Author Topic: George Washington Hatfield  (Read 6531 times)

Offline flinchrocket

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1750
Re: George Washington Hatfield
« Reply #25 on: October 01, 2020, 04:13:45 AM »
https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=4161.0
I was just looking at the similarity of this triggerguard and the Hatfield triggerguard.

Offline Tanselman

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
Re: George Washington Hatfield
« Reply #26 on: October 08, 2020, 11:19:34 PM »
I question the "stamp" assertion on original Hatfield rifles. I have handled a good number, early and late, and have never seen a stamp on a lock plate. Locks were always commercial import locks, at times with the hardware merchant stamp on them, but never a Hatfield stamp. I am not aware of any original Hatfield rifle where the butt plate has been removed for any reason, so I have not seen what is beneath the butt plates.

It is odd that Hatfield always used a small, straight chisel to stamp in the lines of his initials on the barrel or a butt inlay, often with a small "ball" stamped at the end of each long line. But I have not seen any Hatfield rifle with a normal-type stamped name or initials, always the individually stamped lines making up each initial. If he did not have a "standard" name stamp for his rifle barrels or inlays, it's hard for me to imagine he had a stamp for marking under his butt plates. I would have to know what the stamp actually was, and see an example of it, before I would give credibility to the "stamp" story. I've seen/handled a good many of his known rifles here in Indiana, and have never seen anything to support this claim.  Shelby Gallien
« Last Edit: October 09, 2020, 12:29:36 AM by Tanselman »

Offline Tanselman

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
Re: George Washington Hatfield
« Reply #27 on: October 09, 2020, 08:12:40 AM »
Is that a signed Hatfield rifle? The reason I ask is that the tail of the side facing looks a little more pointed than I would expect on a normal Hatfield rifle. Any chance we can we see the full side facing and guard?

I ask this question because Hatfield rifles are important to collectors here in Indiana, significant research has been done on the maker and his rifles, and Hatfield decendants have been talked to regarding Washington's rifles. I have never had a Hatfield decendant mention to me any kind of stamp, or identifying mark, other than the "W H" we see on perhaps half of his known rifles. So when I hear of a new Hatfield mark, particularly when no description or image of the mark is provided, I am suspicious until I see something to substantiate the claim. I agree the stamp on the tail of your lock is somewhat different than a normal decorative stamp on a commercial lock, but I see no "Hatfield" influence in the mark. Hatfield used simple geometric shapes for his limited decorative purposes, and your stamp uses soft curves and perhaps volutes.

I just want to be cautious about this newly discovered way to identify Harfield rifles when nothing to substantiate the claim has been offered and no description of the mark provided, and years of research into Hatfield rifles has failed to note this new mark.  Below is another stamping on a lock tail, not the same, but an odd-ball by the lockmaker.

Shelby Gallien 

 

« Last Edit: October 09, 2020, 09:33:22 PM by Tanselman »

Offline Tanselman

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
Re: George Washington Hatfield
« Reply #28 on: October 09, 2020, 09:37:13 PM »
I would like to speak with the gentleman. 

I went back and looked at the rifle you posted on the 1st page of this thread, and noted it was the one you showed the lock from with the stamp on the lock's tail. I did not respond to that rifle at the time since I didn't want to "dampen" the thread, but will do so now because of the "stamp" issue. The rifle resembles Hatfield work, but is not a Hatfield rifle. Some important details did not change on Hatfield's work, and this rifle does not have those details. Specifically, 1) the cast nose cap is incorrect, 2) the rear pipe treatment is incorrect, and 3) of particular importance is the cheekpiece that is incorrect. I have never seen a Hatfield rifle, signed or unsigned, without his standard cheek style of shorter cheek with single, heavy molding line at bottom. While this rifle resembles Hatfield rifles in general appearance, unless it is clearly signed [which I doubt], it would not be attributed to Washington Hatfield by knowledgeable collectors or researchers. Shelby Gallien
« Last Edit: October 09, 2020, 10:13:02 PM by Tanselman »

Offline Tanselman

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
Re: George Washington Hatfield
« Reply #29 on: October 10, 2020, 04:35:21 AM »
This is somewhat of an "apples and oranges" discussion. The comments on Schreckengost rifles point out the difficulties in applying that same knowledge or logic to Washinton Hatfield's work:

1. Hatfield was never a prolific maker and worked in a backwoods environment where change came more slowly;
2. The many changes in Schreckengost rifles are validated with signed examples of his work, yet none of the claimed "variants" on Hatfield guns mentioned here have been validated by signed examples of Hatfield's work;
3. Those of us in Indiana who have studied Hatfield rifles from an objective viewpoint have built a good knowledge of his work, his skill levels, and his design details over the years...probably much like you have done with the Schreckengost rifles;
4. Some details on Hatfield rifles did not change significantly over the years, and have been documented with signed rifles from his early days to his later years. Those are the "markers" we use when examining unsigned "similar" rifles to determine if they can be attributed to Hatfield, or if variations are too significant or too numerous to make the attribution.

