AmericanLongRifles Forums
General discussion => Antique Gun Collecting => Topic started by: Eric Kettenburg on November 18, 2021, 08:45:24 PM
-
So for those who may be interested in some background information on Johannes "John" Rupp of Macungie (at the time, Northampton Co.) - I'm talking about the elder man who was a brother of Herman Rupp, not their nephew John who also was a later gunsmith - I've got a preliminary write-up. I expect it to be a work-in-progress and I WELCOME any additional documentation. I also do not claim to be a professional writer and it's been 30 years since I had to worry about appropriate format so go easy on me (Scott ;D ). Take a look if you're interested, it's a loooooooong read. Did the best I could at the present time.
http://erickettenburg.com/johannes-rupp.html (http://erickettenburg.com/johannes-rupp.html)
(https://i.ibb.co/v3Bt0vc/IMG-6047.jpg) (https://ibb.co/K2G1Tz5)
-
Great work Eric. I always liked this rifle, and you have nailed the history as to clearly put these pieces as post war. Do you believe the Molls were also post war builders?
-
Johannes Moll was definitely as pre-War gunsmith. He had a 50 acre property and shop in Rockland township, Berks Co. by 1752, if not earlier, right next to the Angstadt farm. He sold that and moved to Allentown in the early 1760s and he was noted as "Johannes Moll...Gunsmith" in that document, which Dave Madary turned up a few years back in Berks Co. paperwork. If you look at his estate inventory when he died, he had a very substantial operation (post War) that his son John II took over. The most difficult thing, to my mind, is determining which one of the two stocked up the surviving "John Moll" signed rifles. The earliest of them are fairly stout, much like the Kindig Rupp, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were stocked by the older man. Frankly, it's currently impossible to prove that Johannes - old John - was signing his rifles as "John Moll." He was noted as "John" in Northampton tax documents, but he was noted as "Johannes" in the Berks documents. He likely used both interchangeably depending upon who he was dealing with, but if he used "John" on the rifles is still unknown. I have seen two restocked guns with barrels marked "IOHANNES : MOLL" in very large inlaid, chiseled letters, much like Oerter's work, but the associated furnishings on those rifles was identical to what is on the earlier John Moll-signed rifles. Also one had a recycled silver liberty head inlay, clearly an old inlay, which I would expect only on a post-War gun, which would lead me to believe that Johannes was still working at least through the 1780s until his son came of age. This could make sense I suppose since his son took over after his death and likely was using - at least initially - the same castings.
-
Interesting stuff! Thanks for sharing.
-
It’s very interesting to me that we see masterful gunsmiths who largely escape the public record, at least as far as their gun making is concerned. Of course, deeds, wills, church records, and census data comprise most of the enduring documentation.
-
I think you did a great job using the original sources. I couldn't agree more with your comments about Ancestry family trees. Hopefully one day more material might be brought to light for you to add more details to your story.
VP
-
Eric...What you are saying is there are no "clear" rifles that you believe are stocked up by J Moll Sr. in his early career. If not, do you have an idea of what he might have been doing stylistically in his early years. I'm not trying to derail the original topic, just very curious...Thanks
-
This is fantastic! I like all of it but will not soon forget this phrase: "littering Ancestry.com like stale cigarette butts"!
I will keep my eye out for mentions of Rupps (or similar names).
What do you think is the significance of George Rupp being taxed separately "for the land he lives on" in 1762?
(https://i.ibb.co/cX7bMGv/DSCN8239-copy.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HpkN1W2)
-
Do you have the records from HSP of George Rupp in other Northampton County assessments from the 1760s and 1770s?
The 1776 one gives detailed info about cleared land, woodland, cattle, sheep, etc. (lower right-hand column):
(https://i.ibb.co/BGrMHXf/DSCN4687.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hcZzxPg)
-
Eric, Thank you for doing this research. I know that it was not easy to dig up all that information. Hopefully a labor of love. The Northampton area is very interesting and there is so many questions about the makers there . The Rupp/Kuntz connection ? Whats the deal with that Liberty head / Indian head ? who started that and why ? Us nerds out here thrive on this . Jim
-
Dan - I do not know of any pre-War or otherwise early rifles that are signed or otherwise generally attributable to Johannes Moll. There are some candidates, depending upon who you ask, but at the present time it's all wishful or speculative thinking. If I'm honest with myself, I can not view any surviving early gun and find comparisons to the earliest (or I should say, what I perceive to be the earliest) signed "John Moll" rifles. The two which I consider the earliest are #12 on the KRA LEhigh Disc, and the 2001 best of show on the President's Display disc. I personally think the 2001 rifle is probably the finest surviving 'Lehigh' but of course that's a personal thing. A previous owner speculated that the rifle - which was obviously made for someone very wealthy - was made for James Greenleaf who married Anne Penn Allen, but if this is really the case, then it could really have only been made by John II and probably around 1800 or whenever exactly they got married; the wrist escutcheon is marked "I G" if I remember correctly.
-
Scott are those your images? I do not have the 1776 assessment, that is very interesting and I'd like to work that into the article if for no other reason to document it. Most of what I have is based upon work I did 15+ years ago, as I'm not making another trip down there anytime soon, so I have to rely upon the notes I was taking when looking for Moll, Rupps, Neihart etc. information.
I do not have an answer to the assessment taxing him separately, although you can see notations like that periodically and in fact you can see another similar on the preceding page (not exactly the same but similar, John Johnson 'for his land').
If I had to guess - a guess - it may indicate that he had warrant or other ownership to a considerable piece of land that was at the time unimproved, or perhaps a pending warrant, but also had already constructed a substantial dwelling with improvements and so the taxation was broken up to represent the disparity in value between the improved land and structure and unimproved land. As I said, a guess, as I have yet to find any good researched explanation of the early taxation practices and how assessed values were derived.
I suspect that some of the later assessments noting Herman with 260 acres was land that had been granted to him by his father, but then later, was split somehow between Herman and John and possibly this was the basis of the 'agreement' between George Sr, Herman and John mentioned in George's estate papers.
-
Jim the liberty head is a hot topic! I don;t know of any examples which believably could pre-date the War, which is why I have believed for quite some time now that it was something of a 'club' symbol or otherwise representation of something relative to the arsenals set up at Allentown when Philly was evacuated and the guys who worked for the cause in the region. I know Bob Smalser was pushing a contrary notion that it was representative of a hatred of the natives, hence the reason it's on rifles, and that it was tied to the 'Whitehall Massacre' and the bad goings-on in NH county during the F/I War years, but that would really only make sense (at least to me) if it was found on pre-War rifles or even some early-ish rifles. I don't know of any. I also have a hard time viewing the headwear on the majority of the figures to native head dresses - it looks much more like a "liberty cap" to me, especially in comparison to the earliest US coinage which made use of the same type of figural representations of 'lady liberty.'
-
Scott are those your images? I do not have the 1776 assessment, that is very interesting and I'd like to work that into the article if for no other reason to document it.
Eric, I have images of the complete Northampton County assessments at HSP from the 1760s and 1770s (sparser). I will send you via email the images from each year that contains the entry for Rupp.
-
I know Bob Smalser was pushing a contrary notion that it was representative of a hatred of the natives, hence the reason it's on rifles, and that it was tied to the 'Whitehall Massacre' and the bad goings-on in NH county during the F/I War years, but that would really only make sense (at least to me) if it was found on pre-War rifles or even some early-ish rifles.
Also, as I used to ask Bob before he left here, why would this image appear only in Lehigh County?--hardly the worst county hit by Native attacks and certainly not the only one that hated Natives. Without an answer to that, the explanation really doesn't make sense either.
-
Eric: I just sent you via WeTransfer 2GB of material from HSP: these are all the Northampton County assessments from the 1760s, 1770s, and a few from the 1780s. I sent the entire document, not just the page with Rupp or the Macungie township lists. I figure maybe there are other things that you'd want to search for in these material.
It will take a bit to download them! But I hope you have happy hunting.
-
Jim the liberty head is a hot topic! I don;t know of any examples which believably could pre-date the War, which is why I have believed for quite some time now that it was something of a 'club' symbol or otherwise representation of something relative to the arsenals set up at Allentown when Philly was evacuated and the guys who worked for the cause in the region. I know Bob Smalser was pushing a contrary notion that it was representative of a hatred of the natives, hence the reason it's on rifles, and that it was tied to the 'Whitehall Massacre' and the bad goings-on in NH county during the F/I War years, but that would really only make sense (at least to me) if it was found on pre-War rifles or even some early-ish rifles. I don't know of any. I also have a hard time viewing the headwear on the majority of the figures to native head dresses - it looks much more like a "liberty cap" to me, especially in comparison to the earliest US coinage which made use of the same type of figural representations of 'lady liberty.
I always thought the liberty head might have something to do with the Liberty Bell being moved to Allentown during the war. Maybe pride in there part of protecting it .I would think it was a pretty big deal for them. Maybe the Liberty head is a nod ( pun intended ) to there accomplishment. Sorry for spliting your topic up. Jim
-
Just a follow up note on this topic. Lady Liberty appeared on the first coins in 1794 and she does not have a cap. She is shown with long flowing hair. The depiction with cap came later and became very popular much later.
Dick
-
I believe the cap was on a pole over her shoulder on the 1793-1794 era coins. This is similar to many engravings of the early 1790s, but the cap was there even if not on her head. I think this would be tough to do for a rifle inlay, however!
I've certainly seen some of these heads that are clearly intended to be an indian with a feather. Those tend to be more into the eastern Berks region, by and large. What does this mean? I really don't know, as these are all post-War or actually more likely early 19th century rifles. But the Allentown-area group all clearly seem - to me - to portray a female in a cap. Also, because of their similarity to each other, these guys were all clearly familiar with the symbol being used by each other in the region, so the assumption is that is was a representation of... something. Something that they understood and probably needed no explanation at the time!
-
Jim the liberty head is a hot topic! I don;t know of any examples which believably could pre-date the War, which is why I have believed for quite some time now that it was something of a 'club' symbol or otherwise representation of.'
The engraving on the buttplate of RCA 19 is quite interesting. Likely completely unrelated except in the context of the variety and chronology of mysterious capped figures on longrifles. I think this would qualify as the earliest but without any close relatedness to anything Northampton.
-
Good point; I always forget about that figure on 19 because I've never (personally) associated it with what was going on with the Allentown-area heads. Of course I can't say that with certainty, but my impression is that it really has nothing to do with them at all, it's just a curious engraving on a much earlier, unrelated rifle.
-
Eric, I truly enjoy the "time travel machine" in your dissertations. It brings a better understanding of the workings of the late 18th century. Sometimes, reading, it is as if I were there at the time.
The various Rupp doings, even the property taxes paid, really help to understand our fore-fathers.
And, like you, I am puzzled by the "head" portrayed on various rifles of the period. It is almost like a "membership token" in some secret society. And, Lehigh County or not, it looks nifty on some of the rifles we build today, even if we are not card-carrying members of said secret club.
-
My friend Robert Weil has for years said that he thinks it was representative of some kind of 'club membership' token or similar, so you may be hitting close to the mark. I strongly suspect it means something along those lines as well; maybe not "secret" but I'm positive all those guys using it knew each other, interacted with each other, and that it represented something to them somehow tied to the War.
BTW, William Antes used it as well, and he may be a bit of an outlier in that while having ties to NH county, he was down in Bucks. I'd like to know more about what he specifically was doing during the War and if there are any records indicating what he was doing, and in particular, where. We can find some of these heads into eastern Berks, although they have a different appearance and some clearly *are* carrying a feather as opposed to a cap. But then, most of those arms seem to be later pieces as well, aside from perhaps Peter Angstadt who apparently was using representations of a "ghost" as some have described it, or a crucified Christ as one or two of them appear to be. So is that tied into the same meaning in some way, or were the eastern Berks guys just being perhaps opportunistic with the approach of, "Hmmmm, we need to stick something here in front of the guard, or on a box lid..."
-
Eric, Don't forget the "E. BLOOM" Bucks Co. fowler that Tom Paulhamous used to own. That had the Liberty Cap figure in front of the side plate and lock plate panels very much like the Antes double rifle. I believe I shared some images years ago. Ron
-
The Liberty Cap was revered in Pa. for quite sometime and actually was used in the Pa. Committee of Safety seal. Later it was applied as a component of the proof stamp for the 1797 Pa. Contract muskets some of which were made by Pa. rifle builders.
Attached is the link to the 2005 presentation by Stewart and Reid to the American Society that details what I mentioned above.
https://americansocietyofarmscollectors.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/2005-B91-Pennsylvania-Contract-Muskets-1797-Arms-.pdf
1797 Pa musket by Peter Brong of Lancaster.
(https://i.ibb.co/C7FzfYP/2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/ncSbFYP)
(https://i.ibb.co/nmB1M6R/3.jpg) (https://ibb.co/F3XY4mn)
-
Eric, Don't forget the "E. BLOOM" Bucks Co. fowler that Tom Paulhamous used to own. That had the Liberty Cap figure in front of the side plate and lock plate panels very much like the Antes double rifle. I believe I shared some images years ago. Ron
Not forgetting it, but I remember it as being deeply stamped "E B" on the barrel,not a full surname, which frankly could be anyone including the barrel maker. Also it could be earlier, or later. It's plain enough that it could have been made pretty much anywhere in NH or upper Bucks without really offering much in the way of more specific clues to origin or date.
-
I will be updating over the next week or so; I've got additional tax information and also have been working on revisions for Neiharts and Molls. Mostly because they were all in a relatively confined area, so while searching for information on one man or family, it's almost impossible to avoid finding additional information on others nearby! Also plan to dig further into church records once I exhaust the tax mining. Anyway, just for the handful out there who may find this stuff a step or two above "dry and boring." ;D ;D
-
Howdy again folks. So here you will see the rifle is being auctioned next month:
https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2022/the-william-k-du-pont-collection-important-americana-from-rocky-hill/extremely-rare-and-fine-carved-and-figured-maple (https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2022/the-william-k-du-pont-collection-important-americana-from-rocky-hill/extremely-rare-and-fine-carved-and-figured-maple)
This description is absolutely the underlying motivation behind the article I wrote. Many here are quite knowledgeable in German baptismal naming practice and the idea that a man baptised "Johan George Rupp" (and to date, I have yet to find any period documentation to indicate this was his name, although it was the name of one of his sons), a man who was never noted as anything other than either a "yeoman" or a "farmer" on a very large tract of land, a man who was referenced in EVERY period tax list, church record, land document etc. as "George Rupp," would sign a rifle "John Rupp" is simply sad. The entire concept of attributing the rifle to Johannes / John Rupp's father is nothing more than blatantly wishful thinking and a psychological need to somehow - in any way - date the rifle prior to the War. I suspect it's nothing more than a money play to gin up the price.
I challenge anyone, anywhere, to present a single piece of *period documentation* demonstrating that George Rupp Sr. utilized the name "John" at any point in his life. If you have evidence, I would sincerely love to see it. Meanwhile, I can provide ample documentation of the period that he was always referenced as "George."
-
It would seem then that the big Rupp gun was a product of the 1780s. It is always good to keep an open mind, especially with super sleuth Kettenburg in the picture!
-
The entire concept of attributing the rifle to Johannes / John Rupp's father is nothing more than blatantly wishful thinking and a psychological need to somehow - in any way - date the rifle prior to the War. I suspect it's nothing more than a money play to gin up the price.
BULLSEYE!
-
Simple solution; Don't bid on it...
