The trouble with copies

[SPG]

Gentlemen,

Some quotes from "Contemporary Makers Of Muzzleloading Firearms" by Weil that I think are relevant and should be pondered-

"I once was a documentarian, but that is uncreative and a repetition of the same mistakes."- Jack Haugh

"I feel that a man should put something of himself in his work, not copy, to perfection, all of another's work including mistakes."- Don King

And finally-

"I want to make good rifles for people who will use them."- Hershel House

At least to me that pretty well covers it...

Steve

[bgf]

All the talk about mistakes in originals that need to be corrected in copies strikes me as strange.  If you are going to copy for documentary purposes, what you think about the fore-end shaping, the lock panels, the butt-plate, etc., is completely irrelevant.  To take a respected original with the expressed intent of copying it and to "improve" it with your vision of how things should be -- a vision that is necessarily a product of your times -- serves no purpose but to pander to the taste of the times and indulge your own sense of self-importance.  Many of the products of today's "super-builders" will look like bad 70's hair styles in an amazingly short time.  To so interpret an actual artifact in this fashion and call it a copy is the height of self-indulgence and parasitism:  Self-indulgence because you feel that you can improve an existing artifact and parasitism because the basis of the copy's significance is not what what you have done but the importance of the original.  Reading this thread, one gets the impression that many builders today are incapable of reasonable copies, due to being such unbound creative geniuses.  Time will tell whether their original works are displayed beside Shroyers and Youngs or pointed to as quaint arts and crafts projects or bad investments from the early part of the second millenium.  I expect, however, that they hope their original works, should they achieve the status of greatness and be copied for documentary purposes  be copied as precisely as possible in the future, not improved on according to the fashion of the day.

[Acer Saccharum]

All the talk about mistakes in originals that need to be corrected in copies strikes me as strange.  If you are going to copy for documentary purposes, what you think about the fore-end shaping, the lock panels, the butt-plate, etc., is completely irrelevant.  To take a respected original with the expressed intent of copying it and to "improve" it with your vision of how things should be -- a vision that is necessarily a product of your times -- serves no purpose but to pander to the taste of the times and indulge your own sense of self-importance. 

If I correct the original maker's work while I make my copy, I won't have a copy anymore.

Many of the products of today's "super-builders" will look like bad 70's hair styles in an amazingly short time.  To so interpret an actual artifact in this fashion and call it a copy is the height of self-indulgence and parasitism:  Self-indulgence because you feel that you can improve an existing artifact and parasitism because the basis of the copy's significance is not what what you have done but the importance of the original. 

I don't like the idea of my work going out of fashion in a decade or less. I make a fair number of gambles when I make a gun, make design elements that never existed, but 'might have', or at the very least, I satisfy my creative urges. I would break down in tears if I knew all my work was to end up in the closet with the platform shoes and bellbottom trousers.

Actually, I'm not scared at all that my work will go out of fashion. It's good, solid work, it's creative. It's not for everyone. I'm also not telling everyone that this is 'the right way' to do things. It's my way, and that's what I like about this rifle building.

BGF, excellent thought on an 'improved' copy devaluing the original, pointing out its flaws by doing the 'troubled areas' better. That would be arrogance, fo' sho'. But if I were to make a copy, and started to say to myself that 'I would like to make this detail in my own way', that is not arrogance, just some creativity showing up. At that point the gun ceases to be a copy.

Reading this thread, one gets the impression that many builders today are incapable of reasonable copies, due to being such unbound creative geniuses.  Time will tell whether their original works are displayed beside Shroyers and Youngs or pointed to as quaint arts and crafts projects or bad investments from the early part of the second millenium.  I expect, however, that they hope their original works, should they achieve the status of greatness and be copied for documentary purposes  be copied as precisely as possible in the future, not improved on according to the fashion of the day.

Ouch. That kind of stung. I'll see if I get over my red-eye, ground pawing anger and make some sense of the discussion. While I resent the slap, there is also a lot of truth to what you say. Maybe that is why the sting?

