Scott, I lean toward your interpretation of “Gun Reading” (there’s no “A”), rather than my “Sam Reading” (a teaser, actually), based on the “G” in “Graeff, but I disagree with your earlier comment that the document, which I’ve included here, was authored by Zantzinger. I think it was authored by Ensign Lusk, Captain Rippey’s trusted second, assigned the task of obtaining and documenting the inventory and distribution. The text was clearly not authored by Capt. Rippey - his signature is in a different hand and ink/quill. Since the document (sideways writing) notes the arms were “Recv’d April 9, 1776 of Paul Zantzinger,…” it was likely not authored by Zantzinger, either.
So, here’s the scenario I envision: Lusk writes down a list of his riflemen (the left hand column appears to me to have been written down first - the writing is slightly different from the right hand column; maybe it’s the ink or quill, maybe the base under the paper or the time of day, the scribe being tired and sloppy in his handwriting). You can see that some of the letters are different, like the capital letters for “R” and “G.” Lusk lists himself last, which is what I would do if I were the author.
Lusk then meets with Zantzinger. Lusk does not know the gunsmiths in Lancaster by barrel mark, but Zantzinger, who is a Lancaster merchant, does. They start listing the rifles. First, Lusk: “well, that one has a brass box.” The next, Lusk, again: “that one looks new.” The third, Zantzinger: “this one’s from Reading.” The fourth, Zantzinger, again: “Albright made that one.” Fifth, Zantzinger: “Another from Reading.” Sixth and Seventh, Zantzinger, “These are from here in Lancaster, newly made, but not signed. I don’t know the maker.” Then, Zantzinger: “These are all by local guys, see, they’re signed, Graeff, Witter, Albright, Henry, Barr. Here’s another from Reading. A Dickert. Another Reading. Messer.” Then Zantzinger concludes: “And of course there’s your gun, a fusil I got from Reading.” Then Zantzinger says, “Oh, and that first one was made by a local guy, Fitter.” So Lusk adds “Fitter” next to “Brass box”
My point is, as you say, the listing of the gunsmiths is for identification, as is the place naming for the Reading rifles. I say this because I believe that neither Lusk nor Zantzinger could identify the makers of the “Reading” rifles either because they did not know the identifying marks or signatures, or because they were unsigned, as we know was the case with many, if not most, Reading rifles of that day. The two “Lancaster” rifles are noted as “new” for, perhaps, the same reason, ie., unsigned or mark not known to either Lusk or Zantzinger. One thing I doubt is that the “Reading” rifles were marked “Reading.”
As a relative newbie to flintlocks, I am not sure of the significance of the designation of Lusk’s “Fuzzy” as a gun instead of as a rifle or musket. I did notice, however, that none of the other documents refer to any of the weapons a “guns.” How would a fusil be classified back then? Rifle? Musket? Gun?
Mark