-
I don't plan to do so. What I do care about, however, is the dissemination of blatantly false and frankly misleading information which will then be perpetuated onward and onward by a new owner who will be convinced of the "pre-War" provenance of an otherwise chunky, early Federal period, standard "Lehigh" rifle. I don't claim to know everything and constantly insert the caveat into my research that it is EVOLVING. What I can claim with certainty, however, is that George Rupp Sr. did not make that rifle - clearly signed "John Rupp" - and to suggest he did is nothing more than deliberate gaslighting or lazy research.
-
Simple solution; Don't bid on it...
What problem would that solve?
-
It sure doesn't solve the 'possession = knowledge' problem, that's for sure.
-
Yes, I realize it's a difficult concept.
From what I've read here, you don't have any Proof, you have your Opinion. As far as I know opinion doesn't equate to proof.
You might be right, I don't have a clue, but you need proof to be right.
-
Yes, I realize it's a difficult concept.
From what I've read here, you don't have any Proof, you have your Opinion. As far as I know opinion doesn't equate to proof.
You might be right, I don't have a clue, but you need proof to be right.
It is so strange that you don't hold the auction house to the same standard! Their sloppy and inaccurate listings get a pass, but Eric's carefully documented claims get dismissed. This is the difficult thing to understand.
The situation here, that is, is not that the auction house has "proof" and Eric only "opinion." Eric has researched this carefully. The auction house is repeating ancient inaccuracies.
Eric has found lots of proof, just the sort that, I am sure, you would respect. Have you read his article? http://erickettenburg.com/johannes-rupp.html
I'm glad at least we've moved to the important question of proof. Since the discussion here was never "Should I bid on this?," the "Don't bid on it" response missed the point widely.
-
John McEnroe: "You can not be serious!"
John and Paul: "Her name was McGill, and she called herself Lil, but everyone knew her as Nancy."
I think JP Beck was signing his rifles JP Beck, but in reality his name was Melvin Belvin. Or maybe his name was Jerry! With a G. And an I! ;D
-
"Don't bother me with your facts, I know what I believe!"
-
If you don't want to support the gun with its current history, then don't raise the price by bidding on it.
History is important, but difficult to pin down at this distance.
I remember a guy here stating that Allentown had never been called Allenstown. Until another guy posted a picture of a period map calling the place Allenstown.
Different names for the same is not unusual.
I know a guy with the given name of John, but his friends call him Gil. And his grandson calls him yet another name. He used to make custom knives. He sold some with the name John *** on it. He made one for a friend and signed it Gil ***. He made one for his Grandson and signed it with a third name. Three knives, three names depending on who he made it for, same guy.
I'm not saying it's the same with this rifle, just saying stranger things have happened.
Find the proof Eric, then you'll have the truth.
-
It’s fun to imagine that things are what we wish they were. And then argue that stranger things have happened. It’s fun, but would get a person laughed out of a debate or logic class. There is clearly a desire here to believe one hypothesis (the gun is older than seems possible based on historical records) over the null hypothesis. That is wishful thinking, nothing more. The “stranger things have happened” is essentially an admission that one’s position on a subject is almost certainly wrong. Formally, maybe there’s a 1% chance they are right, and so will cling to that possibility as though it’s 65%.
-
Common logic says no one is going to pay that much money for a rusty old gun. ::)
-
"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."
-
It’s fun to imagine that things are what we wish they were. And then argue that stranger things have happened. It’s fun, but would get a person laughed out of a debate or logic class.
Laugh all you want.
Prove me wrong. :)
-
It’s fun to imagine that things are what we wish they were. And then argue that stranger things have happened. It’s fun, but would get a person laughed out of a debate or logic class.
Laugh all you want.
Prove me wrong. :)
That’s not how it works. Go ahead and “prove” (provide strong convincing evidence) that you’re right. I’ve got over 90 peer reviewed publications. There is no “proving wrong”. There is presentation of hard data that can be reproduced, cogent analysis of that data, and conclusions the data supports.
-
I did. I provided ample period documentation of George Rupp being known as George Rupp. There is not one single instance of George Rupp being referred to as "John." His own son Herman signed on to estate papers referencing him as George Rupp. In fact, there is not one single period document referring to him as "Johan George Rupp" or any variation of that name. That name is a product of the 19th century 'county history' books. It may be accurate, or it may not, but no serious researcher would reference one of those county history books as being product of fact. Conversely, I also provided ample documentation of an individual named Johannes Rupp, a son of George Rupp and brother of Herman Rupp, who was referenced frequently in primary documents by the anglicized version of his name Johannes = John. What is more of a stretch to believe?
It's funny how we all love to speculate and debate until incoming fire hits either a wallet or a ridiculously far-fetched manufactured theory. Suddenly, nothing short of a notarized statement of creation lodged in the box cavity will suffice.
The Sotheby's description - ESPECIALLY in light of the documentation regarding this family I've publicly provided - is nothing more than deliberate deception and reflects very poorly on both the auction house as well as the individual who authored the misleading description. It matters far beyond the concept of "to bid or not to bid" because (1) the long standing of Sotheby's company carries weight within the art world, and the casual individual will accept an associated description as being a testament of fact, and (2) because of the nature of the internet, the associated description will continue as an albatross around the 'wrist' of this rifle for years to come and further cloud and confuse the subject matter.
-
I like what a presenter at the recent KRA meeting where the focus was Moravian guns. She said..."This isn't brain surgery, and nobody will die if we are wrong" Historic facts present a picture of reality, but it is still up to each person as to whether the facts are accepted or rejected.
-
It’s fun to imagine that things are what we wish they were. And then argue that stranger things have happened. It’s fun, but would get a person laughed out of a debate or logic class.
Laugh all you want.
Prove me wrong. :)
That’s not how it works.
;D
-
I have to interject into this discussion my recent experience related to auction house descriptions.
I noticed that a few pieces from Moller's collection auction last September had some issues. I sent an e-mail to Seth Isaacson at RIA expressing my concerns. Seth passed them along to RIA's describers and the write-ups for each of the lots with which I had concerns were changed. They deserve credit in my opinion for their desire to have accurate descriptions in those cases.
Perhaps if Eric were to make a case to Sotheby's, they would change their write-up for the rifle based on Eric's concerns.
-
They deserve credit in my opinion for their desire to have accurate descriptions in those cases.
It's certainly good that RIA responded to your concerns and adjusted their listings.
But, to amplify the points that Eric has been making in this thread (which were hijacked by non sequitors like "Then Don't Bid!" or "Prove Me Wrong!"), I don't think these auction houses "deserve credit ... for their desire to have accurate descriptions."
The constant and consistent mis-statements (corrected only when they're called out) don't show any such "desire to have accurate descriptions." If they wanted/desired this, they could very easily produce them. Google is not a high-level skill!
-
The constant and consistent mis-statements (corrected only when they're called out) don't show any such "desire to have accurate descriptions." If they wanted/desired this, they could very easily produce them. Google is not a high-level skill!
Agreed, 100%.
Seth stated in an e-mail to me that they "Describers" used Moller's descriptions from his books. If you compare Moller's book to what the RIA describers presented with each of George's "Documented" pieces, you will see that the descriptions are nearly verbatim from Moller's book. Moller had a reputation which they relied on as fact. A dangerous approach as Moller's books were published in 1993 and newer research has been published since by Peter A. Schmidt in 2007 and some fellow named Kent Johns ::) in 2015.
-
Moller had a reputation which they relied on as fact. A dangerous approach as Moller's books were published in 1993 and newer research has been published since by Peter A. Schmidt in 2007 and some fellow named Kent Johns ::) in 2015.
Though--here I am flipping sides!--relying on Moller seems to me to be excusable, though relying on Schmidt and Johns would be better.
Some of the other auction descriptions discussed on this listserv over the last year or so are more egregious instances of laziness or deliberate dereliction of duty.
I suspect most of the gentlemen who contribute to this listserv have high standards for themselves and those with whom they work in their professional lives. I will never understand why they give these auction houses a pass when their listings are obviously mistaken and, at times, skate close to fraud.
And I do recognize that these writers-of-descriptions for auction houses have a lot of entries to write and only limited time.
-
In this particular case, the description is based upon... nothing. No documentation of which I'm aware, no intelligent use of period documents, nothing. It's entirely provided - as I understand it (and I perhaps may be corrected) - by someone involved somehow in the brokering of the collection that is/was relying largely on information plastered all over Ancestry by another individual who posted here a years ago and refused to debate when his assertions were challenged. And the 'county histories.' Let's not forget the county histories.
-
Oh dear lord. but wait, there's more!
https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2022/the-william-k-du-pont-collection-important-americana-from-rocky-hill/exceptional-carved-and-figured-maple-engraved
Now, in order to complete the twisting of reality whereupon an earlier rifle signed "John Rupp" can be attributed to a man named George, we next proceed to come up with a mutated description of a rifle clearly of the 19th century and attributed to John Rupp II, and attribute this rifle to John the elder because otherwise the desired narrative falls apart even further! Nevermind John the elder did not die during their noted death date of 1836 (demonstrably proven false by the words of his own brother Herman), nor did John II work in Weisenberg township (he was in Macungie as I proved with census records) and in fact there was no John Rupp in Weisenberg until the taking of the 1850 census, at which point he was 8 years old and the son of Solomon Rupp.
Even more obscene is the absolute carelessness with which they use the alleged birth/death dates of John Rupp the elder, 1762-1836, and then in the next sentence describe him as "son of Andrew" who was the brother of that particular John Rupp. A son and a brother all in one shot - what are they saying about this poor family? :o
Regardless of what Sotheby's is doing with these insane descriptions, what is even more ridiculous is that they are apparently relying upon "experts" who are not undertaking original, documentable research, but rather are simply running right to the 'county histories' to rehash non-documented, garbled information and subsequently presenting it as fact.
What is most frustrating is that here I am, up on a mountain in the middle of the woods near the NY state line, dealing with internet that is not much faster than dial-up and looking at a 2+ hour drive one-way to visit any of the downstate historical societies or record repositories, and meanwhile, a number of these "experts" live IN THE FREAKING AREA and can't be bothered to do anything more than open a "county history" book.
I better go split some more firewood right now.
-
What is most frustrating is that here I am, up on a mountain in the middle of the woods near the NY state line, dealing with internet that is not much faster than dial-up and looking at a 2+ hour drive one-way to visit any of the downstate historical societies or record repositories, and meanwhile, a number of these "experts" live IN THE FREAKING AREA and can't be bothered to do anything more than open a "county history" book.
Well you have to admit you have the advantage of higher ground (geographically).
-
My frustration is going to put me UNDER ground because the contrary arguments are so baseless and devoid of substance. I'm all for a good debate, but bring something factual or otherwise documentable to the table.
-
I believe I told this story on the RIA some time ago but it may be worth repeating.
About ten years ago I was reviewing the website of a very well known (for many, many years) New England dealer. The dealer had an early Springfield musket for sale on his site that looked great but his description contained more than a few problems and mis-statements of facts. I called him up and we spoke at length about the musket and my concerns. To my surprise, he agreed with everything I said. "Kent, you are perfectly correct in all of your points, but I rely on my customers not reading the research."
How can you argue with that. "Caveat Emptor" as old Norm Flayderman used to say, in word and print
-
How can you argue with that.
I wouldn't argue with it--but it is a classic description of a closed network, an "old boy" network in which everybody agrees not to call each other out to keep the game going. As long as these objects are traded among a like-minded fraternity who agree to these rules (nobody will call others out on the tall tales that effectively prop up value), the game continues.
If you're playing a different game--a historian's game rather than a collector's game--things look very different.
This is why, to most people's annoyance, I've been saying for many years that any field in which the collectors are the researchers--whether art in the nineteenth century or longrifles in the twentieth--finds it difficult to generate what typically qualifies as "research" (for a good definition, see Rich Pierce's account above).
That isn't to say that these collectors don't discover and publish facts and valid interpretations. They do. But many approaches or investigations will be off-limits, or never thought of, because the needs of collectors typically win out. Nobody wants to discover that their rifle attributed to Andreas Albrecht wasn't made by him at all. Research often stops when you confirm what you want to believe. But no researcher should want to believe anything.
It's a simple fact: the people who write about Rembrandt are not (any more) people who own Rembrandts.
-
I wouldn't argue with it--but it is a classic description of a closed network, an "old boy" network in which everybody agrees not to call each other out to keep the game going. As long as these objects are traded among a like-minded fraternity who agree to these rules (nobody will call others out on the tall tales that effectively prop up value), the game continues.
It's a simple fact: the people who write about Rembrandt are not (any more) people who own Rembrandts.
I learned all of this during my first gunshows back in the mid '70s. I used to watch the old-time big shot dealers running around with their buddies then huddling and whispering etc. like old wet hens. Most of those guys are gone now but I'm quite sure that they have been replaced by their apprentices.
We are getting pretty far afield from the Rupp topic.
-
Frankly, I think the description of the later attributed John II rifle is raising my blood pressure even more than the earlier Johannes rifle. Why? Because the description of the later piece is a steaming, disjointed pile of BS that was clearly written specifically to fit and reinforce the BS narrative that they already have attached to the earlier rifle, and someone had to apparently drop a few doses thus entering an alternative reality in order to accomplish it.
How is this not outright deception or fraud?
I don't collect Rembrandts.
-
And also, yes - I have politely contacted multiple individuals at Sotheby's NY involved in this auction. I doubt any of them care outside of $$$.
Leaving it described as "ca. 1775" will bring more $$$ than "ca. 1785-1790."
-
Saw this on Facebook this morning. Seemed relevant.
(https://i.ibb.co/ZGqdBVD/261448874-10227113007315141-6676969279825654178-n.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jbnhyTX)
-
Saw this on Facebook this morning. Seemed relevant.
(https://i.ibb.co/ZGqdBVD/261448874-10227113007315141-6676969279825654178-n.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jbnhyTX)
I believe that the blue column applies to Oak Island and the causes of climate change.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/T2jnD61/FA47-FB8-A-9-C29-4351-AB86-A849-F7-E59-BE4.png) (https://ibb.co/qjq4LKC)
-
(https://i.ibb.co/T2jnD61/FA47-FB8-A-9-C29-4351-AB86-A849-F7-E59-BE4.png) (https://ibb.co/qjq4LKC)
I’m not sure many students of Pennsylvania longrifles would look at that profile and think Revolutionary War period, even without seeing signatures and sound research. Thanks for the picture. From here it looks like a fine and rare signed longrifle that should not need boosting. It would be a star in most any collection.
-
Saw this on Facebook this morning. Seemed relevant.
(https://i.ibb.co/ZGqdBVD/261448874-10227113007315141-6676969279825654178-n.jpg) (https://ibb.co/jbnhyTX)
The first two pseudoscience points have for many years now been the "classic," standard approach to study of these arms by many involved. Not everyone of course - I don't want to paint with a broad brush all over everyone, or even most - but the first two points are EXACTLY what is going on here at the moment in regard to this particular rifle.
Something I hope the individual(s) involved in these auction descriptions take into account:
As time passes, more and more period documentation and information that traditionally has only been available via time-consuming research at historical societies, historical repositories (such as HSP), county courthouses etc. is going to be easily available and searchable online. The transition is already occurring. The old reliance upon work of previous authors who laboriously undertook such research, or cherry-picked research to suit an end, is going to give way to anyone and everyone being able to directly access information online.
Do you really want to be "that guy" who, in the future, is viewed as either a liar, a cherry-picker, closed-minded or otherwise just plain dishonest? Something to think about.
