One more kick on the dead horse of restoration/fakery

[Bob Roller]

To sum it up,there will ALWAYS be the dishonest,the finagler who subscribes to the ideas of P.T.Barnum AND the low life that will do ANYTHING for 30 pieces of silver.They live by subterfuge and vanish into the obscurity of the anonymous and reappear far away in another identity.Prison is just a cost of doing business and an accepted risk.At one time people who picked pockets were hung in public I think in England and during these hangings,people were in the crowd picking pockets even though death was guaranteed.
During WW2 the Germans made counterfeit British pound notes that were so good that all pound notes were recalled and new redesigned ones issued.I think Caveat Emptor is the rule to follow.
Bob Roller

[BradBrownBess]

Assembling a parts gun, or new gun, etc is fine as long you sell it as such. But honestly how many times have you had someone say "That old barrel was in my garage, that old stock I got at a garage sale, the lock was a spare I had from 40 years ago. Its a total fabrication parts gun - I'll take $1200 for it". If you assemble or make a gun and say "100% original in every way" thats fraud. But even if you say "Its a fake!!" - it will change hands 2, 3, 4 times - and it will not be fake anymore - it will be a "Rev War used piece of American history" for 15K.

Doing homework is great. But it does no good if you buy remotely which is where all auctions are. Doing homework is great to but may be useless today unless the seller will let you completely disassemble a gun down to the pins etc. Guns sold as "original" that are not make up most of the market. NOTHING on any gun cannot be faked so that the best expert cannot tell - I'll be my house on it. Luckily most of those fakes are rarer due to time tom make - but they are becoming more and more less rare.

I wont buy a pricey gun without a written, signed contract that states I have the right to inspect the gun completely, and get full compensation if I find anything I don't like.
I don't care how fraud is legally defined. Fakes are EVERYWHERE in EVERYTHING.

[JV Puleo]

I agree...oddly enough, I have all the parts for a NE rifle that have been gathering dust for the best part of 20 years. I even have the remnants of the original stock which suffered the attentions of some "restorer" long ago. By the time I'd chipped out all the plastic wood, there wasn't much left. I'd thought to ream, and rifle the barrel (I've always wanted to try that) and reassemble it into a shooter...but the nagging doubt keeps coming back. I've yet to think of a fool proof way to make it obvious what was done and until I do, the parts will stay where they are.

[WESTbury]

I have been amazed, since joining the ALR and rifle collecting fraternity two years ago, at the diametrically opposed philosophies of the collectors of rifle and military flintlock musket collectors and students in regard to restorations and recons to flint.

In part, I attribute these differences to the relative scarcity of "original condition" flintlock rifles and the fact that these longrifles are one of a kind in details of stock design, decoration, etc. Military flintllock muskets in their original flintlock condition are not difficult to find. And, as brought to my attention on this forum months ago, "They all look the same." A fact which works in my favor when my wife asks, "Did you buy another of those old rusted guns?"

Many years ago I was told by Ed Wheat, who was Dave Squire's partner in their Heritage Firearms shop in Wilton Connecticut, that reconverted military flint muskets are worth less that the percussion altered muskets. Ed was not wrong. Reconverted longrifles are very different story. Many very heavy restorations, like the Albrecht rifle, are held in very high regard because they are the only known rifle of a particular builder. I certainly can appreciate the reasoning and admire the rifle as a very historical piece.

I am enjoying this resurrected thread. Perhaps there are other old threads which are still relevant which can be posted.

[JHeath]

If the maker does it, then it is forgery. If a later seller does it, then it is *not* forgery. It is fraud.

Is there anybody who doesn't agree with this?

My point is: at this point, we're talking about a matter of terminology. Nobody seems to be disagreeing in their assessments of "the thing itself."

I don’t think everybody agrees. If I understand Eric correctly, collectors consider it a “forgery”
when encountering a non-fully original gun that is difficult to tell from a fully original gun, regardless of having any knowledge of the builder or his intent. My take is that if the assembler/restorer had no intent to defraud, sold it explicitly as a non-original gun, then it is not a forgery.

That is one reason I mentioned the “ship of Theseus” paradox. There is no standard other than intent, that I can see. One restorer/builder is comfortable replacing only screws. Another is okay with patchboxes and trigger guards. Or barrels. Or building a rifle around a lock. Three sellers later, the collector can’t necessarily divine the intent. It might not be a forgery. It might only be fraud.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Yeah man, it's... you know, the thing!