If we are so incapable, then why bother at all? Maybe we should turn to crochet? No, there is original crochet work that we might dishonor by copying. Or how about oil painting, wait, same problem... darn! There is nothing we can do without being in danger of going out of fashion or dishonoring original work.

Maybe we could change our attitude instead?

To me, to copy, is to learn. To attempt to copy faithfully an artifact is as close as you can get to having the master looking over your shoulder. There is something sacred about this process; it requires complete honesty with yourself and you must tune all your faculties of observation to the highest pitch. You must bring your critical eye into the greatest focus.

If my work goes out of fashion, oh, well. I had my rewards by building it. I get my ya-ya's out by building, by dreaming, by watching the gun slowly appear before my eyes.  I don't get my joy by watching my work's value increase. For every man that says 'bad copy', there is another who says 'hey, that's a really cool rifle'. So I am confused by this talk that has no seeming answer.

There is indeed 'trouble with copies', but I think the real trouble is personal. And the most trouble comes from the way your work is presented to the public, to the customer.

Be honest with your self and your customers, and the problems with copies evaporates.

Happy Labor Day, everyone.

Tom

[Mike Brooks]

"Out of fashion"...interesting, never thought about it before. But, I believe that is true. Thumbing through Weil's Contemporary builders book I find many of those guns are "out of fashion". Many of those guns were made by the top makers of that time, but in my opinion, much of that stuff doesn't cut the mustard anymore by today's standards. Our top builders today have gone way beyond what was being done when that book was published. I believe the trend today is all about guns that are historically correct, where as back when that book was published the trend leaned far more to "fantasy rifles" which I believe are falling out of style today.
 Nothing to do with "copies", but interesting .

[Acer Saccharum]

This topic has spurred much conversation, working all around the subject of copies, pro/con/pitfalls, etc. But what it does for me is to question how I feel about my work, what I believe in, reflect upon what I do and WHY. Excellent exercise.

Tom

[rich pierce]

For another twist, I am interested in the "problem" with magazine articles and the "problem" with books as they relate to the "problem" with definitions.  Magazine articles and books are the places where statements and definitions take on substance and become codified.  The real "problem" is not in the articles and books, which are not meant to be the final word, but in the readers who take the premises, statements and definitions as the final word.  All words have many meanings and usages across all people who use those words, and those usages change over time.  But dictionaries codify the "true" and "correct" meanings.  In this case Mark Silver is presenting his own internal definitions of "copy", "bench copy" etc., and we're reacting because we realize that his articles will have a significant role in codifying these definitions. Already some who posted above made certain assumptions about the intent of builders who made a "copy" of this rifle or that rifle, and have stated that they failed or succeeded.  Unless we know the intent of the builder we do not know if they failed or succeeded.

So, I'll refrain from commenting on that part of the work presented in Mark's article, which is addresses a topic that is obviously of great interest.

[J. Talbert]

Maybe we could change our attitude instead?

To me, to copy, is to learn. To attempt to copy faithfully an artifact is as close as you can get to having the master looking over your shoulder. There is something sacred about this process; it requires complete honesty with yourself and you must tune all your faculties of observation to the highest pitch. You must bring your critical eye into the greatest focus.

If my work goes out of fashion, oh, well. I had my rewards by building it. I get my ya-ya's out by building, by dreaming, by watching the gun slowly appear before my eyes.  I don't get my joy by watching my work's value increase. For every man that says 'bad copy', there is another who says 'hey, that's a really cool rifle'. So I am confused by this talk that has no seeming answer.

There is indeed 'trouble with copies', but I think the real trouble is personal. And the most trouble comes from the way your work is presented to the public, to the customer.

Be honest with your self and your customers, and the problems with copies evaporates.

That pretty well sums it up for me.

Well said Tom!