-
I’m not sure many students of Pennsylvania longrifles would look at that profile and think Revolutionary War period, even without seeing signatures and sound research.
Indeed. But the gentleman/gentlemen pushing this narrative and supplying the descriptive information to Sotheby's are long-time KRA members. What does this say?
-
I’m not sure many students of Pennsylvania longrifles would look at that profile and think Revolutionary War period, even without seeing signatures and sound research.
Indeed. But the gentleman/gentlemen pushing this narrative and supplying the descriptive information to Sotheby's are long-time KRA members. What does this say?
Many possibilities. Not open to new findings. Not aware of or discussing new data (bubble thinking). Conscious or subconscious attachment to whatever position is most favorable to self or friends. The idea of victim-less “white lies”. Under existential monetary pressure. Unsubstantiated belief that the other “tribe” is always wrong or need to be opposed because they pose an existential threat. These are common reasons why people are unaware or unaccepting of new data.
Bottom line is there is often less personal cost to the researcher accepting that new data leads to new conclusions, but there can be great cost to someone with much material, reputational, and financial investment.
-
Many possibilities. Not open to new findings. Not aware of or discussing new data (bubble thinking). Conscious or subconscious attachment to whatever position is most favorable to self or friends. The idea of victim-less “white lies”. Under existential monetary pressure. Unsubstantiated belief that the other “tribe” is always wrong or need to be opposed because they pose an existential threat. These are common reasons why people are unaware or unaccepting of new data.
Bottom line is there is often less personal cost to the researcher accepting that new data leads to new conclusions, but there can be great cost to someone with much material, reputational, and financial investment.
Absolutely. But anyone following this tack loses all credibility as a scholar, researcher or studious individual. Apparently money trumps all.
BTW, I can't see any reputational cost to remaining open to new information. I see that as a plus.
Quoting Earl again: "There's nothing wrong with saying 'I don't know'"
-
Indeed. But the gentleman/gentlemen pushing this narrative and supplying the descriptive information to Sotheby's are long-time KRA members. What does this say?
If they in fact actually know that the info they are sharing is incorrect, that is disappointing. I'd like to think that perhaps they are not aware of your research Eric.
-
I know for a fact one individual at least has been made very aware of it. A response was along the lines of (paraphrase) insisting that tax records, church records and census records don't tell the whole story. And I agree - these records do not tell the whole story singularly. But they say an awful lot more than simply insisting that a farmer named George was signing rifles as John, with NO evidence whatsoever, solely because it's the only way to render a desired outcome in the bizarro world.
-
IThe “stranger things have happened” is essentially an admission that one’s position on a subject is almost certainly wrong.
As is its cousin, "Well, anything is possible ..." I used to hear that a lot, too. Usually signaled that the person I was talking to didn't want to think (or learn) any more about his long-held beliefs.
The peer review process ensures that researchers have their ideas challenged regularly. It's humbling. It becomes habitual to assume that there's something about a topic, no matter how informed you are, that you haven't seen or considered--and to expect that your understanding will change on the basis of these other perspectives.
A forum like this could work like peer review, if folks were open to constructive criticism. "Anything is possible."
-
Hi Scott,
Having published and still publishing peer-reviewed scientific papers and book chapters, I think a lot of folks would not be comfortable with peer review. They would get mad, take it personally, respond with ad hominem attacks or walk away.
The old saw "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is quoted all too often and is a logical fallacy. Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence just not absolute evidence. If you haven't already, I urge you to read Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow".
dave
-
If you haven't already, I urge you to read Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow".
Yes, I bought it after you last mentioned it & read it. I didn't know that book, but I teach those concepts all the time in my undergraduate and graduate classes. One of my earlier books, when I still thought about myself as a literature professor, was about Don Quixote--which is a story about processing evidence, misinterpretations, the resilience of the "lenses" through which we see the world (they don't just disappear when somebody offers counter-evidence). People use phrases like "Anything is possible" or "Stranger things have happened" to protect or prop up their own beliefs and to avoid thinking about others' perspective.
Nobody ever said peer review was comfortable! It's not and it's not meant to be. But it does produce better science or history or whatever.
-
I've always thought of this forum as something of a wild and wooly peer review forum. I'm pretty sure others do as well. It's one of the reasons I post research projects I might be working on and then hopefully initiate some debate. If I can be proven incorrect or lacking on a particular point, I'd rather find out about it sooner rather than later. I have no scientific background nor a background in academia however, so I don't claim to understand all of the finer points of a proper peer review process.
I'm still wondering when two spaces following a period became one. I didn't get the memo but I don't like it. Now my kids laugh at me.
-
I'm still wondering when two spaces following a period became one. I didn't get the memo but I don't like it. Now my kids laugh at me.
When typewriters went away? Well, really, when everybody started using word processors or were creating "published" documents on their own (on the web, say).
Using two spaces can introduce major gaps in lines in any text that is full justified--such as webpages. (Printed books with full justification never used two spaces, even if writers submitted their manuscripts that way.)
-
... the finer points of a proper peer review process.
The only important difference is that, ideally, peer review is blind (the authors don't know the identity of the reviewers, so the reviewers can be "honest"--can also license bad behavior) and sometimes double blind (the reviewers don't know who the author are, either). Here, people know who is saying what. Doesn't matter to me--but I know of people who are reluctant to speak "honestly" because of the way such honesty might be received and of its consequences (will I be permitted access to these objects if I don't tell their owners what they want to hear about them?).
-
Actual peer review is not ephemeral or easily dismissed. That which does not meet standards does not get published in real peer review. And all that does get published has references putting the work into context. And, subsequently, gets cited as new findings emerge. An internet-based peer review of sorts is ephemeral and has no permanent teeth. Views can be debated and research and findings shared on forums, and that is helpful, but sadly, hard to track.
-
Well, back to the rifle.
Sotheby's write-up for this Rupp rifle Lot#498 references Kindig's book Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle. I have the 2017 Annotated Third Edition and the rifle appears on pages 175-176 with annotation by Ron Gabel.
The rifle is also featured on pages 350-351 in the new color photo section of the Third Edition. This rifle is dated at "circa 1800" on page 350. Certainly not Rev War by a longshot.
-
Hi Rich,
And often those "facts" or "views" are difficult to verify and if you ask the poster for their sources of information they are sometimes insulted. I think it is difficult for many people to understand that stories are not data. They can be if verifiable and usefully quantified or qualified, but until then they are just stories. Eric has done the heavy lifting to critically exam some stories attached to valuable objects and his results are instructive about being skeptical of cherished beliefs. I think folks like old Mason Weems damaged many American's understanding of our own history.
Scott, I wasn't disagreeing with you about peer-review. It is a critical process toward reliable knowledge, I just don't know how many participants would welcome the scrutiny of their ideas or points of view.
Kent, It is identified as circa 1800 in the color photo sectiion but called pre-Rev War in Kindig's write up on page 175 and Gabel's annotation seems to be the source of the auction write up claiming it was made by Johann George Rupp before the war. So there is confusion even in the one book.
dave
-
And often those "facts" or "views" are difficult to verify and if you ask the poster for their sources of information they are sometimes insulted. I think it is difficult for many people to understand that stories are not data. They can be if verifiable and usefully quantified or qualified, but until then they are just stories. Eric has done the heavy lifting to critically exam some stories attached to valuable objects and his results are instructive about being skeptical of cherished beliefs. I think folks like old Mason Weems damaged many American's understanding of our own history.
Scott, I wasn't disagreeing with you about peer-review. It is a critical process toward reliable knowledge, I just don't know how many participants would welcome the scrutiny of their ideas or points of view.
Yes, I understood! I think it's very evident from many exchanges on this list that many people post without expecting scrutiny and do not welcome that. My own feeling is that, whether here or on Facebook or in other forms of social media, when you post something publicly you should realize that you've given up control over how people respond. That's just the rules-of-the-game regarding social media and listservs are a form of that.
I do think it's a matter of habit. Some people aren't used to having their ideas questioned. For others it is a regular and routine part of their day job. So there can be a clash of cultures sort of thing.
-
Kent, It is identified as circa 1800 in the color photo sectiion but called pre-Rev War in Kindig's write up on page 175 and Gabel's annotation seems to be the source of the auction write up claiming it was made by Johann George Rupp before the war. So there is confusion even in the one book.
dave
You should see the confusion in my head. :o
Until Eric's latest research is widely published, this subject will remain controversial. And then, the information will remain definitive for only as long as it takes for newer data to be discovered and published.
-
And I am constantly working on more data and newer data. To me it's like a live-action mystery and I find it both interesting and exciting. I am currently waiting on some extremely expensive out-of-print books, largely because I'm too impatient to wait a month plus for ILL, and most libraries will not loan out books in 'special collections' anyway. I figure I'll get what I need out of them, or find nothing, and then flip them. I'll probably have to make a trip down to Harrisburg too so as to get some access to later records that I'd like to examine. I view work like this as a constantly evolving thing, and this view is why I'd rather just plaster it up on my site so that I can edit it immediately as more information comes to light.
I think Kindig, when he first published in the 60s, believed that it could be a pre-War gun. Of course, our knowledge of these old guns has evolved a lot since the 1960s, and I'm happy to see some of the 'classic' books updated with new additions. Ron is a very nice and helpful guy but I'm not sure if he is actually involved in these auction descriptions, or if they are simply pointing to some of his previous work and using portions of it to shore up these silly descriptions. I do believe that he also relied heavily upon the old county histories and possibly some of Sam Dyke's work as well, and unfortunately over the years I have also found portions of Dyke's work that contrasts very dramatically with period documentation.
Am I the only one that thinks that the lock, sideplate and guard at least are clearly much earlier than the stocking of the rifle and probably came from an earlier Berks piece? Possibly the barrel as well, as the rear sight is atypical. The guard in particular - to my eye - looks as though he tried to shorten it as much as he could as it was obviously too long and large for the gun, but he gave it a go anyway. Meanwhile, he was likely stocking up the piece to a 'standard' pattern or something typical for how he was stocking/shaping at the time, and so the break at the lower wrist fell under the grip rail of the over-long guard. Of course this is just speculative but this is how I view it. I think that it is primarily these earlier components being recycled, and the gun being a thick chick, that is creating the impression of it being earlier than it really is.
-
Until Eric's latest research is widely published, this subject will remain controversial. And then, the information will remain definitive for only as long as it takes for newer data to be discovered and published.
Eric published his research on the web, so it could not be distributed any more widely. The phenomenon that we're observing is not an instance of competition of ideas in a free marketplace. Other factors are involved, most notably, as others have said, the interests of various parties--but not only that.
In my opinion this subject is certainly confusing but I myself wouldn't call it controversial, since only one side has offered facts and arguments based in evidence. The other side has basically, without saying so, simply asserted its right to believe whatever it wants to believe.
-
Additionally, in regard to the concept that somehow "Johan George Rupp" (and to date, I have yet to find any period documentation indicating that his baptismal name was indeed 'Johan'), a man always known as "George Rupp," was somehow using the his 'saints name' John, here is an online article that will pretty quickly explain German naming customs of the period. There is also a very good article in the Berks County Genealogical Society journal, 1995 Volume 16 Number 1, by Elaine Schwar, which clearly explains the difference between the vornamen and the rufnamen.
http://www.kerchner.com/germname.htm (http://www.kerchner.com/germname.htm)
If indeed "Johan George Rupp" was christened with the vornamen 'Johan,' it makes no difference at all to this discussion since his name as he was known for the remainder of his life was 'George,' and every single document of the period backs this up.
BTW my great grandfather was named Johann August Kettenburg. Everyone in the family called him 'Gus.' ;D
-
Exactly. Yet the distinguished gentleman who supplied the info to Sotheby's decided to insist the rifle is attributable to Johan George Rupp because... well, that's the only way to make it work as a pre-War rifle.
I'm here all week folks. Try the Kool Aid.
-
the man baptized-as Johann Andreas Albrecht = Andreas Albrecht
the man baptized-as Johann Christian Oerter = Christian Oerter
etc.
etc.
Also: In Lancaster, Johannes Graeff had lots of boys:
Johannes Graeff (b. 1751)
Johann Jacob Graeff (b. 1753)
Johann Georg Graeff (b. 1756)
Petrus Graeff (b. 1758)
They were known as John Graeff, Jacob Graeff, Georg Graef, and Peter Graeff. If anybody ever dreamed that a son would use his baptismal name (Johan) as John later in life, the parents would not have named their sons, in effect, John Graeff, John Jacob Graeff, and John Georg Graeff. (Unless they were eighteenth century versions of George Forman.)
(https://i.ibb.co/YX6jLKh/1760-copy.jpg) (https://ibb.co/1M32mpT)
-
Interjection:
Is that Johan "Moll" or Johan "Noll" for 1749?
I'm looking at other names that I believe are N letters, and others that seem to be M letters, and they look almost identical.
Whose pastoral record is this?
-
It's Lancaster Moravian--a 1760 catalog.
I'm pretty sure it's "Moll": he appears in catalogs from 1758, 1759, 1760, 1762 (pictured here), 1764, and 1765, and I've included for comparison the entry for Nixdorf [FYI: the entry under Nixdorf--"Russmeyer"--is the person who is writing the catalog.]
(https://i.ibb.co/fvzcvGV/IMG-3302.jpg) (https://ibb.co/YZFrZT4)
(https://i.ibb.co/7GHXL6f/IMG-3300.jpg) (https://ibb.co/9qJNSCD)
Here's the very weird thing, though. None of the catalog has any parents named Moll (or Noll) or any other children listed by that name. It is very strange that there would be children without parents, unless perhaps the child was in a local school (I don't think Lancaster had a boarding school) or was living with a family with another last name.
He does not seem to appear in the 1755 or 1756 catalogs or in any after 1765 (the next one is 1768 & he's not in that).
I'll keep looking.
-
OK, more info. It seems that this John Moll showed up in Lancaster around 1757 (he would have been seven or eight) in the household of Christoph Heyne, who was a master pewterer (see link below). I guess it's not certain when Heyne arrived in Lancaster, but the article suggests 1757, so probably he brought this boy John Moll with him. Some suggest he was there earlier (1752) ... but, still, the boy John Moll was living at his home when he (the boy) was seven or eight.
Here's the 1757 catalog in which Moll (barely!--the very last item in the whole catalog!) appears--"at Heyne's."
(https://i.ibb.co/k04YR7c/Moll-1757.jpg) (https://ibb.co/HYtmWSg)
Here's lots of info on Heyne:
https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1180494.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A7d1ff51554e0683cef1b8bfa82209f2c
-
Until Eric's latest research is widely published, this subject will remain controversial. And then, the information will remain definitive for only as long as it takes for newer data to be discovered and published.
Eric published his research on the web, so it could not be distributed any more widely.
I would imagine that the majority of potential consumers of Eric's immensely informative and research will only look for it on the Web if they have an interest in longrifles. Casual collectors of original longrifles, and contemporary longrifles, may be completely unaware of Eric and his considerable accomplishments.
My approach to the dissemination of knowledge is that the more venues, the better. A publication with a national and international readership may be one, and just one, of the tools available to "get the word out".
-
Ah ha! That John Moll. I tried to track him down years ago when I found a reference somewhere - and I no longer remember where - that Heyne had an apprentice named Johannes Moll. Seemed like a potential candidate (this was when I was still trying to figure out where Johannes Moll the gunsmith had originated prior to Allentown) but I do remember eliminating Heyne's apprentice for reasons I now forget. Had no idea that he was involved with the Moravians though. Well, not the 'same' Johannes Moll but nevertheless, very interesting. You constantly are digging up really good information!!
