Originals, Woodbury, Shimmels and beyond

[rich pierce]

I admire those who can make coherent artistic statements while building longrifles not thoroughly based on regional characteristics of originals, but such rifles, for me, lose their link to the past.   I feel the same admiration and distance for accoutrements that don't "fit" historically.  I prefer work that would fit within the wide range of rifles, accoutrements, etc originally made in a locale in a specific timeframe.

As far as new directions, the ones I enjoy the most are those opened up by new "finds", like the Oerter Griffon rifle, the Leyendecker patchbox, the Deschler rifle, etc.  Books also inspire many new works, so whenever a new picture book comes out, folks get a fire lit inside and rifles related to those illustrated start to appear.

If you look at accoutrements, the trend among horners, broadly speaking, is to more closely represent original work.  In the 70's and 80's, we saw a lot of stuff scrimmed on horns that had no historical basis- beautifully rendered bugling elk, bison, etc come to mind.  I admire such work but it doesn't fit into my mental framework for the hobby.  When I see a horn that fits the French and Indian War period, or even a Tansel-inspired horn from later, it works for me.

Same with bags- the work done today more closely represents original work than at any previous time period.  And when Wallace presents a bag with some real historical provenance, it quickly inspires some great new work.

[J. Talbert]

Let's face it... there is no rule book.  Taste and personal preference are the over arching forces.  Some prefer things that are as close to originals as practically possible, but even with that goal, some compromises are almost always incorporated into contemporary work.  So I see it as a matter of where each individual chooses to draw the line.
Contemporary work is influenced by many factors; ability, cost, knowledge of originals, and taste, to name just a few.
My personal preferences include both new and aged guns, and also traditional and some, but not all purely contemporary designs.
A well designed and built piece can fall in any number categories and still appeal to many.

Jeff

[Jim Kibler]

Well put Jeff.  In my view, the overriding factor in the appeal or desireability of piece is it's design.  I know some understand what I'm trying to convey, but I get the feeling others still do not.  What ever category a gun might fall in from a bench copy to a contemporary styled piece this is still true.  The exception to this is the type of person who blindly closes his mind to a certain type of gun.  If you think you don't like guns of a certain category, in my view all this means is that you haven't seen any that are done well enough.  A well designed piece doesn't necessarily mean that which is most sophisticated, academic or refined is best.   It's a hard thing to describe.  It's not completely arbitrary, but it's at the same time almost imposible to establish defined criterea.  Trying to understand and chase after this to me is what this gunbuilding stuff is all about.

[James Rogers]

    It's a hard thing to describe.  It's not completely arbitrary, but it's at the same time almost impossible to establish defined criteria.  

It's intriguing that those who have spent at least some level of time attempting to comprehend design will be attracted to many of the same elements that give a certain gun the "it" factor but many things remain indescribable.

Design is the undercarriage.  

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Perhaps examples would be easier.......

Assuming that bench copies are a given set of their own,  and that renactment guns should be accurate portayals of their period and location etc........ What about the modern/contemporary flintlock that evokes the history but has new or different lines...

"Well it looks like an 18th century gun,,,,it has the essence of an 18th century gun.......but doesn't precisely fit any school..but is sure is beautiful..it has a ....that I have never seen before!"

What are some of those design elements?  Who is experimenting in this way that influences you??                       Just think what aradical step it was to put a shuetzen buttplate on a rifle.......or to put all the (gaudy) inlays on some 1830-50 guns.... Some design experiments are beter than others...

[Jim Kibler]

Here are five of the best who have pushed the boundaries (in no particular order).

Monte Mandarino
Wallace Gusler
Hershel House
Jud Brennan
John Bivins

Look at some of their work and you will see examples of what we have been discussing.

