"Need to see Originals"

[Osprey]

Okay, after several years of the "need to see originals" comments at Dixons, I got to the Baltimore show this March and got to see loads of them.  But now I'm even more confused, as I don't think I saw anything that would win a ribbon at Dixon's, not compared to what I've seen there. 

I did learn a lot.  The fowlers were more massive than comtemporary pieces I've seen and made.  The rifles were much slimmer and smaller in the butt, with heavier barrels.  Relief and incise carving were wayyy more delicate than it looks in pictures.  Brass mounts were generally much smaller and delicate than I thought, too.

Contemporary and orginals were so different, in fact, that I could tell from 20 feet whether it was a new or old gun I was looking at, and there were a few contemporary guns and makers there for comparison.  Even to my uneducated eyes I was only fooled once in the whole show, and that was a plain Allen Martin rifle.  Contemporary guns just seemed to have a different look, and much heavier and sculpted carving.

Again, confused, what's a guy to do?! 

[keweenaw]

There are originals and then there are originals.  Most of the rifles you've described are later pieces with the typical late, straight, heavy barrels and relatively small butts and mounts.  Usually pretty plain and not likely to have even won any awards.  Except for southern mountain rifles there is relatively little current interest in making these. The number of originals that date prior to 1780 or so is actually quite small but that's the time frame that most of the current makers are emulating.  You won't see many originals from this time frame at shows and virtually never with a price tag on them.  So it's not that the current makers are doing something incorrect, they're just working in a different period with a different style.  After all if we're making a copy or replica or whatever of something we'd much rather spend the time being inspired by something that is rare rather than something that's common.

Tom

[JCKelly]

Just opinions from an Opinionated Guy.
Modern guns are made for a different reason than were originals.
Modern guys never apprenticed to an 18th century gunmaker.
No matter how hard any artist trys - use oil painting for example - he cannot exactly copy someone else's work, something of the individual artist shows through. I knew Larry Mrock and, fine as his guns were, I could tell at a glance, Mrock's work from any other contemporary maker at a Michigan show.
The guys a couple of centuries ago thought entirely differently than do we, had different minds, values, attitudes. Even given the same tools and economics their guns would look different than a 21st century guy's.
So do you want to exactly copy an original? Modern guys will look down on your work if you succeed.
Or make em' like they do today? Your work will be better accepted by your peers.

[Swampwalker]

Osprey, I would say keep looking for oportunities to see and examine orignials.  Try to get to museums which have pieces by some of the well respected original makers.  And if you can swing it, get to the CLA show in Lexington this summer - you'll have lots of opportunity to see up close really good quality original work, not to mention contemporary work.  Really worth the trip!  I would also say contemporary artist doing documentary work of the better originals are very highly respected.

[Dave B]

Sounds like a great show to see. We just don't get them like that out our way. You are talking about the comments on your work by the judges at Dixon's I take it? I have only been by His place in the off season but they had some great originals up for display as well as some nice contemporary pieces. I think you are right to a greater extent when it comes to comparing the old to the new that we produce today for the most part. The exceptions are those builders who are so steeped in the juices of the essence of the original makers they couldn't build a contemporary looking piece if they tried.   I don't think we will ever hear the judges at Dixon's say " The work needs to look more contemporary"
Over all though it sound like you still came away with some good nuggets of information with regard to originals. They are much more delicate than what we new guys produce. I have collected some originals and they are scary thin in their trigger guards. They are very slim by comparison to what I have ever produced in my early building. The carving on the originals  has been much lower in profile than what I was envisioning, being more subtle.  All of the edges were much softer than what I had pictured as well. From what it sounds like you can never count on what the Judges are going to say about your work when you put it up for critique. I know that when I first took a college art class we had critique sessions at one point.  I was very uncomfortable with what people had to say about my work. How ever it was those comments that ultimately made me improve my art.  It is not helpful to have a bunch of people look at my work and not have any constructive input if I want to move beyond where I am now in my building. Then again having some one make the comment like "Needs to see more originals" is not very helpful if you don't have any near by to look at. The books are helpful but still holding them in your sweaty palms is where its really at. For me the best moment was the attending the KRA show. My head was swimming, senses reeling with all this published eye candy where I could get my hands on them.  I was so over whelmed that I didnt take any pictures. I spent as much time as possible talking with the men who could walk me down the path of a school and point out the essence of it. Talk about heaven.   Soo what you should really do is spend even more time " Looking at originals" in the hopes that some of that old mojo  rubs off.