-
Kent, part of the problem (to my way of thinking) with magazine publishing is the copyright issue. I'm too attached to my site and I like to get information out NOW - BANG! Magazine publishing is a much slower process, and typically the magazine will own the copyright for a specified period of time so I would then be prohibited from concurrently posting my own work on my site. I used to send articles to Muzzle Blasts fairly often, but the time lag between writing and publishing was usually half a year at least and they maintained a copyright for one year from date of publication. Of course it was nice to get paid, but oh well.
Also, once it's in print, I can't change it. Online, I can make changes minute by minute if necessary.
I do realize I probably just painted myself as a "control freak." :o
-
Ah ha! That John Moll. I tried to track him down years ago when I found a reference somewhere - and I no longer remember where - that Heyne had an apprentice named Johannes Moll. Seemed like a potential candidate (this was when I was still trying to figure out where Johannes Moll the gunsmith had originated prior to Allentown) but I do remember eliminating Heyne's apprentice for reasons I now forget. Had no idea that he was involved with the Moravians though. Well, not the 'same' Johannes Moll but nevertheless, very interesting. You constantly are digging up really good information!!
I wonder what it was you found that eliminated him? I've seen "1746" as a birthdate for the gunsmith John Moll I: I wonder where that date comes from, given the lack of information about him.
Probably this should be on a new thread...
-
I don't remember what it initially was, but then Dave Madary found the 1763 indenture for "Johannes Moll... Gunsmith" selling his land in Rockland (Berks) the year before he shows up in Allentown. Meanwhile, years earlier when Bob Angstadt had been researching the Angstadts, he had found a warrant map from the early 1750s which showed a "Johannes Moll" practically right on top of the Angstadt farm and myself and some others had been wondering 'could this be the guy?' The 1763 indenture kind of clinched it, at least for me. I suppose it would be considered circumstantial evidence, but it's circumstantial with a bright neon arrow. I'm working on some additional information which seems to place him in Lancaster prior to that (before Berks was taken from Lanc. Co) but that's slower going.
-
Until Eric's latest research is widely published, this subject will remain controversial. And then, the information will remain definitive for only as long as it takes for newer data to be discovered and published.
Eric published his research on the web, so it could not be distributed any more widely.
I would imagine that the majority of potential consumers of Eric's immensely informative and research will only look for it on the Web if they have an interest in longrifles. Casual collectors of original longrifles, and contemporary longrifles, may be completely unaware of Eric and his considerable accomplishments.
I'm all for publishing things in books myself. But misinformation on the web trumps stuff in books nearly all the time--except, perhaps, in the field we are discussing. I suspect this is a generational thing, which in this case is keeping misinformation in books circulating rather than information on the web.
-
I don't remember what it initially was, but then Dave Madary found the 1763 indenture for "Johannes Moll... Gunsmith" selling his land in Rockland (Berks) the same year he shows up in Allentown.
Yes, that would clinch it: if Johannes Moll (Gunsmith) is selling land in Berks County in 1763 he can't be the 14 year old boy living with Heyne (as the Johan. Moll enrolled in Lancaster's Moravian congregation was in 1763). Case closed, I think!
-
Also in 1764, in Allentown, he's not listed with the single men so the assumption there is that he's married, which ties in with where my research is leading back to Lancaster.
-
Also in 1764, in Allentown, he's not listed with the single men so the assumption there is that he's married, which ties in with where my research is leading back to Lancaster.
Yeah, I didn't realize he seems to have been married in 1764. That alone would rule out the J. Moll born in 1749 in the Lancaster Moravian catalog.
-
Looks like Sotheby's added a catalogue note that opens with, "There are few records that detail the elder John George Rupp’s (1721-1807) trade as a gunsmith..."
Another swing and a miss. No, there are NO records that document George Rupp as a gunsmith, and there are currently NO records of which I'm aware that document his vornamen as being Johan or Johann. It probably was, but thus far nothing has turned up to prove this. It furthermore remains almost laughable to believe that George Rupp would sign a rifle "John."
A fluffy newspaper article concerning a Rupp reunion in 1931 does not constitute documentation of George Rupp being a gunsmith. Because he wasn't.
Perhaps the writer of the Sotheby's catalog note would like to provide it? We're all waiting. I'll be happy to be proven incorrect.
If anyone has a copy of Mr. Kolar's 2017 Muzzle Blasts article that Sotheby's is relying so heavily upon, I'd love to get a look at it. I'm sure all of the period documentation I'm missing will lie therein.
-
Just found John Rupp II's estate paperwork, death in 1848. Confirms what I initially stated, township of Upper Macungie (original Macungie had split by that point).
This is what I'm talking about! Every published text keeps stating he was in Weisenberg township. Why? Because the 'county histories' mention it and they mention he was a son of Andrew (which I still have not verified - he could have been George Jr.'s son also). Since Andrew ended up in Weisenberg twp, well by golly his son must have been there too. This John Rupp, Gunsmith, clearly was not; he was in Macungie his entire life because he's there on the census records too.
At this point, I think a huge volume of what has been published since the 1960s needs to be intensely reexamined with a focus on first hand documents!
I'm merely focusing upon one small region and primarily a handful of gunsmiths/families. I wonder what else could be found if others chose to studiously look for real documentation rather than simply rely on county histories and previously-published work? I too have been guilty of this in the past, but I've seen the light!
The truth is out there... 8)
-
If anyone has a copy of Mr. Kolar's 2017 Muzzle Blasts article that Sotheby's is relying so heavily upon, I'd love to get a look at it. I'm sure all of the period documentation I'm missing will lie therein.
Just sent it to you via email. Glad I'm not nearby to hear the screams.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/wpK7gp3/external-content-duckduckgo.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
(https://i.ibb.co/nqpnSqV/Screen-Shot-2021-12-15-at-5-07-25-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/mrpX7rY)
-
Estate of "Peter Neyhardt," inventory taken October 13, 1813 - one of the 'book accounts' due is of "John Rupp." Which John Rupp I wonder? John the elder may have still been alive (thus far, I can only say he died between 1810 and 1816) and John the younger would have been either 22 or 24 depending upon whether his father was George Jr. or Andrew. Can't say which one it was at the present time.
(https://i.ibb.co/M2ygckB/Screen-Shot-2021-12-16-at-12-36-37-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/3r5TpmR)
(https://i.ibb.co/H2bVx4C/Screen-Shot-2021-12-16-at-12-37-23-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/9v1NVgh)
-
Just found another church reference to Johannes / John Rupp. This is in the records of the Jerusalem Lutheran and Reformed of Western Salisbury, transcribed by Ray Haas in 1911:
"Johannas Klotz, son of Ludwig Klotz and w. Magdelena, born January 21, 1792. Baptized May 25, 1792. Sponsors Johannas Rupp and Magdelena Klotzin."
What I am finding most interesting is - thus far - I have quite a few references to him acting as sponsor, but I have yet to find any notations in any of these church records to him and wife having their own child/children baptized, or a marriage record. As per the census record by 1800, he appears to have had two children by that point, and he was in Macungie, so I would assume that he wasn't traveling far for church needs and often the preachers were running circuits to various homes as needed. All of his sponsoring was done within a reasonable radius of 'Ruppsville.'
Still searching.
-
Still trying to figure out where - specifically - all of the birth dates for the Rupp children, as well as the birth dates for George Rupp and wife Ursula, originated.
Here's an interesting quote from a scholar who actually was researching many of these primary immigrants via German church records:
“Another reason that an emigrant from this region is not included in this volume is that records were simply not found. An example may be found in the family of an immigrant named George Rupp who is identified in Charles Roberts et al., History of Lehigh County, Pennsylvania, Vol. III: 1106. The article states that he was born in Wimmerau in Lower Alsace on 11 Aug. 1721, son of Ulrich Rupp and Margaret Holtz. This place appeared likely to be Wimmenau, and the records there were searched for the family. The church book in Wimmenau starts in 1724, too late to locate a birth that occurred in 1721; however, it is likely that the immigrant was from this village since an Ulrich Rupp was located in the burial records at Wimmenau, died 29 Aug. 1727, aged 50 years. Other Rupps appear in the Wimmenau KB, but no mention of George Rupp could be found there.” (Burgert, pg. xiv)
Burgert, Annette Kunselman. Eighteenth Century Emigrants from the Northern Alsace to America. Camden: Picton Press, 1992.
-
Lots of info on Wikitree for the Rupp family. Ulrich Rupp is on there.
-
It certainly is, Jim. However, the problem with what is plastered all over the internet as well as Ancestry and other genealogical websites is that none of it - or very little of it - is documented to primary sources. I'm not willing to accept at face value family stories, or pretty much anything Sam Dyke published (which then became the basis for many later writers and 'experts'), or the old county histories that were so popular during the late 19th and early 20th century etc. etc. I am specifically searching for information based upon primary sources, or those who can document their information to primary sources. Thus far, that seems to be in scarce supply.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/ZVYJCTc/MUPPETS-DD.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
Fantastic work and I have enjoyed going back several times now to learn and reference this post. I find your phrasing:
"...a blind rabbit hole amid a floral word-soup of conflicting, ethereal statements"
to be absolute poetry!! Thank you for taking what can be rather sleepy research at times and going after it with personality! You should try your hand at ranting or soap-boxing more, as few have your gift for such a descriptive pen.
I seem to be one of the few that agree with you that Ancestry is to me a tangled mess - I scratch my head and struggle with it more than it generally ever returns. There is great stuff in there but sorting wheat from chaff takes a LOT of patience.
-
You should try your hand at ranting or soap-boxing more...
Surely you jest. I'd be curious to know how some others here feel about that!!! ;D
Seriously, thanks. Very happy that you enjoy my attempts at writing something coherent and informative.
-
(https://i.ibb.co/ZVYJCTc/MUPPETS-DD.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
Oh dear lord. OK, I think that one might deserve a gold star! :P :P :P
-
(https://i.ibb.co/ZVYJCTc/MUPPETS-DD.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
According to 23 and me these 2 guys are my uncles! If you think Wiki tree is bad don't go to 23 and me.
Yes 2 gold stars ;D
-
From a friend (I'll get back to seriousness fairly shortly):
(https://i.ibb.co/qnkjVGR/BC9-AA821-4-B28-474-F-9-B6-D-56-AB1752-BAB7.jpg) (https://ibb.co/W3g5j9c)
-
So. I've been going through Mr. Kolar's article of 2017, comparing and contrasting what is presented therein with the information that I have in my own research. What I'm planning to do here is to explore his article a bit further and see if there is anywhere where a consensus may be reached, or if the planets are too far apart in opposition. Obviously the article is copyrighted and I do not believe I can just slap it up here in one piece, but I certainly can offer quotes with credit being given since we are examining all of this in an educational and scholarly way (most of the time ;D , see above...)
I'd like to begin with the initial photo included in the 2017 article; the caption states, "Photo of John Rupp II given by Ira Rupp, his descendant, to Ron Gabel in the 1970's." I am in no position to know anything about Ira Rupp or his interaction with Mr. Gabel, but I immediately question the accuracy of the information relayed to Mr. Gabel. The photo in question:
(https://i.ibb.co/0KBhnBR/Screen-Shot-2021-12-19-at-11-40-45-AM.jpg) (https://ibb.co/2S8gF81)
I am no expert in regard to historical photography, but my gut initially called shenanigans and I thought 'this does not look like a photo taken prior to 1848.' John Rupp II, gunsmith of Upper Macungie, died in 1848 as I illustrated previously. I do not have time (nor really the interest :P ) to engage in an extensive study of the history of photography, but what I was initially able to find indicates that the process was not introduced to the US until 1839 and was quite a laborious and expensive process. Yet, this old dude up in the backwoods of Lehigh County (and it was extremely rural at the time) is going to be able to afford let alone find a photographer within the first 9 years of it's introduction to the US? Furthermore, while I am no expert on men's hats of the 19th century, I do not *think* that hat looks like an 1840s hat. It does appear to be a common straw hat w/ band, somewhat ubiquitous throughout the 19th century especially during the second half of the century, but I don't believe the lower height or shaping of the crown on the hat in this photo indicates a pre-1848 date. Of course I could be wrong but as I said, my gut is telling me this is not John Rupp II. It may be another later Rupp, or even another later 'John' Rupp (yes there were more of the same family group) - I'm not trying to call anyone a liar, but I do believe Ira Rupp was mistaken as to which of his ancestors this man actually was.
If anyone here has knowledge or input on historical photography and/or historical men's haberdashery, would love to hear some other viewpoints.
-
So I shared this photo with two historians, one of whom used to be the director at the Lehigh County Historical Society--specifying only that it's been proposed that the individual in this photograph died in 1848.
One wrote: "That’s a tall tale. The earliest American photograph is from 1839. A portrait photo from that period would still have required an elaborate setup under good conditions to take. And the person would have needed to have been posed and held the position. This has none of the hallmarks of that." He added: "Aside from all of that, the feel of it is just all wrong. This looks more like something someone would have taken with a Brownie camera given the 'immediacy' of it. It’s just too casual to have been from that period."
The other wrote: "It doesn't look 'right' to me as an 1840s photo, either. They were much more stiffly posed. He seems too casual."
I am not an expert in "reading" early photographs, as these two are, but based on many, many early photographs that I've seen from the 1850s-1870s, this looks like none of them. The pose is all off and, as the first friend above wrote, these early photographs of people are nearly always taken in studios--which this is not. Outside in backwoods PA in the 1840s? Seems very unlikely.
-
I also received some feedback from someone with an extensive background in art and photograhy. His opinion:
"An 1848 photo would be posed and done in a studio with different background. This pose is way too casual looking to be that early."
Meanwhile I'm trying to figure out exactly what IS in the background. Do I see a cane? Is he sitting on the 'stoop' outside the front door?
-
The more I look at this image and compare it to reputable dated images that I'm able to find online (again, just casually researching here), the more I'm convinced this is probably a 1880s or 1890s photo using the Kodak method. If the story re: Ira Rupp and Ron Gabel is accurate to some degree, I wonder which Rupp this actually might be? Well I'll leave that to the genealogists. Going to move onward shortly...
-
So first paragraph, Mr. Kolar states, "This rifle was made during the American Revolution sometime in the early-to-mid 1770s."
I'll let that one sink in a bit and leave it at that. Nevertheless, an awfully emphatic opener with no backing information at all. None. This is pure opinion.
Paragraph 3: "This is the earliest John Rupp rifle known and, to the best of my knowledge, the earliest signed rifle made in the Lehigh Valley."
Earliest John Rupp? Very likely, I and many would likely agree. No proof, of course, but it certainly does seem to be an early evolution of the 'classic' Federal Lehigh style. As to the second portion of the sentence, Christian Oerter (or should I call him John Oerter?) may have a bone to pick. Possibly Peter Neihart also, as his 1787 rifle is *in my opinion* probably contemporaneous with this one if not a bit earlier. Ok ok, speculative sparring, since this rifle is not dated.
Paragraph 3: "Who the first John Rupp was is a matter of some debate."
No it's not. George Rupp's son Johannes (and frequently referenced by the anglicized name "John" in later records) born apparently at some point in the early to mid 1760s, was the first of that name that can be documented within this family group. Tax records, census records and church records of the period in question provide verification. See my current research as well as all five (currently) pages of this forum topic.
Paragraph 3: "The current article is based upon early research of Sam Dike[sic] with input from Ron Gabel and current work by Bob Smalser."