[Ian Pratt]

  One of my favorite quotes - "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture". Perhaps this can also apply here... but I'm going to say something about it anyhow.
 Jim's comment about the .."type of person who blindly closes his mind to a certain type of gun" - there are people who enjoy fish. There are those who only like it deep fried. and there will always be one or two who HATE fish, not only as a food product but as a living creature and wish to see them all savagely murdered with blunt instruments and want to tell everybody about it and also wish to see any dissenters fall under the fish genocide bludgeoning program. These people are generally amusing to most of us - occasionally annoying on days when you have a headache, but basically harmless.
  If one is to accept the longrifle as art, then shouldn't one also be willing to allow for that "cutting edge" in longrifle building just as you'd allow for in other art forms, that experimental front line that just may advance the art in some way? Or are we doomed to replication?
  What are the limits? Who knows, I guess the real question there is how far can we take it before it is no longer accepted?
  Again, if we consider the longrifle an art object ( granted, an art object that can punch a great bloody hole in a living creature, fish or not fish) should we not be willing to accept that it's finished form will bear the marks of the maker's expression and intent? A painter uses his palette of colors, his various means and  devices and all his favorite brushstrokes to create not just an image but a piece of art that can evoke all kinds of reactions and emotions from the viewer. Can we extend this to the longrifle? If I commission David Wright ( I know this is a stretch because I am the typical broke ass gun builder and last I checked, David doesn't trade paintings for summer squash, but bear with me, I'm trying to make a point here) to paint a picture of me as a 100 year old man, how does that differ from somebody hiring Mike Brooks to build a rifle that looks like it has lived for 100 years too?
  I think the part that Jim describes as "hard to describe" maybe doesn't have words, maybe doesn't need them either. I guess if you like it, do it. If somebody else likes it, great. If nobody else likes it, who gives a @!*%, you still did it.      
  
    

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Well said Ian. The successful artistic innovations will stand the test of time and popularity, yet not everyone will like them.........

I think that it is a joy to see the guns that real master builders like those Jim mentioned..and you and Jim.......and many others have built that are essential and yet uniquely yours. Seeing the builder's expression in his work is what I find most enjoyable..whether an 18th century builder or a 21st century builder....

As I get my mechanical building skill under control I find that I like thinking about doing this or that a little differently.....copying the unique elements of Peter Berry has been fun and helped me learn how to design and do some things.a little different.... ..oh well hopefully I will get enough practice and instruction before I am too old..the race is on.......

[J. Talbert]

Ian,

I heard it as, "Talking about music is like whistling about arithmetic"   

But the point is the same.

"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder," may be a cliche, but true never the less.

Everyone's path in life influences their perception of "Beauty"

Jeff

[Ken G]

IMHO - To be on the list of those that have pushed the boundaries and are setting trends in the black powder rifle building community there should be two requirements.  
1)The work would need to visually recognizable as being made by a specific person without seeing a signature or cartouche stamp.  I think Hershel’s work is a good example of that, as is Monte Mandarino and Jud Brennan’s work.  
2)The second thing that needs to happen is a significant number of folks copying your style.  There’s no doubt plenty of folks do their best to copy Hershel’s style.  

[Don Getz]

Lots of good stuff being presented here, a lot of fun.....isn't that what this forum is for?   I feel that a new builder would
have much more success as a builder if he would try to copy an origiinal gun.   For instance, if he likes a certian J.P.Beck
rifle, I would accumulate as many pictures of one that I could find, and even try to look at an original.    Then go to it.
After you have developed your building prowess, and have copied that Beck well, then you should be able to branch out
and perhaps be a little more creative, maybe even do a Beck barn gun.  The point is, you must first develop your gun
building skills.  A good way to do this would be to do a Beck, plain, no patch box, no carving, but with all the essential
parts on it.....develop your architectural skills.   Then, try putting a patchbox and carving on the next one.    You will find
that the second one goes together much easir than the first............Don

[Tim Crosby]

Lots of good stuff being presented here, a lot of fun.....isn't that what this forum is for?   I feel that a new builder would
have much more success as a builder if he would try to copy an origiinal gun.   For instance, if he likes a certian J.P.Beck
rifle, I would accumulate as many pictures of one that I could find, and even try to look at an original.    Then go to it.
After you have developed your building prowess, and have copied that Beck well, then you should be able to branch out
and perhaps be a little more creative, maybe even do a Beck barn gun.  The point is, you must first develop your gun
building skills.  A good way to do this would be to do a Beck, plain, no patch box, no carving, but with all the essential
parts on it.....develop your architectural skills.   Then, try putting a patchbox and carving on the next one.    You will find
that the second one goes together much easir than the first............Don

  As in the basics.

Tim C.

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

I think Don is right on!!  Learn by copying the originals then maybe some contemporaries and then strech your wiings.... ah patience, patience............