[bgf]

Osprey,
You need to drink the Kool-Aid.  Don't really look at originals, look at what today's best makers consider the best originals from approved periods and regions, improved by their refined critique and sensibilities.  You've seen the chaos that can result when makers in different regions and periods worked their own way and catered to local tastes.  Those aren't really long rifles, just old things that look like them.  What you want to build ultimately is exactly the same thing that today's best makers build: a distillation of the "best features" without any of the grimy warts or tacky decorations of many originals.  Ideally we would all build the same rifle (from a blank) every time.

Honestly, I also get the impression that many of today's makers just don't like American long rifles (with a few exceptions) and would prefer building European guns instead. at least that seems to be one strong trend.  Ultimately, work to suit yourself and tell your "peers" what they can do with their acceptance. 

[Ed Wenger]

First of all, I wouldn't use the judges at Dixon's as a measuring stick for what's "good" and what isn't, and  I don't mean that in a disparaging way.  It's just that judging can be so subjective.

You're absolutely correct about originals having less bulk than most contemporary guns.  That point was really driven home to me this weekend when I had an opportunity to see the Klette rifle first hand.  All the photos' I've ever seen of the rifle left me with an impression that it was rather "robust", especially through the lock panels, wrist and butt.  That ain't the case, at least to my eye.  I wouldn't say it was "delicate" by any stretch, but it certainly wasn't "robust", at least not as I pictured it in my eye.

I tend to think many who build contemporary guns, build contemporary guns.  I guess I'd describe it as a class of it's own, a continuation and evolution of building longrifles and fowlers.  I don't think we should be happy with tomato stakes, but there's a lot of guys who can pull off a really nice looking contemporary rifle / fowler that is a little more robust than what you would typically see with originals.  

So what to do?  Personally, I don't think you can go wrong by studying an original any time you get the chance, and do your best to emulate their "look".  You may not pull it off, at least right away, but I'd bet you're going down the correct road to building a nice piece, even if it is a little more robust than an original.

            Ed  
 

[rich pierce]

"Needs to see originals" should disappear from the critiques at Dixon's as it offers nothing, and Dixon's is supposed to be about education.  I realize the judges are pressed for time, but it must be possible for judges to say, "Carving is much higher than originals" or "lock panels wider than originals" or "forestock squarer and flatter than originals".

Certainly many photos in books give relief carving the impression of being taller than it is, and I think that is what is generally meant by "needs to see originals".  

I agree with most originals appearing more delicate than we expect them to when we finally see them in person.  I saw an early Dickert in person that I'd seen in several books and it seemed dainty compared to what I expected.  However the Christians Spring early rifles are perhaps an exception- having seen them in person, their mass is palpable.

I agree with bgf that some of the most noted contemporary makers do seem to prefer Euro work.  I think John Bivins was a prophet of that approach and the influence of that school is still very strong.  There are originals that support such work, but they are few and far between.

[Dphariss]

Okay, after several years of the "need to see originals" comments at Dixons, I got to the Baltimore show this March and got to see loads of them.  But now I'm even more confused, as I don't think I saw anything that would win a ribbon at Dixon's, not compared to what I've seen there. 

I did learn a lot.  The fowlers were more massive than comtemporary pieces I've seen and made.  The rifles were much slimmer and smaller in the butt, with heavier barrels.  Relief and incise carving were wayyy more delicate than it looks in pictures.  Brass mounts were generally much smaller and delicate than I thought, too.

Contemporary and orginals were so different, in fact, that I could tell from 20 feet whether it was a new or old gun I was looking at, and there were a few contemporary guns and makers there for comparison.  Even to my uneducated eyes I was only fooled once in the whole show, and that was a plain Allen Martin rifle.  Contemporary guns just seemed to have a different look, and much heavier and sculpted carving.

Again, confused, what's a guy to do?! 

Depends on the gun if fundamentally different or not. We don't really know what a brand new John Armstrong looked like.
Lots of original guns are pretty poor quality. The term "junk" was used in a recent conversation on the subject.
ESPECIALLY some of the 1830-1880 stuff. Poor design, poor workmanship etc etc.
There are earlier guns that are bad as well.
But we must remember that in America anyone could be a "gunsmith". Some wanted to make guns in the worst way and obviously did.  Then there are blacksmith restocks etc.

Dan

[flintriflesmith]

There are originals and then there are originals.  Most of the rifles you've described are later pieces with the typical late, straight, heavy barrels and relatively small butts and mounts.  Usually pretty plain and not likely to have even won any awards.  Except for southern mountain rifles there is relatively little current interest in making these. The number of originals that date prior to 1780 or so is actually quite small but that's the time frame that most of the current makers are emulating.  You won't see many originals from this time frame at shows and virtually never with a price tag on them.  So it's not that the current makers are doing something incorrect, they're just working in a different period with a different style.  After all if we're making a copy or replica or whatever of something we'd much rather spend the time being inspired by something that is rare rather than something that's common.