This is going to be tough because folks take things personally. I have no idea where Sam Dyke came up with the majority of anything he published, because much of it seems to be based largely on the county histories which are completely undocumented outside of later 'family remembrances.' At times, the county histories publish something more substantial such as a tax list, but I have found errors in the transcriptions when compared to the actual tax lists in question, and the work of Sam Dyke that I have used previously seems to maintain those same errors. Bob Smalser many of us here may remember. He did not seem amenable to anyone questioning his pronouncements and he likewise - judging by much of what he has subsequently published on Ancestry - seems to have relied a great deal on the county histories. He does have some good information re: the Neihardt family that he acknowledged was based upon work by Dennis Kastens. Kastens is an example of a primary source researcher who went directly to the German church records. Can't fault that approach.
My point here is that I believe Mr. Kolar made an initial mistake right out of the gate by relying upon the later, second-hand work of others in entirety in order to write his article without verifying the work of said others with available primary sources. Trust but verify!
To be continued.....
-
Paragraph 3: "If you really want to get confused just look at the internet and the various Family websites.”
Agreed! Now we’re getting somewhere! However…
Paragraph 3: “What follows is a summary based upon the most current verifiable explanation.”
$#&&!!%!! Had me, then lost me. How Mr. Kolar could write these two (above) sentences back-to-back is beyond me. Why? Because nothing he states following this sentence is verifiable at all, and no references or documentation is supplied at all.
Paragraph 4: “Johann George Rupp was born in the village of Wimmern in Lower Alsace, Germany in 1721.”
Documentation please? There is none. This is straight out of the county histories. See my previous post, and my online article, incorporating the research work of Annette Burgert. The village is determined to be Wimmenau and there are no records at all predating 1724. There is a burial noted for Ulrich Rupp, a man often referenced as George’s father, and it seems likely that this is in fact the village of origin, but Burgert does reiterate that while other Rupp records are found there, there is nothing to reference George Rupp at all. Nothing.
Paragraph 4: “The Rupps were Mennonites of Swiss origin.”
Documentation please? There is no evidence of this whatsoever. There were Rupps in the Lancaster and later Lebanon and Dauphin area that were indeed Mennonites, but there is no evidence of connection between that family group and the Macungie Rupp family group. In fact, the frequency of Macungie Rupp infant baptisms and sponsorships (a number of which I have referenced relative to Johannes as sponsor) factually argues agains them being part of any anabaptist sect. This is a prime example of the "Ancestry mess," whereupon many casual folks looking for their family history find a surname that matches their own, have a "light bulb" moment, and then add it to their family tree. Then it gets repeated ad nauseum about three thousand more times and the next thing you know, 'Hey Bingo! We were Mennonites!" No evidence at all save on planet Ancestry. It doesn't help that the Mennonite Rupps had at least three - and possibly more - family members named 'Johannes' across multiple generations, and furthermore, there were additional Rupps spread through Lancaster/Lebanon and further west that also do not seem in any way tied to the Macungie Rupps (no evidence for it, anyway). This has led to the wildly divergent speculations as to 'Macungie John's' death date, as people for many years have simply been randomly using the dates on gravestones in alternately either Lancaster (Roop cemetery in Leola), Harrisburg (Chambers UMC) or York (Canadochly).
Paragraph 4: “Various European references show that Johann George Rupp had at least four ancestors who were gunsmiths starting as early as the 1500s.”
Documentation please? There is no evidence of this whatsoever. The earliest reference to this belief that I’ve found is incorporated into a 1931 newspaper article from Reading offering a fluffy write-up of a Rupp family reunion. Possibly Dennis Kastens may have come across something offering insight into this matter, but I have yet to find documentation of it in his works. Also, there is absolutely no documentation of George Rupp having the vornamen “Johann” or some variant of this; it’s straight out of the county histories. He very well may have had that name at his baptism, but as I’ve already illustrated, there are no extant records of his baptism to be found in Germany. No American record utilizes the name “Johann George” or “John George.” He is always referenced simply as George Rupp. The only reference to a “J. George Rup” was actually in reference to his son George Jr., from 1791, which I document in my research relative to the records of the Jordan Reformed congregation. George Sr. may very well have been christened Johan or Johann George, but nobody save perhaps the priest at his baptism or the priest at his deathbed would have used his vornamen ‘Johann.’
To be continued…
-
I think you already got your answer on the photograph but just to add a little - An 1848 Photograph would be a Daguerreotype - that is a Brightly buffed out Silver plate with an iodine solution applied. Its developed over hot mercury fumes - invented in France in 1839 by Louis Daguerre. 1848 would be considered a pretty early one at that. These photos look like a mirror with an image magically applied hence their nicknames "Ghost in the Mirror". That photo is very late 1880s to maybe 1915 - probably around very early 1900's - the clothes are a dead give away. If that photo were made from an original Daguerreotype he would NOT be posed like that - he would be upright with a metal brace holding his head still from behind and it would be a bust shot most likely - but no way on that pose he is in in 1848. In 1848 the subject had to sit perfectly still for about 45 seconds and the lighting had to be perfect - usually done by City photographers in studios though some traveled in the later years just prior to the Civil War as technology improved. By the start of the war wet plate emulsions on glass called Ambrotypes took over, then finally tintypes by mid to late war. Around late 1870's Cabinet Cards with applied albumen emulsions became very popular though tintypes were still made up until about 1900. I have collected and studied photography for 20+ years.
-
Thank you very much for that explanation! I don't know enough about historical photography to make any educated statement but I knew as soon as I saw that photo that it was not meshing with the description of the individual/date. I appreciate you taking the time to explain in detail.
-
I revisited the county histories simply to try to give some previous writers the benefit of the doubt, hoping to see if I missed some actual references that may have been incorporated into the text or a snippet, somewhere, of actual documentation.
Alas, tis not to be.
I look through these books and their empty lies seem to pass me by. I'm just debating with myself...
-
I look through these books and their empty lies seem to pass me by. I'm just debating with myself...
I feel that I’ve seen a music video in MTV’s early years with these lyrics.
-
;D ;D ;D
-
Paragraph 4: “He married Ursula von Peterholtz in January of 1750. She was of noble blood, the daughter of Count Heinrich von Peterholtz.” Mr. Kolar also goes on to note her parentage, the town and location in which she was born, and a quick mention of the old story re: her parent's objection to George Rupp. Mr. Kolar writes confidently of this.
Documentation please? There is no source documentation that actually verifies this ‘romantic’ story of their elopement related in the county histories. All that can be said, based upon one sponsorship record in the Jordan Reformed congregation for 1771, is that George Rupp was married to a woman named Ursula. There is nothing of which I'm aware actually verifying her origin or surname, and in fact the repeated attempts by Alfred Loy during the late 19th and early 20th centuries in Europe to reclaim the long-lost “Rupp fortune” seem to have gone absolutely nowhere. I won't dismiss the story out-of-hand, and I will freely admit that perhaps portions of it may be accurate; apparently, later descendants during the 1890-1900 period felt strongly enough about it to put up hard cash in order to send Alfred Loy to Europe to dig further. But show me the money! Where is the documentation?
Someone to whom I had inquired recently sent me copies of the following, all from the Reading Times I believe. I also have since found three of them posted up on Ancestry. The newspaper articles are verifiable insofar as they are real clips from the Reading Times dating throughout the 1898-1902 period. I do not know what eventually happened to Alfred Loy’s quest other than that the “Rupp fortune” was apparently never secured. I assume there was a reason for this, but I do not know what that reason was. Also not sure if the Reading Times ever followed up on this after 1902.
(https://i.ibb.co/ftZzdYZ/Reading-times-4-7-1898.jpg) (https://ibb.co/2PR137R)
(https://i.ibb.co/SshjN0V/Reading-times-11-2-1898.jpg) (https://ibb.co/BzXpLjT)
(https://i.ibb.co/5LBSz1C/Reading-times-4-30-1900.jpg) (https://ibb.co/WfgMdH7)
(https://i.ibb.co/6HNVG9V/Reading-times-07-15-1902.jpg) (https://ibb.co/tq3knjk)
I'm gonna go sink another drink. It'll give me time to think...
-
Paragraph 5 : “The couple came to Penn’s Woods in the new world in August of 1750 aboard the English ship “Brothers.”
No, it appears that they/he did not. There is no record at all of a George Rupp or in fact any Rupp surname variant being upon the passenger list for “Brothers” or “Two Brothers” (a different ship) in 1750 or in any year. Pennsylvania German Pioneers lists a “Johann George Koop” in the transcribed version of list C for the “Brothers” on Aug. 24, 1750 (there is no list A or B), and I thought this name might be suspiciously close enough to warrant an investigation. Nevertheless, it does indeed appear to be “Koop” or “Koop” on the original list. The surname is slightly questionable / difficult but it definitely is not an “R” in comparison with other capital “R” letters signed by other men, and there definitely is only a single “p” at the end if in fact that is the letter. If anyone specializes in 17th/18th century German script and feels differently, please do offer an opinion!
(https://i.ibb.co/rGCzvn3/Screen-Shot-2021-12-21-at-10-59-45-AM.png) (https://ibb.co/3yDjktv)
The ship “Brotherhood” listed a Johannes Rub and Christian Rub in 1750, but neither of these fellows are George or Johan George. There is no record that I can find - thus far - of a George Rupp, or Johan George Rupp/Rup/Rub/Rueb etc. arriving on ANY ship through the port of Philadelphia. There are a few different Rupp variations listed on the palatine ship lists of course, but none of them are George or Johan George, and none of them had children listed with the name George or Johan George. Many lists, in fact, only list the adult males so if George had been brought here under the age of 16 aboard one of those ships, there would be no records of him. I can find no listing in Pennsylvania German Pioneers, no listing in A Collection of Upwards of 30,000 names…, no listing to be found in Pennsylvania arrivals anywhere, and I have been not only looking in Strassburger/Hinke’s transcriptions and Rupp’s 30,000 names... but I have been slowly scouring through the actual surviving lists available through the PA state digital archives (microfilm images) for the years around 1750. Now, obviously he came from somewhere and arrived somewhere in the colonies, but as of the present time, nobody including myself has been able to point to a passenger list with an immigrant listing that could conceivably be this man. He very possibly arrived through a different port in a different colony.
If someone has a record of a George Rupp arriving ca. 1720-1760, somewhere, I would love to see it and pursue it further whether it fits the ‘eloped with Ursula’ narrative or not. Meanwhile, one thing I can say with a fairly good degree of certainty is that he did not arrive aboard the ship “Brothers” in 1750 and since it is quite easy to find the lists for that particular ship, I can’t imagine why Mr. Kolar chose to perpetuate incorrect information without further investigation.
-
Paragraph 5: “Wealthier than most immigrants, they acquired a tract of land of over 600 acres around Trexlertown, in what is now Lehigh County, under a land warrant dated the 25th of December 1752.”
First of all, there is nothing to indicate they were “…wealthier than most immigrants…” other than the 19th century romantic stories of the so-called ‘Rupp fortune.’ Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. I wasn’t there, and neither was anyone with the ability to document their wealth either, since nowhere is there found factual documentation of it. Also, George Rupp definitely did not initiate a warrant for over 600 acres and he likely did not initiate the process until 1786. The 1752 warrant which Mr. Kolar is referencing is listed in the PA Archives series 3, Vol. 26, on Dec. 20, 1752. Anyone can find it for themselves at Fold 3 (online) and it’s on page 154. This warrant is for 25 acres for a man transcribed as “George Roap.” I have doubts that is is George Rupp, but I can’t say this for certain not having seen the original warrant or how far back the interest is back-dated. As I note in my own article, there were many ‘Raup’ surnames in NH county as well as ‘Raub’ surnames, and my opinion (not a fact, just an opinion) is that this 1752 warrant is for one of those individuals given the odd phonetic spelling. There is a warrant initiated for George Rupp that can be found later in the same archives series on page 158, March 25, 1786, for 145 acres wth interest back-dated to 1782, which seems much more relevant to the quantity of land for which he was taxed; that hovered around 180 to 200 acres up through the War, and following the War he seems to fall off the assessments when Herman has @ 260-280 acres and Andrew, 100, until later on when it seems possible John split off some of this also. As I note in my research, George’s estate paperwork hints at some form of - potentially - land split or sharing agreement among the sons, but this is currently unclear.
Warrant of 1786:
(https://i.ibb.co/whQHWTK/George-Rupp-warrant-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/VYCySdv)
-
Paragraph 5 : “The couple came to Penn’s Woods in the new world in August of 1750 aboard the English ship “Brothers.”
[snip]
...one thing I can say with a fairly good degree of certainty is that he did not arrive aboard the ship “Brothers” in 1750 and since it is quite easy to find the lists for that particular ship, I can’t imagine why Mr. Kolar chose to perpetuate incorrect information without further investigation.
Honestly, of all the things you've posted this one is (so far!) the most mysterious, since Mr. Kolar was not repeating unreliable information but changing reliable information with no justification!
-
To be fair, I don't think he came up with it completely out of thin air. I swear I remember finding another article or reference to George Rupp arriving aboard the 'Brothers' or the 'Twin Brothers' somewhere, I just can't remember where I saw it. Probably one of the county histories, or maybe something Bob Smalser wrote/posted either here or on Ancestry (he has posted a LOT on Ancestry). I think Kolar was simply repeating what someone else had told him.
I honestly don't find any ill-intent as per Mr. Kolar's 2017 article but I do think it's grossly misinformed. Where I see the ill-intent is in the current annotations being written for the upcoming Sotheby's auction of the DuPont collection in January, as I have now sent all of this information to three different people involved in the auction. Rather than correct the representation - arguably fraudulent representation of the rifle - or at the least include the information I provided, they actually doubled down on the completely unverifiable pre-War attribution to George with a rifle signed John. ::)
Caveat Emptor indeed (although it's a spectacular rifle and personally I wouldn't give a s&&t when or by whom it was made).
-
I honestly don't find any ill-intent as per Mr. Kolar's 2017 article but I do think it's grossly misinformed.
I didn't mean to imply any ill-intent either. I just find the whole thing incredible--what people are willing to state confidently when they have no solid information (or don't bother to check whether the information is reliable). I mean, if the whole story is seamlessly coherent, maybe there's no cause to think twice. But there are plenty of red flags in this case...
-
Paragraph 6: “There is considerable evidence that John George Rupp may have made this early rifle. He came from a family of European gunsmiths and even though he was considered a ‘commoner,’ he is described in other records as a most superior and talented young man.”
What evidence? The opinions of the Mr. Kolar or unnamed others? The rifle is signed ‘John Rupp.’ It is not signed ‘George’ or ‘John George’ or ‘JG’ or anything of the kind. It’s signed John. As I have demonstrated in my research, George Rupp was always known and referenced in every existing record as George Rupp. He was never referenced as a gunsmith and no firearm of any kind has ever materialized signed by ‘George’ or ‘John George’ Rupp. Mr. Kolar initiates this paragraph with the phrase, “There is considerable evidence…” and then proceeds to provide absolutely no evidence whatsoever. In fact, this was one of the first observations offered me when I asked an opinion of the article of others. If I may be blunt, this is probably the most outrageous statement in this entire article solely because of this bizarre sentence absolutely lacking in every conceivable way.