[northmn]

I go back again to utility as well.  I built this rifle for my wife over 20 years ago.  45 cal, 7/8 oct straight barrel 32 iches long.  As I like the Lancaster rifles I tried to maintain the theme but still try to keep things in proportion for a short barrel.  She Likes horses so I borrowed the patchbox from a Fordney rifle.  I screwed up the cutout and placed a German silver inlay inside the Brass patchbox.  Nothing fancy or eye catching but she won several events with the little rifle and shot it very well.  I took some grief about her wins over mine.  I bilt something I felt she could shoot and still tried to maintain a proper flavor.

DP

[Dphariss]

Northern, praise be upon you for your simple insight!  "Guns used in the 1770's did not look 200 years old."  Every collector/builder should be made to write this on the chalkboard 200 times.  Right next to, "Sometimes, I, too, might not be seeing what I think I'm seeing."  

Incidentally, yesterday I saw a green gun.  Green as a leaf of oozing poison ivy.  Un-neutralized aqua fortis and a little sunlight, most likely.  Maybe some originals started out similarly, or even more quaint.

Another point to ponder.  If you use ferric nitrate or any compound where you rot iron into another substance and then apply it lavishly to a gunstock, would that not engender additional oxidation (ie. rust) to any steel part that comes in contact with it?
I am neither a metallurgist nor a chemical engineer, so explain, please.

What I make leaves here as new.

AF stain causes no problems if its used right, if not it can cause problems and will rust metal. Not heating it properly or not neutralizing can cause problems especially if the stain is excessively acid. Using AF stain that is made including hydrochloric acid in my experience will result in a browner, muddier looking color especially over time  than stain made only with iron, nitric acid and water.

Dan

[Ian Pratt]

  Hey Jeff, I think whistling about arithmetic might actually be profitable, Jiminy Cricket used to do it all the time and I hear he retired a millionaire.
  Now on the other hand there's a guy I know who frequently dances about architecture - he never has any money and rarely makes sense when he talks. I can't mention his name but I think he's a moderator on the ALR site, or at least ranked as a super important dude.   

[J. Talbert]

Jiminy Cricket??

I didn't think you were that old.   

Jeff

[Mike R]

I agree with Don--even the old masters in art like DaVinci et al. began by copying their master's work. But as DaVinci once wrote, "it is a poor student that does not exceed his master".  Beauty indeed is in the eye of the beholder. When I built my first custom rifle I had in my mind's eye a graceful form that was no doubt acquired by melding what I liked from several different Pa rifles.  I was green, not nearly as knowledgeable about the old guns as most--but I had several books of pictures to go by.  Rather than copy one of the originals I chose to take characteristics I liked and make "my own rifle". It is still my favorite rifle, it is still my most accurate rifle, and I care not whether or not it falls neatly into some old school. It is MY rifle.  BUT, when I got into reenacting/living history and after studying up more on the old guns, I chose other rifles for period correctness--you know, none of them appeal to me like my first rifle, though I appreciate all of them. I have a very catholic view of longrifles--never met one I didn't like. I'd love a H House rifle if I could afford one, or even better an A Martin, E Kettenberg, D Dodds [in my prayers], M Brooks, B Shipman, and many many more....all for different reasons: Martin's architecture, Kettenbergs finish, Dodds' art, Brooks' aging, Shipman's exacting lines, and so on.  What an age to live!  So many fine makers!

[smallpatch]

Mike R,

EK is a great example of one who is able to take the known characteristics of a "school" of rifle, then create his own fantasy gun, with those characteristics.  He is one of few that truly are able to capture the "essence" of the gun without building an exact copy.  No body beats him up for taking off on a tangent.  Truly works of art, with some creative license, yet true to form.

I've been waiting 3 years for him to complete mine, and I'll wait as long as it takes.

Hurry up Eric!!

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Mike R,

EK is a great example of one who is able to take the known characteristics of a "school" of rifle, then create his own fantasy gun, with those characteristics.  He is one of few that truly are able to capture the "essence" of the gun without building an exact copy.  No body beats him up for taking off on a tangent.  Truly works of art, with some creative license, yet true to form.

I've been waiting 3 years for him to complete mine, and I'll wait as long as it takes.

Hurry up Eric!!

That's what I'm talking about!!