Iconic patchbox

[Pete G.]

As a general rule I see a copy of another person’s work as somewhat akin to plagiarism, and hence is something to be avoided, not to mention the fact that they are almost always just a little bit off in one area or another (with the possible exception of a piece by Kibler) that comes to light when the two pieces are placed side by side. Having said that, I now find myself in possession of the iconic Dickert side opening daisy head patchbox.  My dilemma is whether to attempt to build a copy, complete with all of the warts, including the original somewhat poorly designed carving; try to build something that is “in the style of” and perhaps came out the shop around the same time; or go the route of another builder who saw the design, liked it enough to steal it, and altered the engraving and maybe the side plate to suit his own ideas.

I am looking for some insight and food for thought here. What would you do and why?

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Peter:  I have as a future build in mind, Wm. Antes iconic swivel breech rifle.  Here again, the original patchbox has what I would call naive engraving:  it doesn't suit the space or shape.  So I will engrave it 'in the style of" but try to improve upon the flow and design.  I have no difficulty with that.

I've built a lot of rifles that were attempts at copies,  using only published images and dimensions to go by.  My reason for doing this:  I cannot hope to ever afford to own such a great work, and my admiration drives me to try to reproduce it.  Do I fall short - undoubtedly!  But my personal satisfaction carries the day.  In the end I have a rifle that hopefully emulates the original, but is one I can take to the line, trail and woods without worrying about attrition.  As they say, 'others mileage may vary".

[Ed Wenger]

Pete, I think your question / dilemma is something all gun builders struggle with at some point or another, and as such, comes down to personal taste.  I don't know that there's really a "right" or "wrong" answer, and also look forward to others insight.

The longer I do this (build flintlocks), I see it more and more as a revival form of art, with it's own characteristics and aspects.  In that vein, I'd be more apt to lean toward the "in the manner of", or "do my own thing".  It would definitely have my own input, or ideas, incorporated into the engraving / carving. 

The work being done by many, if not most, gun builders today is so much better than what you find on the majority of original pieces, and for that reason would shy away from the copy.  And as you said, it's already been done.    My favorite type of builds are those where the stock architecture and furniture closely emulate an original, but the "bells & whistles" are what I would have done 250 years ago, or something a little more contemporary. 

Don't know if all that makes much sense, but I agree with Taylor, personal satisfaction carries the day.  Thanks for the post, and look forward to what others think.


         Ed   

[kaintuck]

Are you enjoying your work?
Are you creating to have fun?

Then, by all means....create!

Build build build.........

It would be a dull world if all flowers were the exact same now wouldn't it???

Marc n tomtom

[EC121]

My vote is to do it your way.  No point in duplicating something you aren't happy with.    You can still call it a Dickert style, and 99.9% of the people you show it to won't know the difference. 

[Lucky R A]

     There is absolutely nothing wrong with using one of the masters work as a guide.  Since imitation is the most sincere form of flattery it is not plagiarism.  What it will/should do is teach you how to really look at a Longrifle.  To notice every nuance as you try to replicate the work.  You may choose as Taylor said to "improve" an area to correct mistake (yes the old masters made many mistakes).  You learn different techniques in carving, engraving and architecture.  You should move out of your comfort zone and attempt guns from different schools to further educate yourself.  It is a lifelong course and you should enjoy it.
     As a side note, if your side opening Dickert box is a commercially manufactured one, you might want to compare it to the original in detail---you will find that the domed lids are quite different etc.  

Best wishes
Ron

[Mark Elliott]

I always feel compelled to change something, even if it is just a minor engraving change.   Even if I really like a gun,  there is usually something about it I think I can "fix".   That is probably a very arrogant attitude on my part.   However, as Ed said,  it is a very personal choice about how you approach this work, and will probably change over time.     

[David Rase]

I always feel compelled to change something, even if it is just a minor engraving change.   Even if I really like a gun,  there is usually something about it I think I can "fix".   That is probably a very arrogant attitude on my part.   However, as Ed said,  it is a very personal choice about how you approach this work, and will probably change over time.     

I agree, there is always something one can "fix".  These guys that built longrifles were not above making mistakes.  Nothing bothers me more than to see a contemporary gunmaker copy an obvious mistake from an original and then when critiqued or questioned about it they respond by saying, "That's how it was on the original".  Come on, strive to be a better student than that. 
David

[Ed Wenger]

"Nothing bothers me more than to see a contemporary gunmaker copy an obvious mistake from an original and then when critiqued or questioned about it they respond by saying, "That's how it was on the original".  Come on, strive to be a better student than that."

That's pretty much where I was going, but Dave said it much better.  Again, I tend to look at this as a form of revival art, or an evolution of the originals that we all admire so much.  I'll probably get in trouble here, but so many times you'll see carving or engraving that have flat spots on volutes, or some other "mistake", and we kind of shrug and say "well, that's the way originals look."  Many do, but to me a flat spot is a flat spot, and whether it was executed 250 years ago, or 250 hours ago, it doesn't look "right".  I've certainly done my fair share of flat spots, but continually strive not to.  I also hear people say "it looks too perfect", or "it's too good" (what ever "it" is), "doesn't capture the feel of an original", etc., and think that's crazy.  Like saying there's too much money in the bank account, or something.   I think that's where the revival and evolution comes in.  Learn from the old Masters, study their work, but don't be afraid to follow your own instincts and strive for excellence. 

I don't think Mark's take on "fixing" some things is arrogance either.  Again, you're learning from the old Masters, and trying to improve as a student of their work.


          Ed