J. Lauck Rifle, Winchester, VA. Thoughts?

[Antiqueguns]

079-G0115-0141, Simon Lauck Sr. had two sons Jacob Lauck and John Lauck who both practiced gun smithing in Winchester, VA.  The exquisite flint rifle was built by one of them.  The rifle is in .36 cal, with 43" octagon barrel.  90% original barrel brown, inlaid barrel panel reading, J. Lauck.  Single key wood stock with brass mounts and patchbox.  Numerous silver inlaid decorations, with checkered stock.  The gun shows a half stock, single screw lock, with lock maker, T.G, Edmondson, Baltimore.  The gun is in original flint.  Functional double set triggers.  The stock shows an original piano style finish, with very light bumps and use marks.  The gun was purchased from a fellow who bought the gun in 1955, who had bought the gun in 1915, in Baltimore, MD.  Some paperwork came with this gun, concerning this event.  The gun has been carefully looked at, as due to age of wood inside of patchbox, in my opinion it is an original gun, and not a modern day gun.  I have a photo of a man holding gun gun dating back to 1955.

[Buck]

Call Tim Hodges, Aspen Shade LTD. Look it up on line and he can bring you up to speed on it. Nice Gun.
Buck

[Tanselman]

This rifle raises a couple of questions in my mind. The lock appears to be a reconversion, perhaps from an original percussion lock. The close-up picture of underneath the pan shows very sharp, almost new engraving...which is usually an indication of a new pan attachment with the engraving used to cover the welded area. The hammer appears to be a casting, and screw heads look new...including the top jaw screw. The cock clearance cut in the stock wood above the lock plate looks new with virtually no wear or erosion...again a possible indication of a percussion gun being made into a flintlock.

The wrist inlay shows significant wear...note the wiggle engraved border is totally worn away for most of the way around the inlay...yet the rest of the stock does not show a comparable amount of wear. The stock itself appears to be more a Maryland style than Virginia with almost an Armstrong type height...I have never seen a Lauck rifle with that high - or style - of a butt. I am not aware of either John or Jacob Lauck ever working in Maryland...and if they stayed in Virginia...why would they deviate from their local style (which all of their known guns follow) and use a Maryland style??? I also think any time a gun has been heavily cleaned and refinished, it is an indication that other work may have been done to it. There is no visible indication of any old oxides from the brass and silver inlays rubbing off into the stock wood immediately adjacent to the inlays...an indication of refurbishing work done to a rifle. I also think the patent breech engraving does not match any other engraving on the gun...and the tang bolt head looks new and is engraved...possibly indicating work done to the breech during refurbishing.

This rifle really needs to be closely examined, in hand, to make any final decisions on its originality, or what, if any, refurbishing work might have been done on it. I'd like to see if the wrist checkering wear matches wear on the nearby wrist inlay...which shows major use and wear, for instance. While no one can say anything definitive about the gun from only the pictures...to me there is a suggestion the parts may have graced an earlier Virginia style rifle, and the present stocking was done later in Maryland using the somewhat earlier, fine Lauck hardware. Later in the 20th century the gun was cleaned, refinished, and perhaps the lock replaced or converted from original percussion to flint...which was a common activity 20-30+ years ago. I could be all wet on this one...but the gun raises some questions in my mind. Shelby Gallien    

[HIB]

Sir,  I am somewhat confused as to why you posted these photos and extensive detailed description.

Are you trying to sell this gun or seeking accolades for your purchase?

Or are you seeking comments similar to those posted by Shelby Gallien?

If you are trying to sell the gun the moderators will most likely tell you that you are in the wrong place. If you are seeking a value you are definitely in the wrong place.

Most old timers [I am one] will tell you this hobby used to be a gentleman's sport. I well tell you, flat out, times have change and advise you listen carefully to the advice provided by future messages received regarding your post.

Mr Gallien has taken quite a chance with his comments, however, he would be in the vanguard of contributors with honest opinions. The comments that follow will be very interesting.  Caution and a tough skin may be required.   HIB

[jdm]

I think a single screw lock for a flint would be very unusual also.

[mbriggs]

While I do not know anything about this rifle or have a "Dog in this Fight." I will say that I have seen many Southern rifles made in the 1830s and 40s, made as original flints with single screw locks.  There were common in this area.