Jeff

[SPG]

Gentlemen,

I have to disagree with the implied idea that we have no "Masters" (or their work) that will be as highly regarded, in time, as any of the 'smiths of long ago. To me, the artform is alive and ongoing. Our current masters will be as much studied as Armstrong and Angstadt are now. Even the "bad hair" pieces of the '60's and '70's have merit as they were part of the revival of the artform. To me, a gunsmith that studies the "School" of his choice and becomes proficient in it's particular style is equal to any apprentice that worked under the eye of a old master. Good work is good work, no matter when it was done. To imply that gunsmiths such as Silver, Mandarino, Haugh, King or House would not have been classed as master 'smiths in the old days or that they are producing "fantasy" pieces that will go out of style is not something that I can agree with.

Another bothersome question that will no doubt stir debate- At what point does a "bench copy" become a forgery? Especially in the case of an unsigned piece. I realize that there are different levels of copies but this was the subject of a conversation with Don King recently. He mentioned that he always used steel pins to secure inlays rather than silver or brass because he did not want his work to be confused with original or previous antique work.

Just my thoughts,

Steve   

[westerner]

Gentlemen,

I have to disagree with the implied idea that we have no "Masters" (or their work) that will be as highly regarded, in time, as any of the 'smiths of long ago. To me, the artform is alive and ongoing. Our current masters will be as much studied as Armstrong and Angstadt are now. Even the "bad hair" pieces of the '60's and '70's have merit as they were part of the revival of the artform. To me, a gunsmith that studies the "School" of his choice and becomes proficient in it's particular style is equal to any apprentice that worked under the eye of a old master. Good work is good work, no matter when it was done. To imply that gunsmiths such as Silver, Mandarino, Haugh, King or House would not have been classed as master 'smiths in the old days or that they are producing "fantasy" pieces that will go out of style is not something that I can agree with.

Another bothersome question that will no doubt stir debate- At what point does a "bench copy" become a forgery? Especially in the case of an unsigned piece. I realize that there are different levels of copies but this was the subject of a conversation with Don King recently. He mentioned that he always used steel pins to secure inlays rather than silver or brass because he did not want his work to be confused with original or previous antique work.

Just my thoughts,

Steve  

Gasp!!  

They all look like forgeries to me, lol!  

Finally somebody said it.  Okay, on with the forgeries!    


                                 Joe.  

[bgf]

Acer,
Thanks for the thoughtful response.  It is nice to be able to put my actual thoughts out there (bizarre or offensive as they can be at times) and engage in a dialogue rather than an argument.  When you take an original as a starting point and make it your own, that seems to me to be the way longrifles have been made from the beginning, not a copy.  Even if you stick close to an original but put your own touches on it, that is original work, as long as you do not portray it as a copy.  I love your metaphor of the apprentice.  My only quibble is with copies that do not pay the proper respect to the originals, while pretending to be true, or even "better than original", representations of them.  Simple differences that result naturally from hand work are not the issue.  These thoughts are my own, and offered only as one humble man's perspective.

SPG,
If it seemed like I implied there were no modern masters, that is not the case.  I would be a sorry arbiter.  My point was simply that there really is no way of seeing whose original work will be considered "great" by posterity, except to wait.  Time really has no mercy, however, so it is certain that several of our most celebrated builders will either be forgotten or relegated to "contemporary of X" status.  X may even be someone we've never heard of.

[paa]

I might a well add to this topic.  I have ideed made a bench copy of an original rifle that I owned - a George Schreyer smooth rifle - right down to matching the exact figure, barrels (one 50. smooth, the other .45 rifled) made from the original by Don Getz for me.  I made sure that the Butt Plate & trigger guard matched.  The lock - a Siler, was the right size. but not the English lock, but that was a replacement, anyway.  It was a great experience, and I learned everything I could about Schreyer's techniques.  I have also made documentary copies of Armstrong, Beck, not only from pictures in books, but from my own photos and measurements of originals - some more successful than others.  But how else are we to learn?  Only by studying, as it were, under the Masters, can you evolve your own, traditional, style.  As for aligning screw slots, I consider that completely irrelevant - Many original rifles do not have such alignment.  And, as for getting the exact trigger reach and drop of an original, single rifle, which might not fit you correctly, what about another rifle by the same original gunsmith?  After studying over 30 Armstrongs, about the same number of Schreyers, and almost the same number of Becks, I can tell you there are variations.  Still, if you wish to be Beck's "student", study, and imitate him, until you "get" him, then proceed.   Regards,   Peter A. Alexander

[Long John]

Whew!

