signatures--when and why?

[spgordon]

From a recently-surfaced cello by the Moravian craftsman John Antes:

   

There are two other signed John Antes instruments, one from 1759 (now in Nazareth) and another from 1764 (now in Lititz).

The spread of dates offers further evidence against the notion, which is sometimes still seen in print and on this listserv, that there were no signatures on Moravian rifles before 1762 because they were made in a communal economy. This theory is just not convincing. Here we have a Moravian craftsman who did sign his products during the communal economy period (and after).

And of course we have many, many Moravian craftsmen who did not begin to sign their work after the communal economy ended. The Moravian painter John Valentine Haidt didn't sign his history paintings or his portraits before 1762 and he didn't start signing them afterwards (he died in 1780). If Moravian furniture makers in Bethlehem began to sign work after 1762, I am unaware of it.

Most craftsmen in early America did not sign their work. Gunmakers, and Moravian gunmakers, just follow that standard practice. It has nothing to do with a communal economy.

We still need some good ideas about why, say, Christian Oerter seems to begin to sign his products in the mid-1770s. But we need to stop using the presence or absence of the Moravians' communal economy as an answer. John Antes's instruments makes that clear.

Scott

Sidenote: notice the "1" in 1763.

[vanu]

Scott,

Very interesting post...also, I noticed the "1" immediately!!

Bruce

[OldSouthRelics]

Scott,

Great thoughts, and evidence to support said thoughts. Thank you for a good read.

Is that the exact same script one seen on the German Pistol in other thread? Very interesting. Thank you for pointing that out.

Bob

[DaveM]

Scott, that is really cool, thanks for sharing.  Is that actually a paper printed label??  I never imagined that they used those this early!

[spgordon]

It is, yes! I have seen some other early printed labels like this, but I’m trying to remember where ...

[smart dog]

Hi Scott,
I wonder if we sometimes forget that these craftsmen were working at a trade and most of their production was ordinary things (including guns) that they never deemed special so they did not bother signing them. However a musical instrument might be special as well as a well decorated gun and serve as an advertisement for the maker.

dave

[Robby]

Could be a sense of modesty and selflessness borne of their devoutness to their religion.
Robby

[spgordon]

I think we tend to assume that signatures express pride in craftsmanship (or the lack of it, for whatever reason).

But in some cases, at least, a signature served to indicate who was responsible for the work in case something went wrong. Sometimes such signatures or other marks were required by the terms of contracts. Tench 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).

In these cases, the signature doesn't indicate anything about pride in craftsmanship: it was required by external authorities so faults could be traced back to the makers.

[Marcruger]

The Moravians loved the Lord, that is for sure.  But make no mistake, they were a business minded community.  Set up around trades.  The trades at Salem, NC shipped out of Charleston to various points all over. 

I can think of several "signed" items.  Pottery, silver, rifles.  Check out Herr Aust's plate below.  I'd say that was signing your work.  :-) 

I can see another reason to sign the work.  If someone uses your product, and likes it, they need to know where to go back to get another. 

I go back to my original statement - the Moravians (the first Protestants really) fled Europe due to religious persecution.  That said, they came to America with a determination to be self-sufficient communities that could create goods and sell products to the "outside world". 

I was taught growing up that the first European settlers of America were the religious Pilgrims that fled persecution.  Turns out that the Spanish were here LONG before that.  And the first successful English settlements were in Mass. and Jamestowne, sent here to exploit the land and make money.  Interesting how history gets written. 

Best wishes and God Bless,   Marc

[Eric Kettenburg]

I think the earliest Oerter date I've seen is 1773.  He obviously had been working long prior to that date, and had been running the CS shop for quite some time prior to that date.

Now, we can approach it from a perspective of, "why did he not sign work prior to 1773?"  Alternately, we can also take into consideration that he did, and we as a collective group have not seen it due to destruction, private non-publicized ownership etc.

Albrecht signed at least one lock when working in Bethlehem.  Was this prior to the CS shop?  Was it during his tenure as manager of the Sun Inn (I personally doubt this).  *IF* we assume he signed it prior to the CS shop, was he also signing work at CS and the simplistic answer to the question is that none have survived?

(the argument revolving around the 'short rifle' being set aside for the present)

Did he sign the lock simply to indicate manufacture of the overall gun, or did he sign it because he actually made the lock?

Did "pride" in manufacture increase as makers began making more of the individual components of the rifle as opposed to essentially 'stocking' rifles with purchased components?

I don't think these questions nor theories as to why/why not can be segregated into Moravian vs. non-Moravian camps.  I think the only reason we tend to do so is due to the long-running belief (a misconception, as Scott has remarked) that there was some type of underlying religious tenet affecting the application or non-application of a signature.  In reality these questions could apply to the majority of American arms up through the War period. 

Maybe the 'explosion' of signatures following the War years was nothing more than aggressive advertising?  Quite a surfeit of rifle makers, at that point, probably many more so than prior to the War.

If we want to get REALLY simplistic about it:  many of the earlier rifles, or I should say rifles (Moravian and non-Moravian alike) we tend to view as "early" rifles generally are sans-engraving.  Of course sometimes we see engraving on imported mounts, and we assume that engraving was executed in Europe.  Maybe a number of earlier gunmakers were largely gun stockers by trade and had simply not been trained in engraving?  In other words, no signature because they were crappy engravers.

John Schreit had no issues signing his work as early as 1761.  Coincidentally, it also seems obvious that the guy liked to engrave.

Oerter's work - some of it - indicates a decent competence in engraving, certainly more than good enough to suit the work.  Does this factor into why he very boldly chose to sign his work?

Just throwing wild ideas out there.  It takes more effort and a bit more skill to sign a rifle barrel with graving tools - in my opinion - than it does to glue a piece of paper into a stringed instrument or dribble slip around a piece of redware.  [I am NOT denigrating the actual work of a luthier or a potter!  I am simply commenting on my opinion as to the work involved in the act of applying a signature!]

[spgordon]

Are we assuming that, once a maker signs his work, he signs it consistently? Maybe not.

That consistency assumes that signatures expresses some pride/desire/ambition on the part of the maker. And that may, in some cases, be the reason for a signature.

But signatures (in other cases) seem to exist so that users can hold makers responsible in case of faults. Given that, isn't it more likely that a signed rifle went to a stranger or (in the Moravian case) outside the community? And unsigned rifles were for friends, neighbors, community-members? After all, a maker's next door neighbor would not need the maker's name on the rifle to trace it back to him.

And so a maker might sign some rifles and not sign others.

But, really, who knows?!?!

P.S. The signed Albrecht lock, assuming it is authentic & that he produced it while he was working alongside Kliest in the locksmith shop, provides a second example (along with Antes) of a Moravian craftsman signing his work during the communal period (1741-62) in Bethlehem.

[smart dog]

Hi Scott,
Is it not also possible that some never signed their guns simply because they could not engrave well enough to do it?

dave 

[spgordon]

Dave — Yes, definitely possible! — Scott

[mbriggs]

This has long been a mystery for us collecting North Carolina Longrifles too.  There is a much greater percentage of Salem School rifles not being signed than there is of rifles from the other eight North Carolina Schools.

I personally know of only three signed Christoph Vogler rifles, one signed John Vogler rifle, one signed Nathaniel Vogler rifle, one signed George Vogler rifle.  There are many unsigned rifles attributed to these makers.  If they signed one, why not sign them all? These men were great engravers.

There are a few theories, but no good answers.

Michael