Who can identify the maker of this rifle?

[Shreckmeister]

This rifle presents 13 Sterling silver inlays, silver cheekpiece molding is missing, nice pierced patchbox and toe plate. Patchbox release on the back of the butt plate- fancy comb inlay- Red varnish finish. JH on the Box Lid.

[WElliott]

Very interesting. Do you have pictures of the sideplate and the cheek piece you could post?

[WElliott]

For the purpose of getting the discussion going, I will note that the comb line, particularly as it approaches the wrist, and the concave surface below the comb, makes me think deep south.  Perhaps South Carolina. If others can help narrow down to a State and area of production, we could start speculating on who JH may have been. But unless someone has a similar rifle with a full signature, it will always be speculation. In any event, it is a handsome rifle and appears nicely preserved, whoever and wherever it was made.

[G-Man]

I agree with Wayne - maybe South Carolina or Georgia - the architecture, the decorative metal inlay work on the lock panel, comb and forestock, and the funky patchbox that blends organic shapes and linear edges on some of the cutouts - have the feel of that deep southeastern area.  Although the patchbox finial looks like something from farther north - i.e. Virginia.  But overall, to me this gun conveys a similar feel to the "Gamecock" rifle....

Guy

[westerner]

John Hancock!      I know I know.  Shut up! Okay.

        Joe.

[wildcatter]

Interesting rifle.  The incised line on the bottom of butt stock and the dished out part of the wrist above the rear of the trigger guard are definitely SC traits.  Is the trigger assembly screwed to the stock with a brass screw or is that a reflection?  The lock manufacturer on SC rifles can sometimes be a clue if you can read it.  The patchbox finial is certainly an interesting form. Neat gun thanks for sharing.

[Shreckmeister]

Well, let me say that nobody has gotten even close yet.

[Rich N.]

Earlier this week I had the opportunity to look at three different rifles made by Samuel Morrison in Milton, Pa.   All three were signed but all three were totally different in shape and style.  Two of the three didn't look at all like upper Susquehanna rifles, and had they not been clearly signed, I wouldn't have come close to guessing who had made them.  One of the rifles in that group had a stock shaped very much like the one you have pictured and the patchbox was almost identical.  The sideplates were also like the ones pictured in your post.  Seeing those three rifles together made me realize how much I don't know and how much I have to learn.  Before this week, I would have never even suggested that there were rifles made in central Pennsylvania that had a stock profile like the one shown here.  I am not saying that this is a Morrison rifle, but after my experience this week, I wouldn't rule it out.  In any case, this is a nice rifle - thanks for sharing.

Rich

[Spotz]

Rich:

     I think you got us back into Pennsylvania and in the right neck of the woods.  Everyone thinks that Upper Susquehanna guns must have roman nose architecture but often, especially on rifles with wider flats on the barrel, you can see straighter Upper Susquehanna guns.  What makes it difficult, however, is that many of the makers from Union County ended up in Pickaway County, Ohio.  Looking at this rifle, I see a toeplate and comb identical to a Baum rifle and check out the half moon inlays.  Again, not saying that is a Baum or even definitely an Upper Susquehanna rifle, but it has a central Pennsylvania or Ohio connection in my opinion.

[T.C.Albert]

"Well, let me say that nobody has gotten even close yet."

So you already know who made it?
TC

[westerner]

"Well, let me say that nobody has gotten even close yet."

So you already know who made it?
TC

Wow! That'll be interesting!   

         Joe.

[Shreckmeister]

Spotz wins the prize.  Good eye Jeff.  I'll email you later about the pistols.

[westerner]

If I'd known you could win pistols by just guessing where a rifle was made, I would have paid more attention.   


These antique ID threads are my favorite.  Dont know a darn thing about the subject but love to read the threads.


                            Joe.

[WElliott]

Well, Suzkat, now that we have played the game, how about educating us now..... what are the characteristics of this rifle that should tell us this is a central Pennsylvania or Ohio rifle vs the other suggestions that have been made?  Just so we won't be stumbling all over ourselves in the future. 

[Shreckmeister]

Wayne,  One thing clearly established by this thread is that you can't always
determine where a particular gun is from just because it has this comb or
that lockplate decoration.   These gunmakers were moving around and influencing different
areas in different periods.  Everyone saw that comb and instantly looked south
when there were other clues that pointed elsewhere.  I think we're all going to
be stumbling around as long as unsigned guns are around.   I'd be curious to
know which maker made the first southern comb, where was he originally from
and why was he so frequently copied that the comb became known as southern.
Perhaps there were German settlements established in the south independent of
those in the north, but I suspect that the southern makers were mostly transplants from Pennsylvania originally.  Never pulled any of the southern makers
census info, but it makes sense to me.
This is what I love about these guns and our history.  The questions are endless.
Thanks for playing.

