Why? Why? WHY? 1775!!!!!

[Eric Kettenburg]

Why on earth is it so common to attribute clearly later guns to 1775?  Or to the War? 

Allentown gun show this weekend, the Kindig book "John Rupp" rifle was being displayed.  GREAT rifle, fantastic rifle, and somewhat of a bigger twin to the semi-twin signed piece which will be auctioned at Poulin's next month.

The gun was displayed and noted as "ca. 1775."

JOHANNES "JOHN" RUPP WAS BORN CA. 1760-1762; SO HE MADE IT WHEN HE WAS 13 TO 15 YO?  SERIOUSLY?  Don't think so.  Let's get real people.

It's a typical post-War, late 1780s or early 1790s Lehigh gun.  MANY MANY MANY of these rifles are fairly stout and stocky despite looking quite sleek and svelte in profile.  Like German women!   

This particular rifle is stocked up using some components from what appears to be an earlier Berks rifle.  When you have a big a$$ lock, and a big a$$ breech barrel, of course the freaking rifle is going to be big!  THIS DOES NOT MAKE IT A REV WAR RIFLE!!!!

It just means it's a stout rifle.

I don't know why it's bugging me so much but I'm feeling a rant today so there you have it.  Maybe because I'm biased toward Northampton Co. pieces, I'm being overly-sensitive, but far too many people are looking at - for example - the signed/dated Herman Rupp pieces (which are skinny slender little things) and deciding that if a rifle of this architecture is bigger and/or thicker. it must be a Rev War rifle!  This is just plain wrong.  Some of these suckers are blatantly thick chicks but it DOESN"T MAKE THEM EARLIER!!!

I gotta go get a drink.

Sincerely, your least-favorite Stooge.

[JV Puleo]

This has been going on at least since Charles Winthrop Sawyer published Firearms in Colonial America...and that was 1912. It's a desperate attempt to connect an artifact with a popularly recognized event and a disappointingly large portion of the collecting world falls for it. The distinguishing fact here is that you have hard facts to disprove it. My personal gripe is the so-called "Committee of Safety Muskets" - made from miscellaneous old parts which ALWAYS seem to be "Rev War" guns. There are only a handful of real, identifiable, Committee of Safety arms. In fact, the committees functioned for such a short time that there couldn't be anything else. Probably 99% of those Rev War muskets were made after the adoption of the first militia act in 1792 when every male citizen was required to supply himself with a musket but an embargo on arms was still in effect for the English and Europe was engulfed with the beginnings of the Napoleonic Wars.

[heinz]

Nice post Eric. 

A careful analysis of gun show displays and auction writeups reveals that no American rifles were produced between 1778 and 1812. 

Butt width is not a reliable determination of age.  In rifles or ....   A good heavy rifle is a very useful tool.  They hold well, shoot well, and are rugged.  Useful tools tend not to go out of style.

[Chris_B]

If I show this post to our womenfolk you might
have another revolution going on here…

[Ian Pratt]

A careful analysis of gun show displays and auction writeups reveals that no American rifles were produced between 1778 and 1812. 

Man that was worth logging in for

[spgordon]

As was this:

MANY MANY MANY of these rifles are fairly stout and stocky despite looking quite sleek and svelte in profile.  Like German women!

I've never forgot hearing a speaker a decade ago describe older German women as "dumplings"--and I suspect Eric's description will stick with me as well ...

[Seth Isaacson]

A careful analysis of gun show displays and auction writeups reveals that no American rifles were produced between 1778 and 1812. 

Man that was worth logging in for

 

[Marcruger]

"Why on earth is it so common to attribute clearly later guns to 1775?  Or to the War? "

Why?  Because most Americans, even older educated ones, think the Revolution was fought in 1776.  Period. 

When I tell folks the Revolution was fought 1775 to 1783, they look at me like I have five heads.  I had one fellow ask me, "How could the war have started before the Declaration of Independence?"  Go figure. 

I grew up in the South, and our history books never mentioned that the Revolution was also fought (and won) in the South. 

There is and has been a great failing to teach history. 

[Dennis Glazener]

"Why on earth is it so common to attribute clearly later guns to 1775?  Or to the War? "

Why?  Because most Americans, even older educated ones, think the Revolution was fought in 1776.  Period. 

When I tell folks the Revolution was fought 1775 to 1783, they look at me like I have five heads.  I had one fellow ask me, "How could the war have started before the Declaration of Independence?"  Go figure. 

I grew up in the South, and our history books never mentioned that the Revolution was also fought (and won) in the South. 

There is and has been a great failing to teach history.

