Architecture modifications

[James]

Hello,
  I have read many times that if the original maker didn't execute something well, that it should be fixed if an interpretive copy is being made. When you build a gun to be either like an original, or as if it came from a certain makers shop, what is considered acceptable to change?  When there are things like transition from wrist to butt on the patchbox side where the removal of a 16th or 32nd of wood would result in a more aesthetic transition, do you do that?  If the lock panels are too wide, do you take them to a point of better visual effect? Do you try to engrave in a way that gives the best overall effect, or do you place and execute the individual cuts as they were originally done? There are other questions, but this is a starting point.  Thanks, Jim

[Dphariss]

Hello,
  I have read many times that if the original maker didn't execute something well, that it should be fixed if an interpretive copy is being made. When you build a gun to be either like an original, or as if it came from a certain makers shop, what is considered acceptable to change?  When there are things like transition from wrist to butt on the patchbox side where the removal of a 16th or 32nd of wood would result in a more aesthetic transition, do you do that?  If the lock panels are too wide, do you take them to a point of better visual effect? Do you try to engrave in a way that gives the best overall effect, or do you place and execute the individual cuts as they were originally done? There are other questions, but this is a starting point.  Thanks, Jim

Interpretations are not copies. There is no reason NOT to fix an ERROR in line or transition unless this it typical of the maker. Even then I would likely fix it. The rifle will have my name on it after all.
The next, near identical rifle the original maker made was likely "fixed" anyway so I would not worry about it.
For all we know the rifle with the "error" was stocked by an apprentice and marked with the masters name.

Dan

[Jim Kibler]

This is all just a matter of judgement.  Some things that might initially be thought of as errors, aren't always so.  If you wan't the gun to have the feel of an original makers work, there is of course only so much that can be changed.  This doesn't necessarily have to be to the extent of every detail, however.  I guess there are two criteria that ought to be met for such a gun.  It needs to have the feel of the original work you are trying to emulate and it needs to look good.  Probably didn't help much, but the best I can do.

Jim

[JTR]

I would say it depends on what you're trying to accomplish.
If you're making a copy, you better stick pretty close to the original.
If you're making an interpretation, I guess you have more leeway. However, if you're going to correct things that don't agree to your eye, first be sure that what you're correcting isn't one of the makers distinguishing traits.
Some of those traits might be obvious, and some not so much.
 
An obvious trait might be having the patchbox release on the butt plate. Moving it to the toe might not be a good idea. A not so obvious trait might be the shape and details of the trigger. Should you change it just because you don't like it?
A lot of makers had little things that they used over and over, and might be noticed if they're missing.

Sometimes guys post a gun here that they made, introducing it as his such and such.
I, and I'm sure others here look at it and think, well no its not, because it doesn't have that makers traits. But I also have to say that it also makes a difference in how you introduce it. As a copy. As your interpretation. Or this is the way I wish Jacob Dickert had made his rifles!  

In the end, it's your gun and you're going to make what you want it to be, so like I said at the start, its what your trying to accomplish with the gun.

John  

[keweenaw]

Fix implies that there was something wrong or a mistake was made.  That's not the same as "I just don't like the way this was done."  Following John's comments, one needs to look at a number of guns from the maker to decided if the particular "problem" was a one off or if it was something that the maker consistently used.  I'm starting to work on a rifle where the original has the cut on the back of the cheekpiece and entire transition from that area back toward the buttplate done quite differently from typical Lancaster county work.  But when I look at photos of four rifles from this maker, he was absolutely consistent in how he handled this area.  "Fixing" this would be change a gun inspired by this gunsmith into a rather generic piece.  There is a reason that one can look at a George Schreyer or J.P. Beck or George Eister stocked rifle and immediately pick it out.  It's not the 1/32" or 1/16" that is or isn't at a particular place.  It's a whole suite of things which all work together.

One only appreciates this when you're trying to build a close copy of a particular rifle and spend the 40 to 100 hours looking at all the photos available from all the guns that Beck or Schreyer or Eister made to see how it's all working. 

Tom

[rich pierce]

I find it especially hard to not try to "improve" on an original when I use one for inspiration.  In reality I'm blending my "style" into the original.  Not sure I could do a bench copy.  Not many of us do, but it's very compelling when well done.

Some will try to do a close copy but use a different profile barrel, size and shape lock etc and try to keep the dimensions of the wrist the same- that doesn;t work, for me.  The rifle has to be shaped in part according to how the parts dictate.

[54Bucks]

 An interesting subject! Not that I would suggest changing an originals architecture as a fix. But I've  wondered about how much leeway most builders use when using an original builders body of work(more than 1 surviving example) where they may have used both wood boxes as well as brass, and varied their carving and engraving ? I've always kinda thought mixing such elements without changing the architecture was reasonable. I'de not call it a copy of a particular gun, yet would still use the original builders name as reference as a contemporary version of his work. 

[Tom Currie]

54 BUCKS COMMENT " I've always kinda thought mixing such elements without changing the architecture was reasonable. I'd not call it a copy of a particular gun, yet would still use the original builders name as reference as a contemporary version of his work.  "

This is exactly my thought process on the builds that I do. Find a body of work from an original builder or shop, study design elements of that group,  build something that is representative of that group staying within boundaries but having some artistic license to be creative. It's a fine line sometimes but one that I enjoy walking.

[James]

Thank you all for your responses. I think I get it, but need more time looking and seeing. As far as an example of current application: Fichthorn was not consistent with side-plate dimensions or orientation based on published photos, so on my current build I shaped and positioned according to my eye. When it's done you can give your views.
I have been studying RCA Vol I #53 and have the parts all gathered as it will be my next. In looking, I find that, to my eye, subtle changes in engraving and shaping of the patchbox finial would be more appealing to me. If there were 5 more examples of his work I might see a style he had, but with just the one, it isn't sacrilege to make these aesthetic changes?  What are your thoughts?  

[Tom Currie]

James, The other examples of William Antes don't have the early Lancaster patch finial that RCA 53 has. If you wish to make some subtle changes that stay within that style you could look at the other early Lacaster patchboxes in RCA 1 for ideas. Unless you're trying to make a copy of RCA 53 I think that's totally within reason.

[Bentflint]

James, you should read this thread from over a year ago. Some very good insight from people that know about these things.

By the way, I have not started #73 yet, still working out details.

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=12252.0