[Collector]

suzkat,  Your point about gunsmiths moving around, is well taken and there have been many previous threads on this and related topics.  I remember a discussion I had with Allen Martin about an unsigned  pre-ARW (~1746/1760's) parts-gun/musket (maybe dual purpose) that I found in GA, that was very well stocked, in plain maple.  Allen speculated that the work may have actually been done in PA and brought south by a new settler or, that the unknown builder had been trained in PA and had moved to and worked in the  South.  I'm a reluctant 'guesser,' but enjoy when other forum members, who are more knowledgeable collectors and builders, show us their collection pieces and contemporary projects and 'share' their wealth of knowledge.  Actually I'm a terrible 'quesser' on these old longrifles...    

[WElliott]

Suzak, I absolutely agree that makers often trained in one area and moved to another(s), picking up different ideas along the way. It seems to me that relying entirely on architecture, furniture or even initials on a rifle can lead to misidentification. How many makers in, say, Ohio today build excellent "Southern" guns, and how many contemporary makers in Georgia build nice "Lancaster" guns?  In the end, a rifle either stands on its own, or not, and appreciation is in the eye of the beholder.  Even when a rifle is fully signed, we don't often know if it was really by "John Smith" who worked in Arkansas or his cousin "John Smith" who worked in Indiana.  And, as much as I appreciate Southern guns, I don't appreciate all of them, while I do appreciate very much many guns made elsewhere. 

I don't argue with your premise or your assertion about the geographical origins of this particular rifle.  My questions remain, however:  how do you actually know where it was made and who made it?  What clues tell you that?  What finally convinces you?  It would be educational for us to know. 

Best regards,

Wayne

[Spotz]

Since I won the prize, I can elaborate a bit on what puts me into the Upper Susquehanna region, here.  The toeplate is of the type used by Samuel Baum, New Berlin, Union County Pennsylvania.  The comb piece is common on the Upper Susquehanna school rifles (what we loosely identify as north of Harrisburg to the norther tier of Pennsylvania along the Susquehanna River (both branches).  The patchbox side plates or rails are of that school.  The half moon inlays on the forestock are from the same region.  These features get me in that general area, and the red violin finish is common to the area, including Baum.  The shape is a bit off, but I don't know if that is the photo or a more straighter design of the more commonly encountered roman nose architecture.  Many of these features carrying into Ohio and the so-called experts often lump Upper Susquehanna guns into Ohio guns and vice versa.  I hope this helps a bit. 

[WElliott]

Spotz, thank you, that is helpful to understand what led you to your conclusion.  And your conclusion may be entirely right. I must respectfully point out that you have listed details that lead you to a conclusion leaning toward a region with which you are particularly familiar. And you have chosen to exclude details (shape a bit off) that would point away from that region. Given that some characteristics and architecture of the rifle are seen in other regions, and that collectors most familiar with those other regions could make similar points favoring their identification, how can suzak finally settle the question he raised?  What can be definitive?  I think we must admit that he (or I) will simply choose the answers that best comport with his own opinion.  It is too bad all makers didn't clearly sign their work to the effect: "This entire rifle was made by John Doe, son of Richard Doe, in Lancaster, Penna., during the month of May 1796", followed by signatures of two witnesses.   

[spgordon]

Is Suzkat's reasoning the same as Spotz's? I don't think Suzkat has yet explained how he has attributed this unsigned rifle.

[Hurricane ( of Virginia)]

Only because no one mentioned it, is there a significance to the inlay/overlay ahead of the lock plate?. Is it covering up a mal-fitting replaced lock? an unusual place for an ornamental inlay?
Hurricane

[Fullstock longrifle]

Wayne  brings up the some valid questions Suzkat, what are you basing your identification on?  Is it signed, and if so, by who.  What are your reasons for for associating this rifle to the Upper Susquehanna region?  Inquiring minds want to know.

FK

[Shreckmeister]

Adding to Spotts assessment, the sideplates on this rifle are identical to a rifle listed as Charles Baum in Dillon's "The Kentucky Rifle".  In my opinion the rifle was either made by Charles Baum, misidentified by Dillon or there was a maker in the south making exact copies of Baum's sideplates, which I don't
believe to be the case being seperated by days of travel in that time period.
The book picture is inverted.  Also, the triggerguard is identical to the Baum rifle as well.  The patchboxes on Baum rifles seem to vary greatly like the
Shreckengosts.

[WElliott]

Thank you, suzkat.