Author Topic: Another "Washington" Beck ?  (Read 5776 times)

Offline ptk1126

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
Another "Washington" Beck ?
« on: June 01, 2009, 03:11:51 AM »
I know of the alleged "Washington" JP Beck rifle in the Frazier Museum (in fact I
am going there on Wednesday to measure and photograph it for my next project).

While doing some reading on Beck I noticed that in his KRA article (Fall 1981)  Samuel Dyke
mentions another "Washington" rifle by Beck that was in the Independence Hall Museum in
Philadelphia. There was a plate stating "Presented to George Washington by the Maker 1782".
Dyke believed that the rifle was actually given to Washington in 1793. Is anyone familiar with this rifle ?

All the best
Paul

Offline mr. no gold

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2654
Re: Another "Washington" Beck ?
« Reply #1 on: June 01, 2009, 06:42:22 AM »
Paul-You are speaking about the same rifle. The Washington Beck was displayed for decades in Freedom Hall by private owners. It was not public property and a time came when the owners (for whatever reasons) decided to remove it and take possession of the rifle. They sold it to a private collector who, in turn, passed it on the the Frazier Museum.
The rifle is a nice gun, and I have a friend who did research in Lebanon which supports the inscription on the rifle butt plate.
Hope this helps some.
Dick

Offline ptk1126

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
Re: Another "Washington" Beck ?
« Reply #2 on: June 01, 2009, 02:55:38 PM »
Thanks Dick

I thought they might be the same rifle, but the plate inscription when on display in Independence Hall is different
from the one now on the butt plate.

The rifle is still owned by the private collector but is on loan to the Frazier. The Frazier contacted him and obtained
permission for me to study it.

Would your friend share his research with the Frazier as it might be interesting to them ?

All the best
Paul

Offline HIB

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
Re: Another "Washington" Beck ?
« Reply #3 on: June 04, 2009, 05:48:06 AM »
Paul,  Mr. No Gold is correct and the inscription on the butt plate states the presentation was made in 1782 by the maker [J.P.Beck].  Sam Dyke added alot of speculation to his research efforts but none more blatant than his suggestion in an article published in 1981 that the gun was presented to Washington in 1793 when he visited Wolmelsdorf.   Washington stayed at a hotel directly across the street from the house and shop of John Bonewitz who in 1793 was a leading citizen and well known local gunsmith. Bonewitz' standing in the community does not allow me to believe his friends and fellow citizens would dishonor him by presenting a gun to Washington in Wolmelsdorf by another maker.

A friend of Mr. No Gold and mine did some fine research back when the Frazier was considering buying the rifle. The research proved Washington visited a close friend in Lebanon on several occasions during the Rev. War. These visits were generally hunting trips. The friend, whose name I have misplaced, was considered at the time to be a major financial supporter of the war. If he lived in Lebanon, which he did, he knew Beck and most likely owned several of his guns. The rest is easy to understand and I believe the inscription to be correct. The unknown is when it was added to the gun.

Enjoy the Frazier. It is the best.     Regards,  Henry

Offline ptk1126

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
Re: Another "Washington" Beck ?
« Reply #4 on: June 04, 2009, 03:00:32 PM »
Hi Henry

I am very happy that you have joined the list. Your contributions will be most valuable.

Actually the inscription on the butt plate states:

                

I had a good visit at the Frazier yesterday taking measurements and about 130 photos of the Beck rifle.
I was somewhat surprised that this Beck seems a little plain for one allegedly given to Washington -
No toe plate, no lower fore arm carving, no cheek piece inlay, a sling post behind the trigger guard which appears to
be a replacement for a sling button. It looks like someone used the middle barrel pin for mounting a sling swivel.
I also noticed that he used two pins for the front pipe and one for the middle and rear pipes. Of course, this is
the first Beck I have actually handled. I was also surprised at the depth of the patch box 1 1/8" on a stock slightly
under 2" thick.

I will try to post some photos later today.

All the best
Paul
 
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 03:06:52 PM by ptk1126 »

C. Cash

  • Guest
Re: Another "Washington" Beck ?
« Reply #5 on: June 04, 2009, 04:38:56 PM »

I was somewhat surprised that this Beck seems a little plain for one allegedly given to Washington -
No toe plate, no lower fore arm carving, no cheek piece inlay, a sling post behind the trigger guard which appears to
be a replacement for a sling button. Paul
 

Wow!!! :o  I am unschooled in all this Longrifle stuff, but this is incredible to to see.  Thank you for posting this and any others you might put up.  From what I know about Washington, something plain but classy would be just his style.  
« Last Edit: June 04, 2009, 04:44:32 PM by C. Cash »

Offline t.caster

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3729
Re: Another "Washington" Beck ?
« Reply #6 on: June 04, 2009, 06:01:41 PM »
I'm a big Beck fan too, and something aint right here ???
1. Roman Gothic engraving is almost never seen on Colonial rifles. Indicating to me that the inscription was added later in commemorance of an event.

2. Brass screws and pb release??? Perhaps replacements.
Tom C.

Offline HIB

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 348
Re: Another "Washington" Beck ?
« Reply #7 on: June 04, 2009, 11:36:24 PM »
Paul, Glad you enjoyed the Frazier.  Hope you took time to see the rest of the place as it is quite awsome.  With reference to my earlier post.  Sam Dyke [ I went back to look ] indicates a plate of some sort accompanied the gun and was present when the gun was displayed in the Independence Hall Museum. I was incorrect thinking his reference was to the inscription on the butt plate. Dyke definately refers to a plate "Presented to George Washington by the Maker" 1782.  Was this plate part of the Frazer display?  How did they present the gun.  I believe Washingtons visits to his friend in Lebanon are a matter of record, however, 1782 was still considered a war year and security might have been high enough that his visit was not announced. My comments re: Dykes suggestion the gun was present to Washington on his 1793 visit to Womelsdorf were influenced by Harold Peterson, who at the time, was a historian for the Nat'l Park Service. I consider the theroy balderdash as previously stated.    Regards,  Henry

Offline ptk1126

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 361
Re: Another "Washington" Beck ?
« Reply #8 on: June 05, 2009, 01:45:47 AM »
Henry

   The rifle is displayed in a glass case by itself with this note:



All the best
Paul

Offline mr. no gold

  • member 2
  • Hero Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2654
Re: Another "Washington" Beck ?
« Reply #9 on: June 05, 2009, 05:27:08 AM »
The Rifle is correct as seen. Beck made his wood box guns seemingly to a standard pattern. 
They are nicely, but not elaborately, carved. They never have inlays, there is almost never carving on the right side of the wrist and the forearm ususally has a simple molding line.   They are considered to be early pieces and correctly have no toe plate. Some do have a hole for a sling swivel in the triggerguard front finial and in the forearm, suggesting some military purpose, perhaps. Beck was dead by 1812 and was quite elderly by then.
As to the inscription, there is some contention over it but it has been on the rifle for almost a century, at the least. I think that it was Spangler who sometimes signed his name in the old Germanic/ English alphabet style, so it was used by some.
Until proof emerges that the gun is improperly marked, why not just take it at face value for the moment? We know that Washington owned some fine guns.
Dick