Tom

Tom nailed it here! The rifles you saw at Baltimore were overwhelmingly 1810-30  and later. Very few modern makers work in that period.

Quality of workmanship is a seperate issue from scale and feel.
Gary

[Mike Gahagan]

I doubt that any of the old originals would win many blue ribbons at Dixon`s.Contemporary builders today are held to a higher standard and if we left the imperfections that are said to give the old originals charm,character and soul,we would be told that it was shoddy workmanship.That is one big reason that you can tell the difference 20 feet away.In trying to do flawless work today,we have forgotten what draws us to the old originals,and that is those imperfections.

[Osprey]

There seems to be plenty of assumptions of what I was looking at!  A Shuler Bucks Co rifle, a Rowe MD gun, a C Hawken MD gun with a 55 grand price tag?  I don't think these are that late to be out of our time period, and certainly not undesirable?   

I noticed the same thing on the originals at Lewisburg.  Incise carving in particular, I expected much more of a V cut from the veiners, but the original incise work I saw at both shows was a very delicate, barely etched line.  I do tend to gravitate toward golden age guns, especially MD rifles, but the few I've seen are much smaller in the trigger gaurds, butts and thimbles than I expected.  Way smaller than contemporary castings I've seen available, for sure.

I don't know how it will translate into my future work, but I find it all very interesting.

[flintriflesmith]

Break out your copies of Shumway's Rifles of Colonial America and look at the butt plate measurements on the early stuff. You will see that some are pretty thick and tall.

A Christian Hawken could date as late as 1820 and most that survive are from the end of the "Golden Age." That makes them very different from the Rev War and even earlier rifles that a lot of modern builders are attempting to emulate. Both builders and their customers seem to be focusing on early rifles for the last 10-20 years. A few years before that many builders were really into Golden Age rifles.

I guess I don't know what you mean by "Out of our time period." On this message board we have folks who build everything from the elusive, speculative, F&I war rifle to 1840 percussion squirrel rifles.

A $55K price tag speaks to the assumed collector's value more than the age of the rifle. The original John Small of Vincenes rifle just sold for about $160K but that didn't make it an early rifle.

Gary

[Ron Brimer]

The Dewitt at COL Williamsburg has a good selection of early and late flinters, including the Brass bbl gun they will let you take photos
RON B

[keweenaw]

One more point regarding the castings that are being used today.  Many of us use castings from Reeve Goehring.  Reeve's castings are copied from originals. Because of shrinkage in the mold, the molds made from originals are almost always smaller than the original was and when that mold or model is used for casting the resulting piece is smaller still.  Some of Reeve's stuff is as much as 5% smaller that what was on the original  and they still need to be filed up so it's literally impossible that those mounts are heavier than the original pieces.
Tom

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

I like to buy a sand casting that has WAY more brass on it than the finished dimensions of the original, whose info is available in RCA 1 and 2.  Then careful filing, and shaping yields a trigger guard or butt plate that very closely resembles the original.  I try to stay away from investment castings - wrong alloy - but Dave Keck's are really excellent.

[bgf]

I like to buy a sand casting that has WAY more brass on it than the finished dimensions of the original, whose info is available in RCA 1 and 2.  Then careful filing, and shaping yields a trigger guard or butt plate that very closely resembles the original.  I try to stay away from investment castings - wrong alloy - but Dave Keck's are really excellent.

Taylor, I think that is the intended use.  Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it .

I had a sand cast brass one that was close to the shape I wanted, but had a chevron I didn't like and some flats on the bow that weren't necessary, so I filed off everything I didn't want, filed away more in putting in the details I wanted and still had a triggerguard that isn't anywhere near as gracile as many originals.  That was a while back, and I thought I had done a good job until you posted something with closeups of a similar part you had finished, and you had filed away perhaps 2x what I had!  Anyway, you can't just file them smooth and polish them up as they come from TOW or wherever -- they will be far too thick.

[smart dog]

Honestly, I also get the impression that many of today's makers just don't like American long rifles (with a few exceptions) and would prefer building European guns instead. at least that seems to be one strong trend.  Ultimately, work to suit yourself and tell your "peers" what they can do with their acceptance. 

That may be because they realize that American longrifles are only one part of a much richer world of 15th, 16th, 17th, 18th, and 19th century firearms.

dave

[California Kid]

Rich Pierce, I think has it right, IMO. They should eliminate the phrase from their critiques. It's been in use there forever, time for a change as I'm pretty sure nobody really finds it useful to their longrifle education.
I've never understood the judging at Dixon's, sometimes making no sense at all. Is it education or a contest? Maybe the honorable AYE-SIR SACK-O-RUM can elaborate. Is the pirate hat required attire for judging? HA! HA!