Additionally, there has - as yet - been no evidence or documentation provided to indicate that his particular Rupp family background included 17th century or early 18th century gunsmiths. Why? Because the records apparently do not exist to verify George’s birth, let alone his family background (see my previous references to the work of Annette Burgert). The only representations of a background in gun work for this family prior to sons Herman and Johannes/John have been statements made in the late 19th and early 20th century by family Freundschaft groups and gatherings. Finally, since there are absolutely no surviving period documents of his youth, how on earth could anyone describe him as a “…most superior and talented young man?” There is nothing of the period describing him as such, and while I’m positively certain that his later descendants may have chosen to describe him in this manner to the editors of the county histories, familial remembrances rendered a century or more after the life of a given individual do not carry any water whatsoever without supporting documentation. There is none.
-
Apparently in 1788 many inhabitants of Northampton county petitioned to have the county divided. I don't know anything about this petition--and Lehigh County was only carved out from Northampton in 1812. The petition is a long scroll: over one thousand people signed it and it took about 20 photographs to capture the whole scroll.
But look who signed the petition:
(https://i.ibb.co/M5Hz6qm/Screen-Shot-2021-12-21-at-8-19-39-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/vvWNY2S)
(https://i.ibb.co/M1T3677/DSCN8188-DM-copy.jpg) (https://ibb.co/xgvRH66)
Note that Herman signs his name in "Latin" script but Georg in German script.
-
That is some awesome piece of paper! Where is that located? Also, I might add that his "R" in Rupp is clearly a German script "R" and reinforces the assertion that the dude knew how to write, and the letter in the 1750 'Brothers' list is not an R but indeed most likely a K. Also he clearly is using two 'p' letters at the end of his surname, not one. I also love to see the u-hook. The John Rupp rifle were are currently debating - at Sotheby's next month - also seems to my eye to utilize the u-hook in the surname signature. I don't think it's a random mark.
Spectacular find there Scott.
-
It's among the vast Northampton County papers at HSP, which spread through 6 boxes and 116 volumes. All I can tell you is that it is in this box:
(https://i.ibb.co/NYRSswz/DSCN7861.jpg) (https://ibb.co/12c6LHx)
I remembered this petition and thought there was a chance that they signed it?
The only description of what's in all these boxes is the long paragraph below--and you need to rely on the desk person to know where the eff any particular item is among the 6 boxes and 116 volumes:
https://discover.hsp.org/Record/ead-0456/Description#tabnav
The collection deals with the founding and early settlement of Northampton County. It reflects the character and nationality of the settlers, religion, commercial and land enterprises, Indian warfare, and includes letters and documents of men who were prominent in the economic development of the country. There are: land warrants, 1734-1887; surveys, 1705-1886; deeds, 1689-1867; correspondence, 1743-1804; field notes of surveys, 1768-1865; minutes of the Board of Property, 1776-1779; wills, administration accounts, 1682-1860; accounts, 1775-1855; bonds and agreements, 1742-1880; pleas and prosecutions, 1753-1848; tax list, 1816; and miscellaneous papers on land transactions, and municipal, legal, political and domestic affairs, 1706-1880. The collection also contains: commissioners minutes and accounts, 1755-1782; provincial tax assessments, 1767-1782; Northampton County, assessments, 1768-1793; tax rates, 1762-1789; funding tax, 1789; state tax, 1782; supplementary tax, 1781; county treasurer's accounts, 1754-1770; miscellaneous assessments, 1808-1815; indentures, land warrants, petitions for roads, taverns, creation of new townships, oaths of allegiance, indictments, criminal proceedings, details of Indian warfare, military defenses, requests for provisions, arms, ammunition for forts and garrisons, letters on the Moravians in Bethlehem, the Nazareth community, 1727-1858. Among the letters are those of: Edward Biddle, William Bradford, Henry Engel, James Hamilton, Timothy Horsfield, Robert Levers, Thomas Mifflin, Thomas McKean, Jacob Orndt, William Parsons, Richard Peters, Nicholas Scull, Jonathan Sergeant, William Shippen, Bishop Spangenberg, Daniel Stroud, Edward Tilghman, Conrad Weiser, and others. Included in the collection are: provincial tax receipts, 1776; duplicates for county tax, 1770; tax and assessment book, 1779; county tax, 1786; duplicates of provincial tax, 1789; duplicates of county tax, 1766, 1788; letters and documents on the Revolutionary War, transportation, litigations, commerce, politics, grand jury, indictments, marriage contracts, domestic affairs, 1749-1783; surveys, surveyors' returns to the general office, 1776-1865; tax lists, papers on the Continental Army, Connecticut claimants, muster rolls, bonds, legal instruments, list of constables, 1765-1859; Bethlehem materials, letters about the number of people killed by the Indians, 1755-1757, Indian accounts, Quakers and their conduct at Easton, Nazareth community affairs, drafts, bills of sale, 1765-1859. Other papers are: surveys and deeds, 1689-1867; Bethlehem and vicinity papers, 1741-1886, containing letters and documents on the settling of Bethlehem and adjacent areas, surveys and drafts of lands, details of Indian warfare military protection, means of defense of Forts Norris, Allen and Hamilton; petitions for new roads and tavern licenses, constables' returns, records of prices of food; minutes of the Committee of Observation and Inspection of Northampton County, 1774-1777, with Major Robert Traill's report of the proceedings of the Committee of Safety, on the execution of measures adopted by the Continental Congress; manuscript histories of Northampton County, by Matthew S. Henry, 1851, with notes on development of townships, education, religion, witchcraft, trade, Revolutionary War, Indian affairs, court cases, names of taxables, assembly proceedings. Documents on the founding of Easton published in the P.M.H.B., 38 (1914): 110-114.
-
Paragraph 6: “Local tax records in America at this time were non-existent. He may have been much more than a farmer or wealthy land owner.”
As John McEnroe would yell, “You can not be serious!” True, from the formation of the county in 1752 through 1760, there do not appear to be surviving tax records for Northampton County. This is only 8 years, and during that period of time, there was a ‘Horse and Wagon Census’ taken in June, 1758. A transcription of this can be found in the PA Archives, Series 5, Vol. 1. Looking at the return for Macungie, pgs. 208-209, George Rupp is not listed which would indicate either he was not there (which I doubt), or he did not own a wagon, pack horse or draught horse. There are then surviving tax records beginning in 1761 and George Rupp is noted upon almost all of them, including the first year of 1761. Noted, I might add, as “George Rupp.” Scott Gordon may be willing to help out if you are lacking in record availability. The records are extant - please don’t claim they don’t exist.
Here is a ‘catalog’ of every Macungie Rupp tax entry I have been able to record between 1761 and 1790, as well as the 1798 direct tax:
http://erickettenburg.com/johannes-rupp-continued.html
As to being “more than…” anything, this is a preposterous way to approach a scholarly or informative article. Facing a vacuum of documentation or proof, one can not in good conscience use that vacuum as implication of something that is not there.
-
Paragraph 6: “During the Revolutionary War he [George] was a member of the Ranging Company of Northampton County under Lieutenant Colonel Philip Boe. Did he carry this rifle while on patrol?”
I believe Mr. Kolar is referencing Philip Boehm, sometimes spelled in various ways. I can’t speak to a source of where the information related by Mr. Kolar may be found but under the militia law passed in 1776, men between the ages of 18 and 53 were required to serve. By the time the War broke out, George Rupp would have been over this age if in fact he was born in 1721. I am not sure where militia lists may be found for the early War years, as those that I have seen generally list the officers and then merely a total count of the men under their command without detailing individual names. More detailed lists in the PA Archives series (lists including privates) generally date to the early 1780s and I’ve noted the mentions of the Rupp family members therein in my own research, including George. However, it is my opinion that this is referencing George Jr., as George Sr. should have been too old for militia service by the mid 1770s.
Paragraph 7: “If it were not for the existence of another later rifle with an identical signature in script on the barrel… you would probably come to the conclusion that John George Rupp made the early rifle.”
Speak for yourself. I absolutely would not come to that conclusion. I would come to the conclusion that a man named Johannes (or John if anglicized) Rupp made all of the rifles signed “John Rupp” because his name was John and I would come to the conclusion that the gun stocker knew his own name. I would also come to the conclusion that his father George - always known as 'George' in every document of the period, signing his name 'George' as late as 1788 (as Dr. Gordon has recently demonstrated with an original document), and was referenced as 'George' in his 1807 estate papers by his own son Herman - would have signed the rifle as 'George Rupp' had he in fact made the rifle that he clearly did not make. I don’t believe anyone would “…come to the conclusion that John George Rupp made the early rifle” unless he or she is willing to twist reality into multiple pretzels. With mustard.
-
Has anyone on this forum seen this particular gun in person - I know John Kolar has but I am not sure if he is a member here.
I don't doubt the "post war" research at all. It would be nice if Sothebys actually gave a condition report in detail other than "flowery descriptive language" - the pictures do that.
I find it a strikingly handsome gun (even if a bit clunky) and it appears from the photos to be extremely original - but I don't know if this piece has had more hands laid on it and a better opinion formed as to what all has been done to the piece.
Seems having only 2 known signed examples - and its "controversial attribution" make it quite interesting and rare even if not to a particular taste.
-
I know John Kolar has but I am not sure if he is a member here.
It is a great looking rifle.
I'm surprised that Kolar has not responded, if he is a member of the ALR, or through a friend that is a member. I think that we all would appreciate hearing his point of view.
-
Yes, I have seen it first hand in the early 2000's at KRA. I suspect there are others here that have as well. It's considerably larger than most other rifles of this region, era and style, but I so attribute that partially to the use of what I am positive are some recycled components from an earlier rifle. In fact I think I will be starting another thread on this shortly to dig into this a bit further, just to get some feedback. There are many considerations - to my way of thinking - that go into the stocking of a rifle, and while this one stands somewhat outside of the realm of the 'norm' for the area, the larger size and larger cheek to not (imho) indicate an early date, especially considering the carving execution, box style and engraving, and of course most importantly, THE FREAKING CLEAR NAME ON THE BARREL.
There are other rifles of this region that are larger than average, somewhat outside of the norm, including a couple with ridiculously prominent cheeks (Jacob Schleppy rifle anyone?) that nevertheless have never been pushed as being War-era rifles. Because they aren't. Rifles are not cookie-cutter items.
-
I'm up for publicly discussing and debating with anyone at any time, and I will do so politely despite being branded a stooge. I know that I sometimes may allow sarcasm to infiltrate my writing; can't help it. I grew up in NJ. I don't mean offense. My mother always called me a smarta##.
HOWEVER: an intelligent discussion or debate requires documentation and facts, not opinion. Dismissing factual documentation that does not fit a proposed narrative is going to raise the hackles of many.
I know that there are quite a number who view this forum but never engage. On this particular topic I definitely know of a few who have been following it but have not offered commentary. I'd urge ANYONE to do so, positive or negative. I constantly hope that others may come across this thread, or my site, or what was posted on the Contemporary Makers blog, and have additional documentation that could add to the picture. Everything comes to light sooner or later.
-
Still working my way through paragraph 7 of Mr. Kolar's article and it's beginning imho to get a bit disjointed. I'll get to that; in fairness, he likely thinks my brain is disjointed.
He addresses a later signed rifle, actually signed "John Rupp." I'll try to get to that shortly. At the time the article was written, he seems to have been conflicted as to how to approach the two signatures being largely the same on two very disparate rifles, as the later rifle he illustrates is considerably different. I'm not a psychologist, but I have played one at times, and the way I read his commentary on the signatures indicates to me that Mr. Kolar himself was struggling with a way to explain the almost-identical signatures on two extremely different rifles.
At the time he wrote the article (published 2017), the signed "John Rupp" rifle which recently sold through Poulin's was still hiding away. The Poulin rifle is clearly (to my eye) made by the same man that stocked the Kindig/Collis/now DuPont at Sotheby's rifle, including some very distinctive tells in the carved details. But let's just look at the signatures:
Kindig/Collis/Sotheby's rifle:
(https://i.ibb.co/sbQCqTc/IMG-6389.jpg) (https://ibb.co/dj6tDNX)
The most interesting thing here is that while the signature is essentially an anglicized signature, the "u-hook" or "u-bogen" over the letter 'u' is retained. And yes, I very much believe that mark over the 'u' is deliberate and put there on purpose. I find it understandable, especially given the manner in which the letter 'u' is cut, which may also look very much like an anglicized letter 'n.'
Now the Poulin rifle signature"
(https://i.ibb.co/DM79z9K/01-19968x7-1-8-48-43-PM.jpg) (https://ibb.co/wQKSBS6)
Setting the rifles themselves aside for a moment, if these signatures were upon any other two rifles not currently being debated, I don't think (but I could be wrong - this is a brief opinion interlude) that anyone would doubt that they were signed by the same man, especially once actually viewing the rifles and also in consideration of the fact that there are certainly a few years between the two. The Poulin's rifle does not maintain the u-hook, although the signature is more worn and the photo is not as clear so I can't say for 100% that it wasn't there. I don't think there is any evidence of it though.
Later rifle illustrated in Kolar's article:
(https://i.ibb.co/x70CrkS/Screen-Shot-2021-12-23-at-10-43-37-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/P6nmVLZ)
There is a small mark visible above the 'u' although due to the quality of the print photos, I can't determine if it's deliberate or not; it may simply be a random mark, or shadow, or lint. A good detailed photo of this signature should be warranted. Photo quality aside, once again, I think most would be hard-pressed to deny the exceptional similarities between all three, especially if one considers that Johannes Rupp conceivably had a working career of perhaps 25 years prior to his documented death ca. 1810-1816.
If nobody had proposed a pre-War origin for the earliest-appearing rifle - the upcoming Sotheby's rifle - and we as a group were presented these three signatures on any other grouping of rifles, would we really be considering that they were made by different men, or that a man signing rifles as "John" used the name "George" in every other documented instance?
I'm hoping that the absurdity comes into focus.
-
I'm very much enjoying the lively discussion. Eric, I'm looking forward to reading your updated articles also.
-
I’m not going to approach this paragraph-by-paragraph or statement-by-statement much more beyond the point at which I left off with paragraph 8, as the remainder of the article becomes increasingly speculative and Mr. Kolar presents a number of questions which he subsequently can not answer. Those which he attempts to answer are entirely speculative and without any documented or factual basis. Anyone who would like to review Mr. Kolar’s article for themselves and form their own conclusions should be able to obtain a copy through the NMLRA or Muzzle Blasts magazine.
In paragraph 8, Mr. Kolar does make note of a comparison between the work displayed upon a late (early 19th century) rifle signed “John Rupp” and that of Peter Kuntz. He asks, “How did he know the work of Kuntz?” I am not going to undertake a deep dive into Kuntz genealogy at the moment, but if Mr. Kolar were to have examined property deeds for George Sr. and - later - Herman Rupp, he might have seen that the Rupp property/properties were immediately bounded by property of “Dewalt” Kuhns / Kuntz, this being a somewhat anglicized variation of the name ‘Theobald’ and often written as ‘Diebold’ or ‘Diepholt.’ How this particular Kuntz may tie into the Peter/Jacob Kuntz family is a job in which I am not currently engaged, but it is also interesting to note that by the mid to late 19th century, the area on Lehigh County maps known as ‘Rupps’ or ‘Rupp District’ was immediately bounded by ‘Kuhns District’, itself bordering on South Whitehall township. There’s a rich subject for potential sleuths.
