Cumberland Gap region of Tennessee and Kentucky, made by Thomas Simpson and Jacob Young, were based on techniques that both men learned working in Rowan County, N.C., before they moved west. Their theory is these gunsmiths were influenced by Andreas Betz, who moved to Rowan County in 1767, after he married Barbara Bruner, (daughter of Rowan gunsmith Henrig Bruner.) Betz was the first locksmith/gunsmith sent down to the Wachovia Tract by the Moravian's. He arrived in Bethabara in 1754. Hankla & House (sounds like a law firm) have put forth the theory that Andreas Betz was the maker of RCA #42.
So, who is right? I have no idea. A rifle would both need to be signed and dated to know for sure who made it, and where.
The fact is Andreas Betz worked in Pennsylvania and North Carolina, but there is no documentation he was trained as a gun stocker. The same goes for Joseph Muller. Both primarily worked as lock-smiths repairing rifles during their time in Wachovia. Betz did open a gun shop in Salisbury after he moved there in 1767, and did train his younger brother George Betz and orphan Peter Crouse as gunsmiths in Rowan.
John Valentine Beck was trained as a gunsmith in Germany, and worked in that trade in Pennsylvania, before moving to Wachovia. He was the master gunsmith from 1764 to 1775, when the gun shop closed due to the Revolution.
Jacob Loesch, Jr. was born in Wachovia, moved to Pennsylvania as a child with his family, trained as a gunsmith there, became master gunsmith at Christian's Spring, and then moved to Salem, North Carolina on December 18, 1781. He arrived to find the gun shop was still closed and was not allowed to open it until March 1783. On August 25, 1784, Christoph Vogler was bound to him as an apprentice for a term of five years. Loesch did not fit in well in Salem and was asked to leave the town and congregation on May 1, 1787.
It is unfortunate there are no signed rifles that still exist by Andreas Betz, Joseph Muller, John Valentine Beck, or Jacob Loesch, Jr. We are lucky the Moravian's were such great record keepers so we do know a lot about their early years in this state and their trade system.
We are also blessed to have many wonderful eagle patchbox rifles made by Christoph Vogler and the other members of his extended family who worked in Salem and Salisbury making ornate longrifles.
It is my plan that my new book, "The Longrifle Makers of the Salem School" will be in print in the next three months. I have photographed 66 Salem School rifles and 12 additional rifles that were made by gunsmiths in neighboring schools who were influenced by the Vogler's.
Thanks,
Michael Briggs
(https://i.ibb.co/87XXGYv/Salem-School-Cover-Front.jpg) (https://ibb.co/XCVV6Y0)