I too grew up in the south and the only southern battles I ever heard about in school were Kings Mountain, Cowpens and Yorktown. The first two were mentioned as if they were minor conflicts of little significance. I lived about 32 miles from where Daniel Greene crossed the Dan River on his race to cross that river before being caught by Cornwallis. Yet I was in my 60's before I heard anything about the "Race to the Dan"
Dennis

[James Rogers]

"Why on earth is it so common to attribute clearly later guns to 1775?  Or to the War? "

Why?  Because most Americans, even older educated ones, think the Revolution was fought in 1776.  Period. 

When I tell folks the Revolution was fought 1775 to 1783, they look at me like I have five heads.  I had one fellow ask me, "How could the war have started before the Declaration of Independence?"  Go figure. 

I grew up in the South, and our history books never mentioned that the Revolution was also fought (and won) in the South. 

There is and has been a great failing to teach history.

Marc,
The great failing was in times past. Today it is altogether non-existent.

[smart dog]

Hi,
Everyone laments what our youth are taught and probably always have.  If you really want to see blanks stares ask even folks in their 60s and 70s who wrote the U.S. Constitution in 1787?  (Hint, it wasn't Madison)   The problem with history is that with every passing day, there is more of it to teach.

dave 

[Eric Kettenburg]

I've been engaged in a bit of a email exchange with a couple of others about this issue, and while I'm sure perceived or associated value factors into it - especially when pieces such as this one will be soon auctioned - I am positive that another factor is at play.  Someone brought up the concept of "laziness" or "lazy research" and I think that definitely is a large part.  People like to categorize and file things away mentally.  Ever since this rifle was photographed by Kindig in the 1960s, and he initially postulated that it was pre-Revolutionary based upon it's size, this dating has been attached to this rifle like a ball and chain, even in the face of updated information and study that blatantly refutes it.  Why?

Kindig himself wrote, "Careless research and wishful thinking are only additional obstacles on the already tedious path to truth."  Prescient indeed.

[spgordon]

Yeah, I'd say two different issues: for whatever reason, Mr. Kindig dated the rifle to 1775. The bigger issue (I agree with Eric here) is that it is always easiest to just repeat what's been said, especially if what's been said is easily available on the internet. Part of it is laziness--or just lack of time.

But there needs to be something to lead somebody to question the received wisdom, some inkling of something wrong. This is why it is so much more important to ask questions than to provide answers. (Some people don't like this.) Providing answers stops further research. It's fine to do so if a matter is really settled. But few matters in this field are really settled; they're informed guesses or--more often--regurgitations of what's been said before. The worst thing you can do, if you're not sure, is to pretend you're sure, since that will lead others to stop looking further for possible answers (and perhaps discover new things along the way).

[hanshi]

"Why on earth is it so common to attribute clearly later guns to 1775?  Or to the War? "
Why?  Because most Americans, even older educated ones, think the Revolution was fought in 1776.  Period. 
When I tell folks the Revolution was fought 1775 to 1783, they look at me like I have five heads.  I had one fellow ask me, "How could the war have started before the Declaration of Independence?"  Go figure. 
I grew up in the South, and our history books never mentioned that the Revolution was also fought (and won) in the South. 
There is and has been a great failing to teach history.

Absolutely!  I was born, bred and lived in the Deep South and only left at age 62; and that move was to another Southern state!

The South has always - and it's getting worse - been painted with a single brush and denied equitable acceptance.  A university museum exhibited a collection of Georgia built rifles, this was in the late '60s.  Most were percussion and all were pieces of ART!  Generally they were highly decorated, beautiful and clearly built the first quarter (+ or -) of the 19th century.  Seldom have I seen original rifles as pristine and well cared for as these Deep South beauties that likely never were taken into the bush.  Now that's overlooked Southern history again.

[backsplash75]

Frequently broad categories of dating tend to lump stuff into quarters of a century in the museum world, but yes a 1791 rifle tends to not be as valuable as a RevWar era rifle, all things between the two rifles being equal.

[BradBrownBess]

Yep the Committee of Safety Muskets are the worst offenders in my view. Clunky parts guns that state "100% original rare US Revolutionary War used Musket". This can be the high end auction houses too. Buy the gun not the story (or description). Do your homework or take a bath on a lot of these pieces unless later another auction house finds a sucker - I mean investor.

In the same vein - Powderhorns are likewise out of control. No provenance, no way of accurate dating, and seems every other one is 1776. Some of these are selling for 5 figures + fees.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Well I've got documentation to prove when Johannes/John died (within a 5-6 year period), now need to track down birth or baptismal information.  This is getting tricky.  There were a LOT of Rupps/Roops/Rups/Raups/Rubs/Raubs all over SEPA counties, and they were primarily all different family groups.