This is a mightly long thread.  And now I am making it one post longer.

I think Cody has it right.  It all depends on what we tell to the public we are trying to achieve with a particular build.  As I was working on my last rifle I had a bunch of pictures of RCA 53 on my bench.  I was trying to figure out how Will Antes would have made this rifle.  I copied some of the carving on 53, some of it was my own design.  But I did not assert that I was making a "copy" of RCA 53 but rather I was trying to be an apprentice to William Antes, just a couple of hundred years late.  So "Journey" is "inspired by" RCA 53, not a copy.

We, as a community of long rifle enthiusiasts, do need a set of definitions that we all agree upon.  I one person's route to proficiency might be by very carefully copying an existing rifle then so be it - this is America, after all, and we are free!  But then the success or lack there of of the work will be the fidelity to the original.  If we are going to use an orginal as an objective but make our own interpretation and introduce our own details, every bit as legitimate an endeavor as a true "copy" then we need to use some other term to describe what it was that we were trying to achieve.

At the CLA show in Lewisburg, PA last winter RCA 53 was there.  The owner gave me permission to lay the rifle down on the table to take close-up photos.  The instant I picked that rifle up I knew it was built by a shooter for a hunter.  That rifle feels alive! It exhibits the perfect balance between weight and rotational inertia.  It is RIGHT-ON!   More than anything else I strived to achieve that same "feel" with my rifle, "Journey".  In that regard it was a copy but in all others it is the effort of an apprentice to gain the appoval and respect of his master.

Best Regards,

JMC

[SPG]

Long John,

The idea of being an apprentice to a master is what makes the most sense to me...and keeps the discipline healthy and growing.

Steve

[Jim Kibler]

We, as a community of long rifle enthiusiasts, do need a set of definitions that we all agree upon.  I one person's route to proficiency might be by very carefully copying an existing rifle then so be it - this is America, after all, and we are free!  But then the success or lack there of of the work will be the fidelity to the original.  If we are going to use an orginal as an objective but make our own interpretation and introduce our own details, every bit as legitimate an endeavor as a true "copy" then we need to use some other term to describe what it was that we were trying to achieve.

Best Regards,

JMC

Although I find articles and discussions on this subject somewhat interesting, I put little stock in titles and definitions.  One word to describe something so complex never seems to quite work.  In fact, this discussion alone is a testament to the controversy and confusion that can be created.  As I said previously, let the gun speak for itself.  It's really that simple.

[Collector]

I, for one, view the contemporary longrifle makers and accoutrement makers for that matter, of the revival period and carrying forward to the present day, as making pieces (copies, variants, fantasy and so-called 'defined' new schools) that I would opt to describe as '...being in the tradition of...'   Isn't that, afterall, what they/we are all doing, to one degree or another?

Wasn't that the point of the book, titled as such and authored by Mark Silver and Wallace Gussler (I think-my copy's not handy)

I defer to Gertrude Stein to put this in perspective if there really 'has to be' more to it than that:

There ain't no answer. There ain't gonna be any answer. There never has been an answer. That's the answer.  (Gertrude Stein)

[Cody Tetachuk]

 As I said previously, let the gun speak for itself.  It's really that simple.