Hatfield rifles have been sought after for years in the Midwest, due in part to the lengthy entry on Hatfield with a picture of the gunsmith holding his personal rifle in the out-of-print book by Albert Lindert, "Gunsmiths of Indiana," printed and reprinted back in the 1950s and 1960s. Researcher/collector/historian Jeff Jaeger of Indiana is publishing a new book on Indiana gunsmiths, with expected release early in 2021. He will illustrate a number of Hatfield rifles for those wishing to study validated rifles and learn more about Hatfield's work and how it both changed, and remained the same in some aspects, over his working years.

Shelby Gallien

« Last Edit: October 12, 2020, 07:53:13 AM by Tanselman »

Offline Tanselman

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
Re: George Washington Hatfield
« Reply #30 on: October 12, 2020, 08:13:49 AM »
I do not have highly detailed photos to share at this time. However...most significant details on original Hatfield rifles are shown in the illustrations in the four "Muzzle Blast" articles from Sept. & Oct. of 2003 and July & Aug. of 2016. Much of the photography is/was done by Jeff Jaeger of Indiana and is very good. I will take some time over the next few days to write short descritions of several important details for identifying Hatfield rifles, particularly those details that did not change significantly over the years, and post them here.  Shelby Gallien
« Last Edit: October 13, 2020, 06:55:17 AM by Tanselman »

Offline Tanselman

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1632
Re: George Washington Hatfield
« Reply #31 on: October 14, 2020, 08:52:55 AM »
Here are several details that help identify original Washington Hatfield rifles:

1. Cheekpiece - Stock architecture remained much the same over Hatfield's working years. The most consistent detail on ALL Hatfield rifles is the cheekpiece. All known Hatfield rifles have virtually the same cheekpiece, from his early work to his late work. Cheek is relative short, sits rather low on the butt compared to other rifles, and has a single bold molding line across the bottom edge.

2. Chevron Nose Cap - This is the best known Hatfield "trademark" on full-stocked, iron mounted rifles. His standard cast pewter cap design had three chevrons slanting downward as they ran forward. The chevrons anchored on a slightly narrower strip running along the top edges of the barrel, and on a third strip that served as center line at the bottom. A key detail was  the several triangular "teeth" that extended rearward off the back edge of the chevron nose cap, perhaps three or four on either side. The pattern remained consistent up until he began making half-stocked rifles, at which time he began casting more conventional solid pewter nose caps to go with his increased use of commerical brass mountings.

3. Side plate [or lock bolt washer]: Hatfield used a modified style of the inverted "T" Tennessee lock bolt plate. He tapered both ends of the "T" downward into points, at times with a slight dip on either side of the lock bolt. His early lock bolt plates were wider, and they narrowed as time passed. He eventually went to his late style washer where the two arms were mere pointed bumps, almost making the lock bolt washer look like a low bell shape.  Early rifles most often had iron lock bolt washers, but later rifles used brass more often. Note: There are two known rifles with more elaborate iron side plates shaped like an arrow pointing forward with a swirled tail, but these only appear on on family-related rifles so far as we know today and are extremely rare.

4. Side facings - had slight hint of a point at the ends, but not pronounced. Most  important detail was the rear side facing, which ran straight out after dipping around the lock bolt, without any small step in it as was/is often seen on other makers' rifles.

5. Rear Pipe - Hatfield at times used a TN style rear pipe, and at other times a more conventional rear pipe. When he used a TN style rear pipe, it consisted of a pipe without flange/tail butted against a flat face where rod entered grip area. At times [not always] he would reinforce the thin forestock wood just behind/below the rear pipe by adding a single band of sheet brass about 1/3 to 1/2 the width of the rear pipe. The reinforcement ran about a third of the way up each side of the forestock. No known original Hatfield rifle has wider bands, or a second band behind the first, or any type of engraving on the reinforcing band.

Hatfield's later rifles, probably mid-to-late 1850s and later, went to commerical brass mountings including guard and rear pipe, and a conventional cast pewter nose cap. These later guns can vary more than his early work, but his basic stock architecture remained the same - lean with straight comb and toe lines in a triangular butt style. His butt curvature became a somewhat deeper cresent shape, but he seemed to avoid the extreme pointed toes and extended heels of some later makers. But his standard Hatfield-style cheekpiece remained the same, and was his most consistent "marker" detail. 

This brief identification guide doesn't mean we've seen everything, or know everything, with regard to Hatfield rifles. But it does mean that of the positively identified Hatfield rifles, these specific details are present, and should be looked for when trying to identify or attribute a new rifle to Washington Hatfield.  Shelby Gallien
« Last Edit: October 14, 2020, 09:11:13 AM by Tanselman »

Offline flinchrocket

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1750
Re: George Washington Hatfield
« Reply #32 on: April 15, 2021, 03:55:41 AM »
Thank you Shelby for providing those details.