Unfortunately, I was on vacation when the ALR Forum recently addressed the Martin Mylin rifle controversy. At the risk of shooting a dead horse too many more times, I’d like to offer the following.
While some good ALR Forum comments helped support or defeat the existence of the Mylin 1705 rifle as being authentic – a few important points were not mentioned:
One - The first mention of Mylin as a gunsmith in Lancaster County seems to begin with the publication of Daniel Rupp’s book, History of Lancaster County, published in 1844. On page 74 Rupp states: “Martin Meylin, son of Hans Meylin, was the first gunsmith within the limits of Lancaster County, as early as 1719, he erected a boring mill, on what is known as Meylin’s Run”. Most of the recent research has shown the title, “gunsmith” was often used for gun barrel makers and is not necessarily assigned to what we consider today to be gunsmiths making/repairing complete rifles. Rupp states, “as early as 1719”. This date, if believable, also makes one wonder about the engraved date of 1705 on the Headley rifle. Rupp offers no reason for picking that 1719 date, (ancestral?) however it was often repeated by earlier firearms writers in numerous books, including Dillon, who uses the 1719 date - 3 times in his book. One will see the date in many early books, apparently perpetuated by all publishers’ due to this first mention by Rupp. Rupp never said explicitly that Mylin made a complete rifle – he used the nomenclature of the time and added “boring mill” to Mylin’s profile. This seems to imply Mylin made barrels – not complete guns. Rupp claimed his sources for his books were authentic and he used a Mylin ancestor as the prime source for the Mylin family history and his dates, which may account for the inconsistences in the book. He never addresses the differences in the 1719 date, with those of other local commercial entities or facts, such as Lancaster County having a population of less than 3,000 land owners at the time. Why did Mylin think there was enough business in a remote agricultural society for a gun boring mill—what war was on the horizon?
Secondly - In the KRA newsletter, Richard Headley mentions with some question, the possibility that his 1705 Mylin rifle may have a forged signature on the barrel. He goes on to present evidence which might substantiate the signature as being authentic. His first clue was that the characters on the barrel were similar to those found on a German hymnal found in 1975. He claims that since the book was found in 1975, the supposed forger, a Howard Tefft (1911-1969?) would not have known of this typeface style. However, I don’t think Mr. Headley was aware of the considerable number of German hymnals, bibles, etc. that exist in Eastern Pennsylvania. These books were published by German and Pennsylvania publishers and almost all have Germanic typefaces. I visited the Hans Herr House in Lancaster and viewed the hymnal Headley refers to and saw nothing unique about its typeface. Headley went on to say the spelling of, “Meillin” as signed on the barrel was the same as that he found in the same hymnal. We have since found at least five spellings of Mylin’s name, including Meillin, in many sources. Let me state here: I did not know Mr. Headley, I take Dick’s word that he was a fine fellow, and I’m not here to belittle Headley’s sincere intentions or his excellent work.
Third - Beyond a number of stylistic issues with the 1705 rifle, the most intriguing question is the signature. Headley identified the possible forger as Howard Tefft. Tefft’s notorious fame has been, mentioned in several publications in the 1950s and thereafter. Merrill Lindsay, Tom Grinslade (Tom feels he has a Tefft faked fowler), Joe Kindig, Jr., George Shumway, and Herman Dean all knew of Tefft’s work. In fact, Dean spent years trying to trap Teft and convict him. Teft acted as a picker to the Kimball Arms Company, a New Hampshire dealer. He traded arms with Kimball and repaired/restored guns for the dealer. It has never been established that Kimball was in co-hoots with Tefft, but many collectors began to shy from Kimball, including Herman Dean and William Renwick. I have numerous records/letters of Dean corresponding with William Renwick, Joe Kindig, Jr. and other collectors of the time regarding gun fakes. Kindig once claimed that as many as 13, out of 30 American long rifles were fakes in Renwick’s collection “in one way or another”. In a 1948 letter to Dean, Renwick states: “I know for fact that some very expert faker has been engraving pieces” … “one of his specialties is taking perfectly good European arms and engraving American names on them”. Renwick did not specifically mention a gun, but he did own the 1705 Mylin rifle until 1973 when he sold it at a Sotheby’s, California auction, at which time Headley apparently purchased it. Sotheby’s, who is prone to hyperbole, did not comment on the date or signature, but an exceptional number of signed guns were in the same auction. Renwick, a customer of Kimball’s once owned the largest collection of early firearms, was said to cease collecting American arms because they were too easy to fake.
The date, style and spelling on the 1705 rifle barrel bring one to even more questions. The style of the engraving is somewhat Germanic as Headley pointed out, but the spelling of Germantown as German“tawn” is rarely seen. I found only one commercial use of “tawn” by a mid-19th century German bible publisher whose many volumes could have been seen by any forger. According to the curator of the Germantown Historical Society the spelling was almost always Germantown. More importantly, the 1705 date would be most remarkable for anything utilizing the crafted metals as those found on a rifle. Most scholars claim the brass hardware was imported from Germany and is of the commercial variety found on other early guns, (Marshall, Haines, etc.). No nearby furnace existed in 1705 to supply the iron for forging by a blacksmith/gunsmith. The earliest known ironworks in Pennsylvania was the Rutter Forge in Berks County established in 1719. By the way, the earliest in Lancaster County was built in 1726, which makes one wonder what Mylin’s source for barrel iron was to be in 1719. In my mind, the most misguided and least researched question about the 1705 Mylin rifle is the signature and that astounding early date. As our in-house ALR early gun scholar Eric K. said; he would be hard pressed to find any rifle dated earlier than 1760-perhaps 1750 at the absolute earliest. Remember, the Berks County, Shreit rifle, considered the earliest signed and dated American long rifle known is dated 1761 and most accept that date and signature as “right”.
Should we continue to debate the Mylin rifles? Yes, I think it is incumbent upon the arms collectors and scholars to pursue the truth of firearm authentication to be sure we know it when we see it. The Mylin story is much too complex to present here in total, and the above is only my small contribution to this effort. I’m working on the unfortunate subject of early gun forgeries and plan to publish something someday. If anyone has information on the Mylin rifles, or Howard Teft, or specific gun forgeries let me know.
By way of some relevancy: I have handled and photographed both supposed Mylin rifles and in 2012 chaired a seminar on the two Mylin rifles during Long Rifle Weekend, at the Landis Valley Museum in Lancaster. I also wrote a chapter on the other Mylin rifle in the book, The Lancaster Long rifle.
Patrick Hornberger – eastwind@wildblue.net
