Puzzle: VA Master makers relationship and gun attribution???

[Hurricane ( of Virginia)]

Pictured are two Valley of Virginia Patchboxes. The lower , a Grandstaff signed, longrifle has identical patchbox leaves as the unsigned gun above which is alleged to be a "Spitzer". Spitzer is from Newmarket, Virginia which is 10 miles from Edinburg where Grandstaff's shop still stands. The leaves of the patchboxes are identical in design and dimensions. Here are the questions:

1. Is the upper gun a Granstaff?
2. Did Grandstaff and Spitzer share brass furniture or molds?
3. Did one apprentice with the other and if so which did what?
4. Other??



Hurricane

[Hurricane ( of Virginia)]

I am surprised and DISAPPOINTED that no one has ventured into a discussion.
Hurricane

[KABAR2]

When I get home I will check a smooth bore "rifle" 52 cal. I suspect is of Virginian origin,
your patch boxes may help me ID the gun, if so I will add some photo's tonight.
If memory serves it is like #2.
I am new to civilian Flintlocks my main interest has been military arms before this.

Allen <><

[bgf]

I don't know enough to discuss this one, but those patchboxes look very similar also to one in KR&P p.187, "signed S. Lauck", with the cryptic note "possibly by Godfrey Wilkin".  They were all in the same area.  On the previous page is a pretty rifle signed "I. Grandstaff" with a somewhat different patchbox (from the ones you show), but the location is given as "Stony Creek near Edinboro, Virginia", which must be in error or I'm missing something -- I wanted to check that last night when I saw your post; Edinburg makes more sense.  Possibly it is the "Shenandoah County, VA" school's favorite style of patchbox and does not imply any specific relationship between Grandstaff and Spitzer?

[valongrifles]

Indeed, Edinboro is Edinburg VA. I live 5 miles from Edinburg and, yes, grandstaff built rifles there. I suspect that he may have made both, but, he and others may have obtained patchboxes from a supplier, also. But as was stated, an apprentice may have made the unsigned specimen.  Note the attaching screws are located quite differently. How does the unsigned gun patchbox open?

[Tanselman]

Schools of gunmaking used similar patterns within the school, and at times shared patterns with other schools. Perhaps we are trying to read too much into these two sets of side leaves. While very similar, they are not identical in outline. The above rifle's box has a small emerging "leaf" above the top side leaf's rear piercing, and a similar small emerging "leaf" on the bottom side leaf in the detail between the two piercings. Screw heads appear to be different sizes, engraved lid borders apprear different, etc.

This same basic side leaf pattern was used in other schools as well (including in KY where I research), and is not restricted to Valley of VA. I think we can go into most well defined regional schools, certainly several in PA, and find strongly related side leaves by different makers who were not master/apprentice or master/journeyman. A good pattern at times got "shared" by others. Quite often, when patchboxes have similar shapes, it's best to study the engraving, borders, and other smaller details specific to a particular gunmaker, to determine who might have made the rifle.

I think at times in our desire to identify good quality unsigned rifles, we jump to the conclusion that "it must have been made by an apprentice of so-and-so," or "it had to be made in so-and-so's shop." These are mature rifles with good detail, built by accomplished gunmakers. I think if we do more comparative work with known guns by VA Valley gunmakers, makers can abe attributed based on the many other details of the guns.  Shelby Gallien

[bgf]

I also think the character of the metal work differs significantly between the two -- the Grandstaff is quite rounded on the corners (compare the daisies for example, or the leaf tips on the side-panels), whereas the "Spitzer?" is much sharper and more angular.  My first impression wouldn't be that the same man did both, and the difference in the impression is stark enough to make me wonder if an apprentice would depart that much from his master stylistically while using such a close pattern.  Pure speculation, of course.

[Hurricane ( of Virginia)]

Shelby:
Based on your remarks, I took a fine caliper and measured every reasonable radius ( from X-X) I could define , including the piercings. They are "IDENTICAL" except for the lower leaf  "lobe" that abut the butt plate. The upper leafs are identical!
Hurricane

[Tanselman]

Hurricane, my point was that the two sets of side leaves do not have identical designs; there are several subtle differences between them, such as the"emerging leaves" that were pointed out on the upper box. That box almost looks like it has a third tiny "emerging leaf" on the upper side leaf's outer edge above the larger rear piercing. Those little details are important when studying similar patchboxes, and identifying the makers of unsigned guns. I can't argue about the dimensions since I have no ability to measure them. But the subtle differences in outline should not be overlooked, and in my opinion, make the boxes similar but not identical.

The crux of the prior statement was simply not to get too focused on the side leaves, but rather look at the full patchboxes on both guns and all their similarities and differences, in order to understand the guns. I agree the side leaves are very similar, no argument there, but labeling them as "identical" overlooks small details, some perhaps important, that can otherwise assist us in proper attribution of the unsigned gun. Shelby Gallien

[Hurricane ( of Virginia)]

Class goes on. Thanks Shelby.

[Majorjoel]

Hurricane, do you by chance have a copy of the Patchbox book by Chandler? I have found all of the variations used by many of the different builders most amazing! From the close similarities from distant schools to one gunsmith using a different box for every rifle. I still have a hard time disserning VA rifles from PA work. I haven't been around too many VA long guns to study. What this book has helped me with is a much more detailed look at the engraving styles. Most of the photo's (not all) really highlight it where you can see the master work vs the mediocre.