We are getting overly-complicated with semantics here.  I can't 'hang' with some of you as my 11th grade education can only buy me so much cachet before the complexities of precise terminology hang me out to dry.  hahahahahahahahaha 

Whether one wants to define a questionable rifle as a forgery, or a fraud, or a fake, or just plain questionable, I don't really care too much HOW one ultimately wishes to define the situation but much as the old SCOTUS quote goes, "I know it when I see it."  Fortunately, I am in no way obligated to adhere to precise legal definitions!

[JHeath]

Yeah man, it's... you know, the thing!

We are getting overly-complicated with semantics here.  I can't 'hang' with some of you as my 11th grade education can only buy me so much cachet before the complexities of precise terminology hang me out to dry.  hahahahahahahahaha 

Whether one wants to define a questionable rifle as a forgery, or a fraud, or a fake, or just plain questionable, I don't really care too much HOW one ultimately wishes to define the situation but much as the old SCOTUS quote goes, "I know it when I see it."  Fortunately, I am in no way obligated to adhere to precise legal definitions!

That pretty much sums it up. Or maybe “I know it when I’m not sure if I can see it.”

[spgordon]

Whether one wants to define a questionable rifle as a forgery, or a fraud, or a fake, or just plain questionable, I don't really care too much HOW one ultimately wishes to define the situation but much as the old SCOTUS quote goes, "I know it when I see it."  Fortunately, I am in no way obligated to adhere to precise legal definitions!

Exactly: whether a "forgery" or a "fraud," nobody is okay with the "thing" you (JHeath) have described. So, except perhaps in a court of law, why does sorting out the terminology matter?

[JHeath]

Whether one wants to define a questionable rifle as a forgery, or a fraud, or a fake, or just plain questionable, I don't really care too much HOW one ultimately wishes to define the situation but much as the old SCOTUS quote goes, "I know it when I see it."  Fortunately, I am in no way obligated to adhere to precise legal definitions!

Exactly: whether a "forgery" or a "fraud," nobody is okay with the "thing" you (JHeath) have described. So, except perhaps in a court of law, why does sorting out the terminology matter?

Calling someone a “forger” matters. Calling someone’s work “forgery” matters.

If I understand Eric correctly, collectors use the term loosely to mean any work that they disagree with.

If people in your profession called you an academic fraud because they disagreed with your interpretation, that would matter. If they called your book fraudulent, that would matter.

[rich pierce]

Whether one wants to define a questionable rifle as a forgery, or a fraud, or a fake, or just plain questionable, I don't really care too much HOW one ultimately wishes to define the situation but much as the old SCOTUS quote goes, "I know it when I see it."  Fortunately, I am in no way obligated to adhere to precise legal definitions!

Exactly: whether a "forgery" or a "fraud," nobody is okay with the "thing" you (JHeath) have described. So, except perhaps in a court of law, why does sorting out the terminology matter?

Calling someone a “forger” matters. Calling someone’s work “forgery” matters.

If I understand Eric correctly, collectors use the term loosely to mean any work that they disagree with.

If people in your profession called you an academic fraud because they disagreed with your interpretation, that would matter. If they called your book fraudulent, that would matter.

It should matter.
If you’re in academics (I was for 40 years), you know we are not going to easily agree upon terminology that satisfies you, let alone a majority.

[spgordon]

Calling someone a “forger” matters. Calling someone’s work “forgery” matters.

If I understand Eric correctly, collectors use the term loosely to mean any work that they disagree with.

If people in your profession called you an academic fraud because they disagreed with your interpretation, that would matter. If they called your book fraudulent, that would matter.

Yes, of course calling somebody a "forger" matters. As does calling somebody a "fraud." Nobody wants to be called either. I can't imagine anybody thinking any differently, and I certainly didn't suggest that somebody would not care if they were called a "forger" or a "fraud."

But the two charges amount to the same thing, except perhaps in a legal context: forgery is fraud (passing something off as something it isn't). So, except in very specific contexts, the words seem to me to be interchangeable.

[JHeath]

Whether one wants to define a questionable rifle as a forgery, or a fraud, or a fake, or just plain questionable, I don't really care too much HOW one ultimately wishes to define the situation but much as the old SCOTUS quote goes, "I know it when I see it."  Fortunately, I am in no way obligated to adhere to precise legal definitions!

Exactly: whether a "forgery" or a "fraud," nobody is okay with the "thing" you (JHeath) have described. So, except perhaps in a court of law, why does sorting out the terminology matter?

Calling someone a “forger” matters. Calling someone’s work “forgery” matters.