(https://i.ibb.co/0M9rDBZ/Upper-Macungie-County-PA-1700-1800-s.jpg) (https://ibb.co/sw1qm5Q)
Toward the end of paragraph 8, Mr. Kolar states, “John George Rupp is never mentioned as a smith or gunsmith, but again, his prominence as a large land holder may have precluded any mention of another occupation.” I’m just going to repeat what I previously stated in post #135: this is a preposterous way to approach a scholarly or informative article. Facing a vacuum of documentation or proof, one can not in good conscience use that vacuum as implication of something that is not there, especially considering that at least twice between 1766 and 1781 he was specifically noted as a “farmer” on the assessment lists. Could George Rupp have been capable of stocking a rifle? Sure, anyone could. Prove it, and document a single instance in which he either used the name ‘John’ himself or was referenced in a document as ‘John Rupp.’
-
Paragraph 11: “We don’t know who he [John Rupp] apprenticed with…” True. In fact, we don’t know if he apprenticed with anyone at all. There is no evidence that by the War-era, and beyond, every single tradesman must have necessarily apprenticed with someone in order to perform a service. Clearly, based upon information published by Bob Lienemann, the Moravians at Bethlehem and Christian’s Spring were maintaining somewhat of the old European system of master/apprentice relationships. Yet, it is very possible - speculatively - that the War created turmoil within this system. And interesting case study can be made with the example of a man named Michael Schrader/Schroeder whose name is spelled in a variety of creative ways in the assessments for Salisbury Township and eventually Northampton Town (Allentown). In 1764, Michael “Schreader” was tax collector for Salisbury Township which initially also included Northampton Town (Allentown). He was subsequently taxed as Michael “Shredder” in one 1765 list and “Shroeder” in a detailed 1765 list for Salisbury, which noted him as owning a total of 122 acres, 3 horses, 4 cattle and 2 sheep. By 1770 Michael “Shroeder” is taxed in Northampton Town, no trade, and 1772 again as “Shreder” with no trade listed. By 1776, Michael “Shraeder” owns a tavern in Northampton Town, but then in 1779 Michael “Shrader” is a “G’Smith.” In 1781 Michael “Shrader” is in Northampton Town wth no trade listed, again in 1785 and 1786 (“Shreader”) and in 1787 and 1789 he is noted as a “B’smith.” The long and short of it is, to my way of thinking, that people historically as now do what is necessary to survive. In 1780, Johannes Moll (John Moll Sr.) was taxed in Northampton Town as a “Tailor” and his father-in-law, Abraham Rinker, was taxed as a “Hatter.” (PHMC MF roll 331) There is no doubt Johannes Moll was a gunsmith, but by 1780, the armory/armories in Allentown had been shuttered and Northampton County ‘dried up’ relatively speaking relative to what had been going on ca. 1777 through early 1779. As the War effort shifted back east to the mid-Atantic coast and points south, and imported French and Dutch arms filled the vacuum of the early years, the need for gunsmiths and/or gunstockers in Northampton County may have been quite diminished. There was a definitely a continental 'shoe factory' there through the early 1780s, and possibly other establishments to support the state cause; being on the state payroll was certainly more of a guaranteed source of income than private solicitations, and it is not clear to me how firmly Pennsylvania may have been insisting upon gunsmiths working solely for the state cause by that point in the War. Philadelphia was retaken from the British by 1779 and multiple repair facilities were able to resume in that city rather than the ‘backwoods’ of Northampton County.
Kolar notes in paragraph 11 that “This John Rupp, could have created the early rifle [the rifle in question] in his second or third year of apprenticeship in 1777 or 1778.” Again, this is assuming he served a formal apprenticeship and assuming his birth date of 1762 is accurate, which is in no way certain. For all we know, he may have picked up a knowledge of gunsmithing by helping his brother Herman. Did Herman serve a formal apprenticeship? There is no way to know this either, although it is interesting to observe that the only two signed rifles extant of Herman Rupp are dated 16 years apart (1793 and 1809) and yet are almost identical in appearance - a mechanical and unthinking similarity being evident between the two. This type of similarity does not seem to be present in the signed or attributed rifles of John Rupp. Furthermore, the question that begs an answer: if John Rupp was involved in a formal apprenticeship and was only in “…his second or third year of apprenticeship…” at the time he made this rifle - in order to fit the narrative - why would we then assume that he would be permitted to sign a shop product with his own name? I am not aware of any situation in which this would be considered acceptable in light of what is currently known of 18th century apprentice and journeyman practice.
In paragraph 13, Mr. Kolar invites the question as to whether John Rupp might have apprenticed with “William Moll (1712-1780), John Moll (1746-1794) or Peter Neihardt (1743-1813).” First of all, there is absolutely no evidence AT ALL that a man named William Moll existed, let alone was a practicing gunsmith or existed with firm birth/death dates. This is entirely second or third hand speculation based upon absolutely nothing of documented substance. Johannes / John Moll Sr. has been documented in Rockland twp, Berks Co. by 1752-1753 (warrantee maps), and was noted as a gunsmith on a 1763 indenture when he sold his Rockland twp. property before moving to Northampton Town. Therefore, this proposed birthdate of 1746 is absolutely an impossibility and once again is solely based upon second or third hand ‘Ancestry-type’ information. I am not in any way denying that John Moll Sr. may have been a basis for an apprenticeship of some kind: in fact, I firmly believe (my own speculation) that Johannes Moll was the primary design and style source for what later became the ‘Lehigh’ style of rifle making. If the Rupp’s apprenticed formally with anyone, I strongly suspect it was Moll - my speculation. Peter Neihardt is also a potential candidate, however he was not documented in period records as a gunsmith until 1789 despite an extant rifle firmly dated 1787. Nevertheless, there is no evidence that anyone other than Moll was working as a gunsmith prior to the War in the Allentown or Macungie area.
-
... the Moravians at Bethlehem and Christian’s Spring were maintaining somewhat of the old European system of master/apprentice relationships.
We really know next to nothing about how the Moravian apprentice system worked in Pennsylvania. I really wish somebody would do a deep dive into what we can learn from the archives about apprenticeship generally in these Moravian communities. What we would learn from other trades surely worked exactly the same for the gunmaking trade. What is clear from what little I have seen in the archive is that Moravian authorities quickly learned that in settlement communities such as Bethehem or Christiansbrunn or Lititz it couldn't function like an "old world" system.
A. Boys were typically apprenticed to master: BUT, if a Moravian boy was assigned to a Moravian shoemaker, and that Moravian shoemaker was, a year or two later, dismissed from the community--according to an apprentice agreement, the boy was bound to the master and so the master could legally take the boy. Not acceptable!--the Moravians were not going to let a devout boy leave with a expelled master. So agreements had to be different.
B. Also, the church's needs superseded any arrangement between master and apprentice. So, if a Moravian boy was assigned to a Moravian shoemaker in Lititz and then, a year or two later, there was an urgent need for shoes in North Carolina, the church always reserved the right to reassign that boy. So much for the apprenticeship agreement.
C. The wanderjahr just wouldn't work: the Moravian church isn't going to allow its devout boys to wander out in the world (ever). Maybe, if arrangements could be made, a boy could go learn from another Moravian (J. Joseph Henry went to study briefly with Henry Albright, who was still a Moravian though he had left Moravian settlement communities). But I would guess such things were unusual rather than expected.
D. The housing and other aspects of the agreement (responsibilities of the master) didn't fit settlement communities. William Henry II's apprentices could not live in his house because he had daughters--unmarried boys and unmarried girls (who weren't family) could not live under one roof. Again, not a problem in the "world" but a major one in Nazareth, Bethlehem, Lititz, etc.
E. Which Moravian boys completed the standard seven-year apprenticeship? William Henry II didn't: he is assigned to Albrecht in June 1771 and running the Christiansbrunn gunshop by mid 1777. Oerter certainly worked under Albrecht for more than seven years. We have precious few apprenticeship agreements (indentures) for any Moravian trades and none, I think, for any gunmakers.
Boys were "assigned" to masters, no doubt, in all trades. But I'm not sure that anybody thought that the European system could work in this new landscape, for a number of reasons ...
-
Both you and Bob certainly are much more knowledgeable when it comes to the Moravian communities than I. The point I am trying to make is that among the Moravian craftsman, based upon info Bob has shared and published, it seems clear to me in a simplistic sense that they were maintaining some form of master/apprentice relationship with a somewhat formalistic nature. There is not much evidence of this outside of the Moravian communities during the colonial period, although there are some nuggets to be found here and there (our discussion re: Heyne and a Johannes Moll being one) which indicate that some at the least were maintaining this relationship. But how does the War figure into this? Speculatively, I would ask: if someone was hired on as a workman in Northampton Town ca. 1777 - perhaps with some background in joinery, or blacksmithing, or some other 'mechanically' useful ability - and worked there for a couple of years servicing continental arms, might not he be fairly well-prepared to carry on gunsmithing to some degree following the closure of the armories in 1779? Necessity is the mother of invention, as they say, and stocking up a functional flintlock sure isn't rocket science. With no guild system in place, who is to say who might act as a gunstocker or gunsmith and who might not? It seems as though quite a number of post-War gunsmiths were alternately farming, blackmsithing and gunsmithing; might periodic profitability have played a role in which task was most immediately productive?
I guess what I'm trying to determine is how forcefully we should be considering the master/apprentice relationship by the 1770s and beyond, again with no formal guild system in place to act as police.
-
With no guild system in place, who is to say who might act as a gunstocker or gunsmith and who might not?
I get what you're saying/asking & generally agree with it and its implications. And, yes, I guess things were more controlled in Moravian communities--though not, I think, because a European apprenticeship system was largely functioning but just because the church controlled & could control tradesmen's behavior. So the answer to your question above--within Moravian church settlements--was: the church.
Outside those settlements, in the "world"? No body existed to police whether an adult set himself up and practiced gunsmithing. (I think that's your main point.)
Apprenticeship agreements, which still existed, could when used certainly bind underage boys, no matter how skilled they had become, from practicing their trade independently until the agreement had expired.
-
I have to correct myself; I noted the discussion a few pages back involving Heyne and the boy Johannes Moll, and completely forgot that the information you posted was Lancaster Moravian information, so those two are certainly not a good example of an agreement outside the Moravian church! Duh.
I appreciate the clarity of the church acting as enforcer in these agreements. What happens in Bethlehem stays in Bethlehem... ;D
There are a awful lot of 'Run Away from the subscriber...' (to paraphrase) ads throughout the PA Gazette, indentured servants and I assume some apprentices. I wonder how many of them were recovered and enforcement actions taken? Don't think I've ever seen a study of this, although I'd also wonder if it were even possible to approach such a study with enough documentation to be of value.
-
I have to correct myself; I noted the discussion a few pages back involving Heyne and the boy Johannes Moll, and completely forgot that the information you posted was Lancaster Moravian information, so those two are certainly is not a good example of an agreement outside the Moravian church! Duh.
It is a good example!--since this is in Lancaster, which wasn't a closed Moravian settlement community such as Bethlehem or Lititiz. Moravians in Lancaster (or Philadelphia, or New York) did not have their economic lives monitored and controlled by the church. They "just" attended church, more like we do today, and had their economic lives separate from the church.
There are a awful lot of 'Run Away from the subscriber...' (to paraphrase) ads throughout the PA Gazette, indentured servants and I assume some apprentices. I wonder how many of them were recovered and enforcement actions taken? Don't think I've ever seen a study of this, although I'd also wonder if it were even possible to approach such a study with enough documentation to be of value.
There is an old book that I have on my shelf--Sharon Salinger's "To Serve Well and Faithfully": Labor and Indentured Servants in Pennsylvania, 1682-1800 (1987)--that I've never read but may have some answers to that.
-
I have only seen this rifle published in Kentucky Rifles and Pistols, 1750-1850 and also the old 'sideways' York exhibit book in color, both @ 1976 I believe. So it was at the time in Bill Guthman's collection but I have no idea where it is now. I'm quite surprised it wasn't included on the KRA 'Lehigh' disc but I do understand the logistics of getting pieces all in once place for photography.
I strongly suspect this is another unsigned Johannes Rupp rifle, although I make this statement with the caveat that I can only go by these older photos which are not as detailed as I'd like, and also, it's one that I have not been able to actually examine in-person. Nevertheless, what I can see leads me to this tentative attribution.
I guess I'm asking if anyone has better photos, or knows where it currently resides. I would love to see more detail on this one because I have a pretty strong gut feel that it's John Rupp. I definitely do not think it's Neihart, again just based upon what i can make out when enlarging the photos as best I can.
From Kentucky Rifles and Pistols, 1750-1850 published by James R. Johnston and the KRA, 1976:
(https://i.ibb.co/Cn4M0hR/Rifle.jpg) (https://ibb.co/30VMhBg)
-
BTW I want to engage in one more niggle. Mr. Kolar states in his 2017 article that the buttplate is two inches wide.
The butt is not 2" wide, unless you are rounding up in large increments. I did actually measure it when I was able to examine the rifle a number of years ago and my notes are reminding me that it measured 1.863, which I believe translates to @ 1 7/8".
Perchance my micrometer is not optimistic enough, or was simply not aware of what was required. 8)
-
Carving on the wood patch box lid is much like the patchbox engraving on the Herman Rupp 1793 rifle RCA 57. Only place I've seen that before.
-
I think I read someone mentioned that maybe this was Herman Rupps self portrait ;)
(https://i.ibb.co/jH1Lkxw/HR-RCA57.jpg) (https://ibb.co/25fj3LM)
-
Yep, that box is carved up just like the H Rupp box engraving. I haven't seen the gun first-hand but was told a number of years ago that the lid may be a replacement, so I'm unfortunately not putting much stock in the similarity, but I'd rather see something first-hand before ruling things out. What I'd really like to examine are clear details of the carving on the stock. I'm actually somewhat surprised that there haven't been more photos taken of this one since the mid 1970s, or at least, none published of which I'm aware.
Anyone seen it published anywhere else?
-
VP was kind enough to remind me of the KRA Wes White CD, and it appears that there is another rifle somewhere extremely similar to the above which also is of interest relative to John Rupp. Some more details are present in Wes White's photos and drawings which (for me, anyway) clinch it. The 'sister rifle' also seems to make use of a wood box lid with more wear but similar decorative detail to the 1750-1850 book rifle, so if that lid is a replacement as I was told, whoever made it was aware of the other rifle.
More detail of the 1750-1850 book rifle:
(https://i.ibb.co/0CQ18nK/John-Rupp-Rifle-Plate-IIII-Unsigned.jpg) (https://ibb.co/K2mBR5D)
And detail of the sister rifle also on the same CD:
(https://i.ibb.co/2ZM4CSP/John-Rupp-Rifle-Plate-III-Unsigned.jpg) (https://ibb.co/KKsvfD7)
These two rifles clearly seem to have been made by the same man. Looking at the 2nd rifle, the liberty head sketch clearly displays the same punched circles and overall form and design of the other pieces we've discussed in the other John Rupp thread here: https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=69385.0 (https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=69385.0). The increased detail of the cheek carving on the 1750-1850 rifle illustrates the very long string of small gouge cuts also discussed and additionally the photos and sketches illustrate the same small punched circles in a number of locations all over that rifle. Furthermore, the carved design that carries over from the cheek side to the lock side and down in front of the boxes is the same design as is carved on the Kindig/Sotheby's rifle, the Poulin's rifle and the unsigned 'side-opener.' Both of these rifles pictured on the Wes White CD also carry the longer, lower cheek that John Rupp apparently seemed to favor, and both as per the other three rifles are sans any cheek inlay at all.
This guy is getting more interesting the harder I look at him!
