An observation on an origninals cheek carving

[Dave B]

Living out in the west we rarely get to study original long rifles. My short but intense membership with the KRA was a mind blower. I was lucky enough to hold some of the published rifles at the only show I was able to attend. One thing that I took away from this experince as more of a builder than a collector was how they did their carving (with regard to the better makers). The use of incisce carving with modeling cuts keeping the over all height of the carving fairly low on the whole. Here is a sample of what I mean looking at Peter Berry's work.







With the exception of the large scroll terminals that are proud of the ground  the majority of the carving has the aperance of height above the surounding ground but as you can see it really is not. The second shot of the rule against the carving is resting on the edge of the butt plate. There has been shrinkage of the wood so the butt plate is slightly higher than the butt stock at that point. Still the use of his tools to make this pattern pop is incredible to me. He was a tallented gunmaker.  The thing that is hard to judge for us with the pictures in our books today is getting the correct feel from our work today as compared to our forerunners. My early attempts at carving tended to be like some one glued wood on top of the butt stock. I didnt make use of incise carving at all. My first exposure to using this technique was John Bivins reprinted rifle magazine articles in Gunsmithing tips & Projects. He has two articles that address longrifle carving. l did get a copy of Walace Gusslers carving the Kentucky rifle and it really helped my work. The carving class that I took in 1997 at the NMLRA  gunsmithing course in Bowling Green KY was life changing. Still I find looking at originals that one will come across from time to time is worth the time to study and understand what you are seeing. I am so grateful for the those of you out there who have indulged my questions and yes getting finger prints all over your treasured longrifles.

[rich pierce]

Great post. Pictures like that last one really show what’s happening.
I find that laying a narrow piece of cereal box and a piece of shoebox cardboard beside carving. Rarely is it higher than shoebox cardboard.

[TommyG]

Fortunately I live in an area(eastern PA), where I can get to see originals a few times each year.  I totally agree with your observations.  From my humble observations, those guys were masters at creating beautifully crafted illusions, especially with layering and depth.  Another thing that really jumped out at me when viewing a few at the recent Rock Ford exhibit was how crisp and "V" like(for lack of a better term) they're incised carving was.  It appears like they used a tool that was a true "V" as opposed to our modern parting tools. i.e. a Pfeil 16-1 for example.  Seems like the more guns I build, the more that I see and understand when viewing original work.

[Clowdis]

By finishing the surface behind the cheekpiece to it's final height before incising and forming the scrolls it means the maker doesn't have to do all the background cuts around the scrolls. This is a real timesaver if that's indeed what is happening.

[alacran]

I don't intend to be disagreeable Roger. However, this carving was not done at all like Bivins described in the book you mentioned. He basically stabs the carving and uses gouges to remove the ground. He leaves no vestiges of the incising at all because he doesn't do it.
I believe the Berry carving you show is done relatively fast with masterful use of V tools or parting tools, as TommyG mentions.
Like Clowdis says, this is a real time saver.
It was acceptable at the time and a lot of builders took that route. I am not fond to see those furrows in the carving. I don't really think of that when I think of incised carving.

[Dphariss]

Thanks. Nice photos and info.

As you stated its hard to do hands on with original rifles in the West though through our Guild in Montana some of us have gotten hands on with about 4 original J&S and S Hawkens and a C Hawken. Through a couple of Museums out here.  I also got a close look at a JP Beck smooth rifle but they would not allow touching it or photos but the guy that showed me the rifle emailed me some. It needs to have the lock replaced. The one thats in there “fits” but its not the right lock. its a late Beck with an English design lock with a little pointed “tail” seen on some late Becks by the mortice shape. The lock in it is a late trade lock by the look of it. Much like a 1840s dated Leman I saw on a “Connestoga Rifle Works” an Indian Trade rifle (IMO). I also got to handle and photo this Leman but even though unfired it was pretty poor work. All I learned was that the CRW was bottom of the barrel quality wise.

I made the CLA show once when in Cincinnati for a family problem where I got to handle a couple of originals. But there was so much crazy $#@* going on with inlaws that I remember almost nothing.

Lock in the Beck. I was told it came from the Winchester collection.


Thanks again for the photos.

[Dphariss]

I don't intend to be disagreeable Roger. However, this carving was not done at all like Bivins described in the book you mentioned. He basically stabs the carving and uses gouges to remove the ground. He leaves no vestiges of the incising at all because he doesn't do it.
I believe the Berry carving you show is done relatively fast with masterful use of V tools or parting tools, as TommyG mentions.
Like Clowdis says, this is a real time saver.
It was acceptable at the time and a lot of builders took that route. I am not fond to see those furrows in the carving. I don't really think of that when I think of incised carving.

I gotta get a couple of good “V”  tools. I have been stabbing a lot but these photos show some very interesting insights into how it was done. Thanks for your comments as well. Educational.

[rich pierce]

I don't intend to be disagreeable Roger. However, this carving was not done at all like Bivins described in the book you mentioned. He basically stabs the carving and uses gouges to remove the ground. He leaves no vestiges of the incising at all because he doesn't do it.
I believe the Berry carving you show is done relatively fast with masterful use of V tools or parting tools, as TommyG mentions.
Like Clowdis says, this is a real time saver.
It was acceptable at the time and a lot of builders took that route. I am not fond to see those furrows in the carving. I don't really think of that when I think of incised carving.