It's not really that simple, the gun ALWAYS speaks for itself but it's often overruled by the maker. When someone builds a gun using a Bivins butt plate and trigger guard an proclaims "Here is my Lehigh" or worse "Here is my Kuntz" or even WORSE "Here is my Met Kuntz", the gun is screaming "No I'm not" but the maker is saying "yes you are". I think this is what this discussion is all about. It'a about what people say their pieces represent, compared to the reality of what they represent. As far as "going out of style" goes, like Mike, I never really thought so much about it although I've watch it happen and recognized it, just never thought "Hey, this type is going out of style". You can bet that for the most part, stuff being made today WILL go out of style in 20-30 years. As Mike pointed out, many guns in "Contemporary gun makers" have gone out of style as general tastes have gone from high art "fantasy" guns to guns styled more like the originals. As of the last few years, I see the popularity of super crisp, surgically built guns losing favour to guns with scraped surfaces and the odd remaining tool mark. I often hear comments of "cold and without soul" made towards guns made to the ultimate degree of fit and finish. This is just the natural progression of things. Going out of style has no bearing on whether it's good or not. It has more to do with the nature of people to try to be different or unique. When something becomes TOO popular and/or common, people seek something else. There was a time when the mullet was cool...until almost everyone had one. The rolling stones were popular for so long because they change their style of music with the times. Bear in mind that the original guns that we hold in such high regard also went out of style within 30-40 years. While they DID become obsolete mechanically, the popular STYLE of engraved patchboxes and carved curly maple stocks simply "went out of style". They were no longer unique. But I digress, sorry.

[Jim Kibler]

 As I said previously, let the gun speak for itself.  It's really that simple.

It's not really that simple, the gun ALWAYS speaks for itself but it's often overruled by the maker. When someone builds a gun using a Bivins butt plate and trigger guard an proclaims "Here is my Lehigh" or worse "Here is my Kuntz" or even WORSE "Here is my Met Kuntz", the gun is screaming "No I'm not" but the maker is saying "yes you are". I think this is what this discussion is all about. It'a about what people say their pieces represent, compared to the reality of what they represent. 

There will always be fools and just remember you can't fix stupid.

[keweenaw]

What bothers me most about this discussion is the talk of not using the correct hardware or lock.  If you look at 30 Schreyer rifles maybe two have the same lock on them.  Schreyer bought imported German locks - we had a journal entry - and whatever came out of the barrel that week was what was used.  Maybe a half dozen have guards that started with the same casting but if you've ever done sand casting you know that by the time you've filed them up no two are identical.  Many original rifles have had the locks reconverted or had cocks replaced in their working lives.  If we have a 1760's rifle with an obviously 1790's cock on it should we use a 1790's cock in our "copy"? 

The other thing to remember is that those of us who build professionally are doing it for customers and customers do not have infinitely deep pockets.  If I have to make models and sand cast by own BP and Guard that will add at least 20 hours to a project.  If I was to build a fine Manton lock from scratch it would run into the hundreds of hours.  The fantastic Jaeger that Mark Silver just finished has a lock and guard built from forgings.  I blanked out the tumbler and made the screws in the lock but Mark did all the rest of the work on it.  He had more than 3 months of full time work on just the lock and the rifle is priced accordingly. 

It's also rather naive to think that the old time makers weren't copying.  If they weren't there wouldn't be identifiable schools of makers.  We know of colonial era gunsmiths who rarely if ever signed their work but who work for 50 or more years with various moves between regions.  We don't pick out their work as being by unknown gunsmith X  because those gunsmiths were obviously changing their styles as they moved to fit region preferences.  It's the gunsmiths who never moved and built the same basic rifle over and over and over again whose work can be identified and attributed.

Some months ago I got pounded on this board because the Schreyer 'Pea Picker" inspired rifle I built offended someone's sensibility in a few of the changes I made. 
At Friendship in June I handed my "Pea Picker" to a collector who had owned the original before the restoration was done.  He wasn't offended at all by my rifle, quite to the contrary he thought it was really good, but he was offended that the original had been restored.

Tom

[Cody Tetachuk]

Tom, everything you say is quite correct IMO...BUT, you are talking about work that is "inspired by" (the Schreyer 'Pea Picker" inspired rifle I built ) rather than guns presented as "copies". While it's true that hardware can vary on subsequent work coming out of an 18th century gunshop, that's not really relevant because that gunsmith wasn't trying to make a "perfect copy" of he previous gun. He was just making another gun in the style that he was familiar with, kind of "inspired by" if you will. With regard to "It's also rather naive to think that the old time makers weren't copying.  If they weren't there wouldn't be identifiable schools of makers", these makers were copying the WORK of those that trained them, not a particular GUN that was made by their trainer, again, IMO. I don't think (pure conjecture on my part of course) that a journeyman gunmaker took a gun made by his trainer, laid it on the bench and worked toward an exact copy. Rather, he made a gun using styles and techniques taught to him and as such, similarities came through in his work identifying the relationship between trainer and apprentice.

