Julia auction fowling piece

[Jim Kibler]

http://contemporarymakers.blogspot.com/2014/09/very-early-hudson-valley-fowler-at.html?m=1

So what makes this a Hudson valley fowler?  Sure looks like an English product to me.  Am I missing something?

[Eric Kettenburg]

I'd suspect it's European as well, although I would like to see a determination of the walnut type.  Could have been made here by a trained stocker with imported furnishings, but if so, there doesn't look to be so much "Hudson Valley" as there does just plain classic long fowling piece.

[Jim Kibler]

One interesting detail is that the barrel is attached with keys.  If English or continental, a date of about 1700 seems reasonable to me, which is very early to expect the use of keys.

[James Rogers]

I noticed those keys as well. This is the third gun I have seen that is "too early" to have the keys. Oddly all 3 of them are not in the category of best work for the period. The butt stock profile is a little odd to me. The closeups sure make the wood look very open grained.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Well the whole thing has been scrubbed for starters, so there is that in respect to the open pores.

That guy sure had a lot of guns, but holy cow pretty much all of them have been fairly well diddled if I may say so.

[smart dog]

Hi,
I think the name on the lock is Edmond Weston, a London maker working between 1683-1713.  He apprenticed under Robert Brooke, a name that might be familiar with some of you.  Perhaps there has been a lot of diddling with this gun.

dave

[Jim Kibler]

It's hard to say for sure given the photographs available, but the barrel appears to likely have London proofs based on the size, placement etc.

[Buck]

There has been a lot of Diddling on all of the rifles with the exception of 2 or 3. A good example is the Hawken  (which is only the butt) and the Southern Rifle which is new from the front of the lock forward. I feel bad for this guy.

[rich pierce]

Most? of the guns that have made it into the books we all love have had a fair bit of work.  It was normal practice in the 1900s I think.  I sure saw a lot of shiny Kentuckies back in the 80s at gun shows.

[Jim Kibler]

From the British perspective, it's still proper to "shine things up".  Given the context of this gun, it's not surprising at all.  I've had some dealings with high end English collectors, dealers etc. and they think nothing of stripping corrosion, patina, finish etc.  I've heard it referred to as "bringing a gun back".  

[JTR]

Dillin, in 1924, writes about all the 'diddling' going on since the resurgence of interest since the 1876 centennial.

And 'diddling' has been going on ever since then.

Most of the Greatest guns known have been diddled with, from a little, to a Lot.

If someone had the wherewithal to build a collection of the Very Best, but with untouched guns only, the collection would be mighty small!

Down in my collector category, I count myself lucky if I find an Original flintlock on a rifle!

John

[jdm]

JTR, You are so right. On a two hundred (plus or minis) year old rifle every joker  that's owned it has had to mess with it. Even today. Most of them I would guess were just trying to preserve the piece. Some I suppose had other motives.
I am not opposed to restoration if disclosed. The better the piece the more forgiving I'll be.  Some times you only get one shot (no pun) at gun in your lifetime. How bad do you want it.  JIM

[Buck]

Jim - John,
Well put, if its disclosed then it's a dead issue, the fault then shifts if your dissatisfied. I've had a couple that Louie P shook his head at.
Buck

[louieparker]

Yes, lots of diddling going on !!  I diddled with one last week and then Fed Ex diddled with it, Now I get to diddle it again !!  ;

[jdm]

Louie , I'm glad you can still diddle.