I gotta get a couple of good “V”  tools. I have been stabbing a lot but these photos show some very interesting insights into how it was done. Thanks for your comments as well. Educational.

I make my v chisels from small rustle triangular files picked up at garage sales. Anneal in the wood stove, file the teeth off, and file the v in with another v file. If you want to get it sharper at the v, use a safe edge v file to gently work that area using magnification. Establish your bevels, polish things up, harden and temper and sharpen and put a handle on it. 2 hours tops not including the annealing. The trick on sharpening any V chisel is to get that exterior right at the bottom. It has to be rounded the slightest bit to allow for some lift as well as sharpness there.

[alacran]

Sorry Dave B. I started typing and somehow I got it in my mind that you were Roger B.

[Jim Kibler]

Here's the problem...  Generalities about carving depth fail.  Things are way more complicated than statements such as "carving should only be 1/32" deep" etc. etc.  Just look at the photo of the Beck above.  Look at how much material must have been removed to form the beavertail.  There are many examples such as this. 

This is similar to saying that barrels today have more swamp than original ones.  True for many, but not all.

Things are more more nuanced than they often appear at the surface.

[Ed Wenger]

I agree with Jim regarding depth.  Like many aspects of American work, things tended to be all over the place, and carving was certainly one of those aspects.  Regional influences also come into play.

Also, I’m not convinced that carving such as shown here (Berry), wasn’t first stabbed in, then outlined with a V gouge or skew chisel.      Best,

        Ed

[Dave B]

I believe Peter Berry did stab in his patterns before he executed his carving. The proof is in the area immediately under the end of the cheek piece at the terminus of the bottom volute. Enlarge that area and see where the stabbed in area was not used for the final carving. He either chose not to follow the lines or the light was poor and he didn't see them and chose to end the volute differently. Kind of cool actually seeing one of the masters  make  a way for us to see how they did things back then.
Alacran, I guess we see John Bivens carving differently or what qualifies as incise carving.  He used a combination of incise and relief carving in his Quaker butt stock that was used as a teaching aid for our carving class. It was a blend of several carving techniques, incise, chip and relief.  I have molds taken from his carved Quaker butt stock  for reference.

Jim, I am only pointing out you can't judge what is happening with the carving by looking at pictures. For example you made the statement about the  ends of the lock panels beaver tail terminals. How high are those actually. If you look at the terminals on this Peter Berry how high would you say they were? What if I told you they were purely incise out lined and not rasised above the ground around them. Well they are almost flush. Crazy, I know but its the fact. Not all makers did them this way but Berry did on this rifle.

[Dphariss]

Thanks Rich. I may give that a try.
But I just forked over for a Pfeil. 


So far as the carving depth…. Jim, I believe, is right.

[alacran]

Dave, I enlarged the photo as you suggested. I do not see evidence that the Berry carving was stabbed in.
Why would one go to the trouble to stab in a design, only to dig a trench around it with a veiner?

This carving was done with a veiner/V-tool. Nothing was stabbed and there is no trench around it.  There are incised carving on the upper and lower part that complement the relief carving.

[Dave B]

The area that I propose as the evidence is highlighted. Whether stabbed in or cut in the results are the same. A fine line of where a detail is to be located, either by relief carving or incise. I use stabbing in for all my types of carving once I have sketched the design. The area I point to is  I believe where there was to be a detail that was never developed only stabbed into the wood with a fine blade or chisel. I can't say all did this stabbing in with their carving but some did. I have a Germanic fowler that  has a pattern cut into the sock but was never executed. Seeing this detail on this Berry rifle made me think of it and make that supposition that it was stabbed in  but not used.  I am I wrong? not sure but it seems right given the incongruity of the stabbed in portion with what has actually carved.




Why go to the trouble of using stabbing in only to incise carve? It keeps you on track and relieves the wood to break out more easily as you make your cuts. It also reduces the likelihood of tear out of the wood grain in softer woods or turbulent grain







Alacran, I like that carving you posted. I think the use of  incise carving with relief carving complement one another. Nicely done whether you stabbed it in or no. I prefer to use stabbing in for my own work but would never say that its the only way to do it.

[JTR]

That line in reply 11 looks stabbed in to me.

[alacran]

Dave, I'm glad you pointed out exactly what I was supposed to look at. I see what you are saying now.
 However, those lines to me suggests that Berry made a mistake in his layout or in execution and decided to leave well enough alone. Of course, this is just speculation.
I don't think there is no being wrong or right in guessing what a builder did in the past.
It is hard to say whether that line was stabbed or cut in with a knife or double bevel skew chisel. After all that wood is over 200 years old.
The carving that I posted is based on a Frederick Sells rifle that is in the library here. I got the impression from his carving that he didn't spend a lot of time
on his carvings and just went at it.
That sure is an interesting buttstock on the fowler you show. Cut lines in walnut show a lot better than lead or charcoal pencil.
I do appreciate your perspective and enjoy the conversation.

[Dave B]

I will have to go to our library to check that one out. I lke the looks of it. Mike De Ambra let me take a impression of a Fedrick Sell piece when he came to a Portland show years ago. I will have to dig it out to refesh my memory. I always learn more from our conversations here. Thank you for your thoughts.