signed vs unsigned value

[Buck]

Brent,
I know the rifle and the previous owner, good gun from a more than reputable collector. Enjoy it.
Buck

[jdm]

You were worried about a signature?  Very nice !

[Brent English]

Couldn't figure out how to insert a quote but Crankshaft posted:  "The obvious question, when a maker signed his work, why didn't he sign all of them ? ? "

I've read in one of the Shumway books that when a good maker made a rifle with full carving and patchbox he often signed it, but a buck and ball with no patchbox (like the one I've pictured in this thread) was often not signed.  The reason may be that the buck and ball gun, being a cheaper piece to produce because it lacked rifling and a patchbox also didn't get the signature.

[Algae]

OK Brent, when do I get to see it!!!
 Al Jenkins

[Brent English]

Well hey Al, you just need to drag your moldy old carcass over here.  Got a few others I can show you too.  Be great to catch up.   Send me a PM.  Brent

[louieparker]

I think signed or unsigned depends to some extent on the mood of the maker at the time. Eister was a wonderful maker. Yet he signed very few rifles. I have always felt that at the time everyone in his area knew who the maker was, without the signature. It was like modern man in 1950 looking at a Ford from a distance. He didn't have to read the name. He knew it was a ford. But I have read accounts were customers have requested the makers name be put "upon the barrel."
 I think you have bought a very desirable long gun, name or no name. Most of us would be very pleased to own it.   Louie

[nord]

Given what I see 'ol George didn't need to sign. I compare it to my signed Shroyer and there's just no question that it's a Shroyer gun. I suppose (some have suggested) perhaps by Jr. but I think probably not.

Value? A Shroyer is a Shroyer. Maybe worth more if signed but not a big deal in this case.

By the way... My avatar displays the patchbox on the Schroyer I happen to own.

[Mike Brooks]

I like the unusual abbreviated lower forestock molding and the unusual transition from oct/rnd.

[Buck]

Brent,
Value is what it's worth to you and what someone is willing to pay for it. It's a good gun (in reality it is signed) everyone here knows who the maker is. Enjoy it, Schroyers a good maker.
Buck

[homerifle]

Nice piece! Smart move to add it to your collection.

It's been 4 years but I believe that is the same gun I looked at. You just started me kicking myself all over again.

"Bama," Been there and done that!

[spgordon]

I wish we knew more about why makers signed their rifles (and why, sometimes, the same maker didn't). It may have had as much to do with taking responsibility for a weapon (that could be faulty) as with "pride" in craftsmanship. In a piece on Jacob Dickert, I discussed this:

Dickert had been signing the barrels of the rifles that he (or his shop) produced since the Revolutionary War. Gunsmiths may have signed their barrels due to pride in their craft or so that officials responsible for large-scale procurements could identify those who supplied sub-standard products. By the early nineteenth century, some government contracts required makers to sign their work so that, when the guns were proved, makers could be held responsible for faulty ones. Coxe insisted in 1806, for instance, that "every maker's name is to be on his rifles" [Tench Coxe to Henry DeHuff, December 23, 1806, in Hicks, United States Ordnance, 2: 93].

See: http://www.immigrantentrepreneurship.org/entry.php?rec=180

Can anybody supply sources for a customer who requested a maker's signature on a rifle?

Scott