[Dphariss]

The original guns lost their decoration for a couple of reasons. First carved decoration on wood which was so popular in the baroque and rococo periods came to be seen as excessive and even vulgar.
The carved long rifle hung on in America til the 1840s or so. Engraving really never went out of fashion.
The gun factories in the east were making cheap, usually plain guns for the masses. But they had no time for carving and their customers would likely not pay for it anyway. Their high end guns were inlaid and had engraving to a greater or lesser extent.
Our western expansion in the early 19th century resulted in shops in St Louis, for example being overwhelmed. They, according to Sam Hawken, could not make guns fast enough. There was not time for embellishment or even for a good wood finish I suspect.

Highly embellished guns have always been there. Thought the type of embellishment may have changed. Carving gave way to inlays with similar patterns. See the Don King rifle in a recent post. Fantasy? I don't think so. Its not a copy but its not impossible circa 1820-40 either.
Don is a very artistic type and he would copy original rifles pretty well but he did not make fakes. But turn him loose and he would make what HE wanted. Customer orders a fancy swivel breech with silver inlays and the rifle may well look like the one pictured here.

I think the fantasy gun thing is largely BS. Most makers make rifles using elements of original guns. Now its possible to screw things up with too much mix and matching of styles and hardware (a Bedford stock with JP Beck hardware maybe) or by some error in basic design with the right hardware (which happened back in the day as well). Most of this is the result of lack of training/understanding.
But carving elements and such?
If someone brought a rifle in for repair and it had striking carving patterns or a really nice patch box would the gunsmith doing the repair be incapable of drawing the patterns etc out for his own use? With or without modification?
Gunsmiths who immigrated to America after being trained in the Guild system in Europe were highly trained and highly experienced. They journeyed for 4-7 years, often to several countries in Europe working a few months at a time here and there. So thinking that these men were limited in their repertoire to a few designs is simply not true. They were well versed in the art of decoration in a wide variety of styles. The men that apprenticed under these men in America benefited from this experience. They may well have typically made rifles/guns that met the expectations of the customers in a given area but this should not be interpreted to mean that they lacked a skill set that would allow deviations from the style they were most associated with.
RCA #53 and 54 are good examples of differences in design and decoration by the same maker.
Would #54 with its very different carving pattern behind the cheek and the early, perhaps first use of "Allentown Indians" be thought of as a fantasy gun if made today if the original were not known?
How about the fanciful animals carved on some rifles? Griffins etc? Would a rifle made today be a fantasy gun if this the carving pattern if the originals were unknown?

When I think fantasy weapons I think of the sword designs seen in movies as such. Wild, even impractical, characteratures of a sword for example with grossly exaggerated features. Like a rendering of someone in a political cartoon.

Don King made some Vincent Ohio rifles with patch boxes from N. Hawk because they fit nicely.
He used J. Armstrong patchboxes on Bedfords. But if you LOOK at a Bedford you might come to think they were influenced by Armstrong. Low combs and long lockplates.
Given the amount of travel and apprentices moving away for work is it fantasy to see an Armstrong patchbox on a Bedford?
Our modern world with the ability to pick up a book and see rifles from every part of the Colonies is the modern equivalent of the European journeyman gunsmith.
If a man apprenticed in NE PA and perhaps traveled to several different areas doing work or simply stopping in looking for work at various places would he not be influenced. Would he possibly make fantasy guns as a result?
If he hung around some masters shop in VA or NC doing a little cleanup or visiting or working as a striker at the forge to pay for a place to sleep for a day or two would he not then pickup some different ideas from watching shop practice or looking at? Would the maker he visited possibly glean something from the travelers training?

These are things folks need to think about before labeling some modern variation as fantasy because someone has put some patchbox or carving pattern on a rifle that the viewer thinks is out of place. Maybe it is. But then maybe its not either.
Dan