-
Eric, Thanks for posting the additional pictures. One thing that jumps out to me on the sister rifle is the deeper loopy/squigly carving between the volutes on the main C scroll. He clearly is an accomplished and creative carver. If this is a 1790 ish rifle what would he have been building 10 or 15 years earlier ?
-
Eric, I have not read through all of your detailed notes, and maybe you saw this already, but doing a search I found reference to a John Rup as a soldier during the revolution in Berks County. Not sure if this is of any value to you and maybe this was not the gunsmith but thought it was interesting. Do you know what his wife’s name was?
(https://i.ibb.co/0s6KW4c/62200-0041-0931.jpg) (https://ibb.co/QDTkqSf)
-
I see also there was a John Rup living in Robeson Twp, Berks in 1786-1787, as a single man and no occupation noted. Don’t really see this person in berks records after about 1787 at least from my brief search.
-
Rupp rifle at Sotheby's gaveled price. 60k +
https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2022/the-william-k-du-pont-collection-important-americana-from-rocky-hill/extremely-rare-and-fine-carved-and-figured-maple
-
Dave: there were Rupp - Rup - Rub - Raub - Raup - Reib - Roap - Rubb - etc etc etc people listed all over SEPA during this period. This has been one of the most difficult things I have encountered - trying to determine who was who. I came across this John Rup in Berks a number of years ago and initially thought it might be 'our guy' but I no longer think it can be in any way. First of all, if Johannes Rupp's (Macungie) birth date of 1762 is actually correct, he would have been 15 to 16 y.o in 1777-1778. John in Macungie took the oath in 1783, and was active in NH Co. militia in the early 1780s, but nothing in the 1770s, so I feel pretty positive that this is a different family group over in Berks. They may have been tied into the Rupps that were in either Philadelphia, Lancaster or Lebanon, which were all different family groups.
-
Eric, does the 'Roop' family derive from the Rupps? A bit of similarity there.
Dick
-
All,
I just read through this and would like to make a comment on the liberty head symbol. Everyone has their own thoughts on the matter. So I would like to propose this. The known facts are this, they are post war pieces. People refer to their weapons in the feminine sense ie her/she. Post war patriotism was high. So here is my thought. The symbol could have be placed on the guns by the builder for the purchaser to show that they were veterans of the war. The symbol is female because their gun is referred to in the female tense. It is of Liberty “what they fought for”. Guns in that time were a personal belonging and a symbol of personal pride. If you had a gun with Lady Liberty you were showing everyone that you were a proud veteran of the war. This is no different than today when you see old veterans wearing ball caps with their old unit on it and symbols of the battle hard fought long ago. Also mentioned earlier is how many PA gunsmith put Lady Liberty on contract muskets in the post war era. Because these weapons were to be used to protect our freedoms.
Thoughts and comments welcome
AsMs
-
AsMs,
Interesting theory. That symbol is typically associated with a certain area - I've never seen it on a Lancaster or Berks piece. I could be wrong.
Buck
-
Robert Weil and I have discussed something along those lines for many years now. He has often said that he thinks it was some kind of 'club' symbol, although meaning that in a representative sense; the question then would be, "who was in the club?" Or, what did the 'club' represent? I've hypothesized that it perhaps may have initiated with men who worked in the armories in Allentown during the War, but the concept that it was put upon rifles to be owned by veterans also has a lot of merit; it could conceivably remove the gunsmith from the equation if this makes sense. Or, perhaps it's a combination of the two ideas: it originated amongst the gunsmiths of the region who had worked for the cause, and became a desirable ornament or meaningful ornament among those who had served in a different way.
It seems to have worked it's way over into eastern Berks but in a much "funkier" and whimsical form. Peter Angstadt was putting what can only be viewed as weird figures in the same location forward of the guard, Stoffil Long or someone up there popped a few on patchbox lids and there are a couple of pieces with what clearly is meant to represent an Indian forward of the guard. But the guys who had worked in the Rupp/Moll circle, including Peter Neihart and Jacob Kuntz, all seemed to follow a very similar form with slight changes maker to maker. And of course William Antes, although thus far I have not found anything to tie him in with any of the Allentown guys other than an association with the Moravians at Bethlehem.
-
I know I'm like a broken record on this--but I still think it is possible that it is this liberty head/Indian head that is being referred to in this 1772 advertisement in the Pennsylvania Gazette, which mentioned a gun "with a curled walnut stock, sliding loops, mounted with brass, the foresight and thumbpiece silver, the maker name John Newcomer, engraven upon the hind part of the barrel, near the figure of a manhead, and J. Newcomer engraven on the lock."
I don't read this as if the "figure of the manhead" is on the barrel but rather that the "figure of the manhead" is "near" the "hind part of the barrel" (so, behind the barrel).
Eric, you've suggested in the past that "the 'figure of a manhead' could be many things." Is there something that we can see on a surviving gun, other than the liberty head/Indian head, that could be a "manhead"?
The other issue is that Newcomer is in Lancaster County and the liberty head/Indian head is in Lehigh County and now eastern Berks County. Is it possible that some unsigned guns with the liberty head/Indian head have been attributed to Lehigh County precisely because of the liberty head/Indian head--but that, if we did not assume that design appeared only in Lehigh County, could be from elsewhere?
I don't mean to hijack the thread about Rupp, but it's been a pretty wide-ranging thread already! My only point is that, to believe that it began with a club in Allentown, one really needs to be sure that the "liberty head/Indian head" design does not appear elsewhere.
-
I to have wonder about the club or group idea. I believe it may have started in Allentown after the " Liberty Bell ' was hidden there during the war. Perhaps with the men involved with hiding the bell.. Maybe a symbol of local pride associated with it being there? Kind of a this is what our town did. I think it's a very cool thing and wish we knew the story.
-
This coming from a Canuck with no dog in the race, I find the story more interesting not knowing the exact details. Mystery, asitwur!
-
Eric,
To your point - it emigrated to Berks, so Lehigh is the point of origin. Your 1st example was a native originally from the South Mountain. I have never seen a Lancaster rifle with the Indian Head, was Newcomer from Lancaster originally?
Buck
-
Scott - lacking any more information than the gazette description, it's really impossible to say what specifically was on the lost Newcomer gun. It may have been a recycled European barrel with chisel engraving upon it, or it may have carried some type of deep stamping, or really it could be anything. And yes, it could be something similar to what was carved or inlayed upon the Northampton area rifles. However, I'm not aware of it ever appearing (in that form) on a known Lancaster gun or on one of the Newcomer guns. I have a nagging feeling I remember seeing an inlaid liberty head on a later mid or western PA piece but it may have been some guy that moved there from the east; maybe someone remembers this?
Here's a "figure of a manhead" near the makers name. It certainly fits the description of the Newcomer engraving to a "T" but I don't think it has anything to do with the Northampton liberty heads!
(https://i.ibb.co/mh1WNfM/19140214-7-lg.jpg) (https://ibb.co/CVNGPRT)
-
Here's a "figure of a manhead" near the makers name. It certainly fits the description of the Newcomer engraving to a "T" but I don't think it has anything to do with the Northampton liberty heads!
(https://i.ibb.co/mh1WNfM/19140214-7-lg.jpg) (https://ibb.co/CVNGPRT)
Right: I wasn't proposing that the liberty head/Indian head was on the Newcomer gun. I just said it was possible, given the description.
I also wrote that I'd be interested to know if we have an example of something else (other than the liberty head/Indian head) that the word "manhead" could refer to.
I appreciate you posting this image in response--& I'm not trying to be difficult but I’m not sure I see what you’re pointing to on this barrel!
-
It's a Peter Angstadt signature, and following his signature is what I've always considered a little self portrait; it's a side profile of a guy's head with crazy hair. It's on a few of his rifles; I'll see if I can find an enhanced or better-visible image of one.
Edit: here's one that's 'enhanced' on the KRA Wes White CD, available through the KRA Foundation:
(https://i.ibb.co/VmnHTHf/Peter-Angstadt-Rifle-Plate.jpg) (https://ibb.co/3z6fcfg)
-
Well, now I see it. Yes, that would be another possibility for a "manhead" for sure!
-
Eric, The guy you likely are thinking about with the Western PA rifle is Troutman. He was trained and lived in the Lehigh Valley before going west.
Ron
-
I've been digging into the Sun Inn (Bethlehem) records lately & was tracing the different men who became landlords in the Moravian period (1758-1851)--and in 1842 Tilghman Rupp of Allentown took over. Wouldn't have thought anything of it except that Jacob Rupp of Upper Macungie Township offers security for the "punctual payment" of Tilghman Rupp's rent. Jacob Rupp's indenture is witnessed by Benjamin Rupp and maybe (hard to read) Herman Rupp.
Same family? Maybe the same Jacob Rupp as that sign?
(https://i.ibb.co/4tqcxmd/Screen-Shot-2022-03-22-at-3-45-52-PM.png) (https://ibb.co/h96kv7f)
-
Cool find Scott! I'm sure it is the same Jacob Rupp and I believe Tilghman Rupp was his son (and grandson of Herman Rupp the first - yes there were others...). I didn't dig into this family much beyond @ 1820 however because I'm not a Rupp genealogist, I'm simply focusing upon immigrant George and his two gunsmith sons. Just going by memory of things I came across, however, I'm positive this is the same family and certainly positive it's the same Jacob Rupp in Upper Macungie. I believe I remember finding some references to Tilghman Rupp who is surely the same guy noted here, and he apparently became fairly well-known and well-respected in the county. I think there's a Tilghman Street, or was, somewhere down there near 'Ruppsville' area in Macungie that was named after him.
-
I'm not a Rupp genealogist ...
(https://i.ibb.co/pZWhr5v/giphy.gif) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
Also, I don't rip my way out of a couch completely naked... ;D
(Is there a man in that couch?)
-
This is a thread that just keeps on going! I don’t remember another that has been so informative and also entertaining. Thanks to all who have contributed so freely.
-
Eric, forgive me if it has been asked and answered, but it seems that in one of the accounts early on in this string, that Mr. Rupp's account was listed in Pounds, Shillings, and Pence on one of the early 1800's documents.
When did the USA change from the British monetary system to our dollar/decimal system?
Had my 1-3rd school years over in GB - still have scars on the back of my hands from the teacher hitting me with a metal-edged ruler, telling me to "Get it right!"
Working in Bases 20 and 12 (and 21 if we were speaking of Guineas) gave me a life-long hatred of algebra and trig! But I do love the old English coins, right down to the farthing! Had a bit of revenge when I once made a front sight of a shilling, showing George VI's name on the side of the sight. And yes, was in south London when he died and Elizabeth II was crowned - we had to learn to draw the crown, orb, and scepter. First time I watched TV was her coronation.
Thanks for a response to my rambling.
-
Craig: I'll be the first to say that I have no idea at all why things were still being accounted in pounds/shillings/pence up into the early 19th century in America, but they were. Peter Angstadt's estate, accounting by Jacob Mertz and finalized by January 13, 1819, is also in pounds/shillings/pence. This is just about two decades into the 19th century! George Rupp's estate was accounted entirely the same way.
I'm sure there are professionals here who can perhaps offer an explanation. Scott, Bob, anyone? I just tend to focus on specific small 'slices' or individuals but I'm sure others can offer more in the way of 'the big picture.'
-
The new republic adopted the decimal system in 1792 and American coinage shifted to dollars, etc. But apparently accounting continued to use pounds/shillings/pence for generations. Jefferson had advocated for the decimal system in the 1780s--but he perceived the proposal as a radical innovation. Nobody had experience in the decimal system and, simple as it seems to us, it required everybody to learn an entirely new system. Many didn't, or couldn't, or resisted as long as they could. And, for many things, decimals weren't (and still aren't!) so easy: "Decimals do not correspond with the simplest measures of division. Halves, quarters and eighths are more instantly recognizable and appear in most early numerate cultures. It is the transcendence of such fractions that may have contributed to the delay in switching to a decimal basis of counting. Moreover, Americans, in common with Europeans, still tended to quantify goods in dozens, since twelve divided conveniently by two, three, four and six."
That quotation is from Robert Garson's "Counting Money: The US Dollar and American Nationhood, 1781-1820," Journal of American Studies (2001), a really good article. Here's a few paragraphs (pp. 41-42) that address Craig's question:
Even though the United States had adopted the decimal dollar as its sole money, Americans continued to think and trade in the old sterling-based currencies. The persistence of old money was not just the consequence of man's difficulty in adjusting to new systems of money and counting. It was reinforced by the provision of ready reckoners and other conversion tables that took away the incentive to reorientate to a new system of counting.
The Coinage Act of 1792 provided that all federal accounts were to be kept in the new currency. The provisions did not compel the states or individuals to follow suit. Indeed, private financial transactions continued to be conducted in a mixture of US dollars and the pounds, shillings and pence of the various states. Surprisingly, the two parallel systems lasted for about a generation. It was only in the late 1820s that transactions in pounds, shillings and pence became virtually extinct.
It appears that many Americans not only coped with the dual system but preferred it. A few examples illustrate the coexistence of the two currencies. In Pennsylvania traders in arts and crafts throughout the 1790s advertised their wares in dollars and pounds. Engravers tended to offer their portraits and landscapes priced in dollars. J. J. Boudier offered portraits using a "Physiognotrace" at 2 dollars each in December 1796, although a miniature painter offered his portrait services at 5 pounds each. Individuals clearly thought interchangeably. In March 1794 Joseph Cooke, a goldsmith, advertised for journeymen with a pay of 9s a day, and in the same advertisement offered a bonus of "a pair of silver shoe buckles worth 8 dollars." Similarly, rewards in Pennsylvania offered for the return and recovery of runaway apprentices or lost animals were sometimes in pounds, sometimes in dollars, although, by the turn of the nineteenth century, pounds were rarer. Land prices and. rents tended to be quoted in pounds, but this is explained by the fact that tax and lease assessments predated the formation of the republic.
Here's a link to the entire article (let me know if it doesn't work):
https://www.dropbox.com/s/qjwxlqd11f4fwlh/27556907.pdf?dl=0
-
You gentlemen are certainly thorough in your responses!
I had thought that something like that might have been the case. Many of us are resistant to change, and I see that this is a long-held tradition!
Currently, we have two systems of measurement, the inch-foot-yard measurements, and the metric system. As I was an environmental scientist for many years, and had to deal with homeowner's, the legal system, and my scientific colleagues, I of necessity had to be fluent in both systems.
Then, of course, we also have fathoms, chains, cables, acres, and so on. The world is, indeed, a complex place in these times. Toss in decades and scores, and a few weirder terms.
One that I struggle with is "alquiries", a system of land measurement still currently used in Brazil. And some states there have different definitions of just what an "alquirie" is. It can be equal to 6 acres, or to three hectares. Fortunately, I no longer own land in Brazil, so it no longer matters to me.
As long as 2.54 cm = 1", and 454,54 grams = 1 pound, I'll be OK. And BTW, 20 dwt = 1 ozt!
-
One that I struggle with is "alquiries", a system of land measurement still currently used in Brazil. And some states there have different definitions of just what an "alquirie" is. It can be equal to 6 acres, or to three hectares. Fortunately, I no longer own land in Brazil, so it no longer matters to me.
This is exactly why I've never bought land in Brazil! Much too complicated. ;D
-
And if no one is living on it, squatters can make claim to it! Most everyone has a caretaker living on their land full-time.
That is out in the country, which is beautiful in southern Brazil. Small mountains, lots of rocky streams.
-
Craig, must be the southern climes. Hawaii has a similar problem with unwanted 'house guests.' A caretaker and/or a trustworthy neighbor is a must!
Dick