Michael

[louieparker]

When a rifle is put on this site for a critique it usually gets critiqued.. I hope that was your intent.
In the 1955 photo was the rifle a flint lock  ?  I would be surprised if it was.. I really can't say when these external lock parts appeared on the market. But they have been there several years. I have used the cock on at least one conversion.  I agree with the engraving near the pan, to cover weld. But the pan may not be welded in but a closely filed fit to the plate , The welding could be to fill a large cut for the drum or a pitted area.  It would be interesting to know.  Again as Shelby says, without the rifle in hand its hard to say for certain, But what you are calling the original brown barrel finish appears to be Plum Brown. A modern barrel finish..  As for the stock its self I think most knowledgeable collectors will call it a restock. Most if not all the inlays are correct, Lauck work. But when it comes to the stock it doesn't fit in with the work I have seen on other Lauck rifles.  Someone else may well disagree , its only my opinion, .  I have had people say "How do you know thats a restock ?  Its old !"   Its like seeing a 56 Thunder Bird with a pick up bed.  It all don't seem to go together...  

[Don Stith]

Remember the 56 Thunderbird well. Had to pass the Ford dealer to get to high school. Almost late for class staring in the showroom window. At lest with the T-bird you don't have to worry about wood shrinkage or lack of it . 

[art riser]

http://www.antiqueguns.com/auction/sites/robles/

[Jim Chambers]

I agree with Shelby, the cock is a casting, and the frizzen spring is definitely a Siler spring with the finial slightly modified to look somewhat like an English spring.  I would agree with it probably being a restock, and the lock was converted or at least re-converted to a flintlock.

[Antiqueguns]

The description I included is what was given to me when I purchased the gun.  The gun was Sold By JOHN GANGLE, of Little John's Auctions,  hopefully he was not blowing smoke.  I post it here, because I know there are fellows who know these guns well, and I should get real information about them.  Shelby made some comments that I really appreciate and he has an eye that no one I speak too does about these guns.  I just want to know what I have. I will never bring the gun to the East Coast, but I will take if to Vegas next week.
thanks,

Yes, the photo showing the gun in the photo is a flint, but to tell you the truth, it is a newspaper type photo and I cannot be certain this is the gun in the photo or not, of course I was told that it was.

Every time I post a gun here, some fellow chastises me for I am not sure what.  I am a businessman, if I WANTED TO SELL THE GUN, I WOULD SAY, I WANT TO SELL THE GUN, if I wanted a value on the gun, I would say, I WANT A VALUE ON THE GUN.     I posted the information I was given and asked for THOUGHTS. To me, I cannot be any clearer.  

Thank you Shelby for a carefully thought out response, I appreciate the time you took.

Rob

[E.vonAschwege]

Rob,
   Even as a potentially period restocked piece, you have a very attractive rifle.  The opinions you've received regarding the gun's condition are first rate - you'll not find more knowledgeable people around.  I agree with what Shelby and Louie have mentioned as far as details to pay attention to and things that seem "off" about it being original flint.  Originals in such good condition have a particular look that this one doesn't quite have - I don't mean this in a negative way, just that the patina and wear doesn't match.  

Edit:  You did ask for thoughts in the subject line, My apologies.  I don't see anyone chastising you here, only asking to clarify what it is you were looking for.   No one here is arguing with you.  You say you were looking for thoughts on the gun, and I think you have received some excellent observations.  

[louieparker]

Rob,I would never buy a long rifle  at auction based only on the written description. The truth is most regular GUN collectors know little to nothing about the Kentucky. When you posted Little Johns written description without clarification, to me it became yours. It appeared to me that you were coming on this site hoping to sell or just telling me what a great gun you have . As you can see a few folks didn't agree. There are collectors on this site who have researched and wrote books on the subject for over fifty years. They don't need be told what's great, they know what's great .. Some of us may get a bit offended being told.  If you want to know something specific, just ask the question.  Everyone on this site is willing to help.  I am one of the old timers that HIB spoke of.  I have studied these rifles for over  fifty years.. And yes I could still be fooled. But I try to not let the same thing happen twice. LP






 

[Dennis Glazener]

Every time I post a gun here, some fellow chastises me for I am not sure what.  I am a businessman, if I WANTED TO SELL THE GUN, I WOULD SAY, I WANT TO SELL THE GUN, if I wanted a value on the gun, I would say, I WANT A VALUE ON THE GUN.     I posted the information I was given and asked for THOUGHTS. To me, I cannot be any clearer. 

