Carving influence question...

[Ed Wenger]

I have a question regarding carving and "influence".  I'm currently building an I. Berlin influenced rifle and want to use the carving I drew in the attached photo.  I'm not really looking for the bench copy debate.  I'll never have the rifle in my hands to do a copy anyway, so that's out of the question in my opinion.  My question is; is this drawing "too close" to the original?  I've made some changes, but kept the main themes intact.  Again, I'm not going for a bench copy, but it is a heavily influenced I. Berlin rifle.  I approached it more as a "previously unknown" or "apprenticed to" type of rifle.  Maybe I answered my own question...  Anyway, I'd appreciate any advice / thoughts.


                  Ed

[Jim Kibler]

I think it looks pretty good.  I wouldn't worry about how close it is to the original.  If it looks good go for it.

[jwh1947]

I'm with Jim, entirely.  If you can carve like you can lay out, please show us the finished product.  You are on your way to a good job.  Wayne

[Acer Saccharum]

Ed, have no fears about being too close to the original. If you copy the master, you will learn how he worked, what tools he might have used, and if your work came out anywhere close to his, you'd be blessed with good fortune. I am glad to see you plan out your project so carefully. This is the best thing you can do for your carving: decide what you want ahead of time, long before the chisel touches the wood.

What you are doing here requires several layers of depth; you will surely lose parts of your drawing. As you carve along you will find that your drawing has been cut or worn away. Use your camera as a tool for carving: take a good front on-shot, and print it out. Paste it up near where you will carve, and refer to it constantly as you carve.

Best of luck, I look forward to the results!

Tom

[Ed Wenger]

Thanks for the input guys, I really appreciate it.  I guess I'll get busy...

           Ed

[Lucky R A]

    Acer's advice on making record of your design and posting it at your carving location is a good one.  I also take a photo of the original work, and blow it up.  I post it right behind my vice where I carve.  I can then constantly look up and see how the "Master" achieved the result he got.  You will also see little details easily overlooked---and a few mistakes.   Nothing more critical than the eye of the camera.   Looks like you have a great start on a good project. 

[Mike Brooks]

Looks great to me, way beyond my capabilities!

[Jim Kibler]

What you are doing here requires several layers of depth; you will surely lose parts of your drawing. As you carve along you will find that your drawing has been cut or worn away. Use your camera as a tool for carving: take a good front on-shot, and print it out. Paste it up near where you will carve, and refer to it constantly as you carve.

As a proponent of stabbing in carving, I will outline virtually everything initially; even carving on different levels.  I may stab a little deeper or shallower depending on the design.  This pretty much locks in your design and you don't lose too awful much as the carving process proceeds. 

[Cody Tetachuk]

way beyond my capabilities!

I doubt that.

[J. Talbert]

I'd have to compare it to the original to see the difference, as I am not all that familiar with it, but never the less I saw the I. Berlin influence immediately.  I also think it looks quite good.  I'd go for it.

PS: I'm also an advocate of the stab-in carving method to establish your pattern.  My curves got 100% better when I changed to that method.  Just watch out for small elements.  Too aggressive stabbing can wedge a small piece of wood right out.

Jeff

[Tom Currie]

Ed, I don't think it matters how close it is to the original. If your not billing it as a copy then I like the idea of changing some elements and still maiking it look as if it still fits as a possibility from I. Berlin or his shop. Like the approach. Post some pics as you start carving.

I am at the same stage with my build. Just traced my drawing  onto my stock and will look at it for a while before venturing in with tools. Mine has elements of several originals but also not a copy of any. It's maybe a bit busy , not sure yet. I'll think about it for a while.

[Acer Saccharum]

Whatever method you use, you must have a clear plan in mind before you cut into the wood. if you don't know where you are going, you can end up with an unhappy botch-job. I usually have my idea down to about 90%, and then allow a little freedom for last minute changes or inspirations. If I were to just go at it with no plan in place, I'd end up with a mess.

Beware of cutting too deep, making too much relief. It just ain't right for the beast. Look at Mark Wheland's work, some of which you can barely feel the carving. Looks just like original work.

This work of mine, back a few years, I consider too high. I believe that if the carving is high, it will wear faster; not wear as well as long as lower 'in the wood' carving.

[Ed Wenger]

Been fairly busy today, between honey-do's and other thinks, I managed to get the patch box carving nocked out and most of the carving behind the cheek piece.  The only thing I really started to clean up is the fan thingy.  Still have a fair amount of cleaning up to do.  Let me know if you see anything blaring that I might be able to fix...




     Ed

[Acer Saccharum]

Ed, that is fabulous progress.
I believe you made such headway because you had it so well planned out. Keep us posted.
Tom

[B Shipman]

I like your idea of changing a few things while keeping true to the original. Since you can't copy it exactly don't do it. It's a better rational to assume that the master may have repeated a success but even he would not have done it exactly the same. A believeable copy instead of a Chinese copy.

[Tom Currie]

Wow Ed. Very clean on that PB lid. Keep us posted on your carving .

[Stophel]

Acer, that carving is not too high.  If you get to see the famed "Gun #42", you will see some superb HIGH relief carving on it.  Much higher and more three dimensional than on a lot of American guns.     I have been told by those who have gotten to see it, that the "Edward Marshall" gun appears like the carving was originally rather higher and more defined than it is now, being well worn.

[Jim Kibler]

I was going to keep my mouth shut, but since Stophel brought it up, here it goes.   I'm of the opinion that oftentimes the tendency is, for those with a little experience, to make carving too low.  Some original carving is quite low; however, some is pretty high.  RCA # 42 that Stophel brought up is a good example.  In order to get proper sculpting on the carving, I'd wager some of it would have to be relieved to a depth approaching 0.100" or so.  Kindig's # 170 is another good example that I've had the chance to examine closely.  Some areas on this rifle are quite shallow, but others are pretty high.  I don't remember the exact depths, but I'd bet they approach 0.080-0.090" in some places.  My own personal opinion is to favor carving that is a little higher.  In order to actually sculpt and shape an element of any size, it becomes very difficult unless you have enough height.  Smaller elements require less height than larger ones.  Relatively high carving that is sculpted well, doesn't look high. 

[Acer Saccharum]

Thanks for your input, Jim and Stoph. I'm always learning.

...and forgetting....


Tom

[B. Hey]

I am amazed at the wealth of knowledge you so freely share .. Thanks for guiding others along their journey .. Take care .. Bill