Antiqueguns,
Let me assure you that I, as owner of this site, have no problems at all with you posting photos of your guns on this site and asking for thoughts/comments. You seem to be seeking honest opinions on what you actually have. If more dealers were to seek honest feedback then maybe we would see more honest advertisements associated with longrifle sales.
Dennis Glazener
ALR Admin

[lexington1]

I am almost certain that your gun is a restock using the original parts from a Lauck rifle. That being said it is a very nice stocking of the parts! Here are a couple pics of an original Lauck rifle and it has very similar parts. These Lauck guns also have some of the best engraving, imho.

[Mark Elliott]

Does anyone think the signature on the barrel looks a little off?   It looks added to me. 

[lexington1]

I don't know, it looks quite a bit like the signature on my Lauck

[Mark Elliott]

I don't know, it looks quite a bit like the signature on my Lauck

This is like others I have seen; it is worn and blended into the background.   The signature on the rifle in question doesn't look worn like I would expect.  Sometimes,  my own signatures don't look that bold once I knock off the burrs. 

[DaveM]

I'll start with admitting that I am not familiar with Lauck family rifles specifically, and have no interest for or against this one being original as stocked.  For what it's worth here are my observations - so that maybe others can help me learn:

-Based on dates I see for Simon, and J. being his son, I assume that this J. Lauck would have still been making rifles in the mid 1800's when this one was apparently made.   Are there other J. Lauck guns of say 1840-1850 era to compare this one to?
   
-My perception is that the patchbox style is later, and would be supportive of a later gun and not a reused patchbox. 

-To my eye, the breech also seems to be later and supports a later date and is stylistically consistent with the gun. 

-And the two inlays front and rear of the cheekpiece would appear to be decoration substitutes for where carving would have been used on earlier generation guns.  If those inlays were on an earlier carved rifle where would they have been placed? 

-The checkering seems to be of a quality consistent with the engraving to my eye.  I see some wear into the checkering closer to the edge near the thumbpiece but hard to tell from the fuzzy photos. 

-Thumbpiece - If the gun was carefully taken care of, could not the wear on the thumbpiece be from someone consistently using it for their thumb say for matches?

- The only obvious thing to me from the fuzzy photos is that it was cleaned - and I would assume reconverted - but then again were some quality match rifles not still made as flint in the mid 1800's? 

Feel free to disagree with me so I can learn - thanks!

[lexington1]

I definitely see what you are saying Mark, and I agree. I wonder if the signature was rechased?

[JTR]

I had the opportunity to take a look at this rifle at the Las Vegas show, and I have to say it looks a lot better, more realistic, in person than in these pictures.
I would say all, or surely most all the parts started out together. The barrel signature looks fine in person, un-messed with. If the lock has been converted to flint, there's no sign of it from the exterior, and it and the breeching seem right at home. In hand, it's also a very nicely proportioned rifle.

What I think has happened was that at some point, not recently, someone has removed all the original finish from the rifle. I mean off the wood, metal and brass. I think the wood has been sanded to remove most, but not all, the dents and dings, and then a new varnish finish applied. Some of what I think are deeper original dents have this new varnish in them. There's several more recent dents in the wood, and the varnish is gone there. I think the brass and silver has been steel wooled and buffed up, and the metal stripped/sanded, and rebrowned.

Personally I think all this was done well in the past, maybe after WW II / 1950-ish, when these old useless rifles were sometimes over zealously cleaned up to shoot again.

I told Mr. Antiquegun I'd seen the gun on the forum and he had no problem with me looking at it, and in fact was looking for information. 

John
 

[lexington1]

I looked at that gun in Vegas also and I think that you are spot on. I think that all of the parts are from a Lauck rifle, probably a pretty fancy one, but that it was restocked. I would say that it is an old restock, like when the gun was not too old. I also agree that it was cleaned a while back. I would guess that the barrel tang and buttplate were switched when it was restocked. Those strange looking set triggers were probably added at the same time. Whoever restocked it did a really great job on it.

[Majorjoel]

An interesting rifle. Do you guys think that a rifle such as this would have more value if it were totally unsigned?? 

[louieparker]

Joel I think it would make no difference.. Some of the other parts are a signature themselves. They point to the maker without a barrel signature.   LP