If I understand Eric correctly, collectors use the term loosely to mean any work that they disagree with.

If people in your profession called you an academic fraud because they disagreed with your interpretation, that would matter. If they called your book fraudulent, that would matter.

It should matter.
If you’re in academics (I was for 40 years), you know we are not going to easily agree upon terminology that satisfies you, let alone a majority.

You are a moderator. Would you allow forum members to accuse each other of forgery?

I am not buying, selling, or restoring original longrifles. So I don’t care. My interest is the history and study. I find it interesting, in an academic way, how comfortable people evidently are with the word “forgery”. We are “not going to easily agree” what level of restoration is forgery. But I assume we agree that forgery means dishonesty and fraud. It’s not something you say to someone’s face unless you are ready for a fistfight or a lawsuit.

Since you were in academia perhaps you remember the case of Michael Bellesiles, a historian who wrote an acclaimed, award-winning book alleging that guns were rare in the early American Republic, that Americans were unfamiliar with the use of guns, and that gun culture is a 20th Cent NRA myth. He cited many historical and especially court documents

Ultimately his book was withdrawn by the publisher, his Bancroft award rescinded, and he lost his tenured professorship. I was involved in checking his citations before that happened, and in the room
with the Harvard LS faculty and Yale LS faculty when the discrepancies in his work were presented and discussed prior to his university starting an investigation.

[rich pierce]

JHearh, if you can succinctly state what you propose is appropriate discussion or terminology around original firearms here, where one’s belief in the authenticity of a gun or horn can impact sale prices 10-100 fold, please do so.

One end of the spectrum of possible guidelines may be “no discussions of authenticity of an item are permissible.”  The other end may be “no holds barred” except adhering to current ALR rules prohibiting personal attacks.

Note that one might say, “This gun appears to have this and that and that and that which are likely not original work” which is not a personal attack.

If you have another approach or proposal in mind that is different from what I’m suggesting, please elaborate directly. I’m saying this as an interested person, not a moderator.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I would also be extremely interested in this discussion branching out into the question Rich just asked.  I've been a participant here for quite a long time.  It was always my impression and understanding that it largely was, as Rich noted as 'one end of the spectrum,' a place for no holds barred discussion of early American arms.  The only caveat of which I've been aware is that it has always been assumed that we do not mention ownership (names) in a public forum unless the owner happens to make ownership public.  I do not ever remember anyone here calling out anyone as a forger or calling out an entire piece as a forgery.  I'm not certain if that is due to the wish to avoid a "fistfight or a lawsuit" or if it's simply because I don't recall an outright forgery ever being posted or discussed.  I'm not so sure about discussions of fraudulent behavior; again, I don't believe anyone has specifically called out another individual here for fraud, although there likely have been many discussions wherein fraud was implied or related without specifically mentioning names.  I'm convinced we all have 'those' stories!

When it comes to looking at antiques and discussion of assorted restorative measures taken, or component replacement, alterations etc., that has always been discussed openly here, although again, with the broad understanding that we are looking at photos on a screen and not the piece in-hand.  With the proliferation now of internet auctions and easy online bidding, accompanied by (via some of the auction sites) excellent photos, it's perfectly natural and (to my mind) acceptable to engage in these discussions, especially given the often poor and sometimes outright misleading descriptions and/or assertions provided by the various auction companies.  I don't ever, in all the years I've personally participated here, remember such discussions engendering anger or personal attacks until fairly recently.

Regards,

[spgordon]

It was always my impression and understanding that it largely was, as Rich noted as 'one end of the spectrum,' a place for no holds barred discussion of early American arms.

And here's to hoping that it continues to be just that.

I think the only time I've used the word "fraud" is in response to what Eric refers to as "the often poor and sometimes outright misleading descriptions and/or assertions provided by the various auction companies." It seems to me that knowingly misrepresenting an item to further one's financial interests constitutes fraud. I get that the "knowingly" is hard to prove, and maybe the caveat emptor principle insulates auction houses from such charges. But when accurate information is low-hanging fruit, which the professionals who write descriptions of arms for auction houses surely ought to know (we stooges here know it), it surely seems that these misleading descriptions are deliberate. At best they are negligent. Perhaps not "fraud" or "negligence" in a legal context but certainly so in the ordinary usage of those words.

[Rajin cajun]

Opinions, and we all know what they are like !
To make my point about all this BS , just have a quick look at Mr. Pierces recent post ,”Early American Fowler up for sale” on the forum. That gun went from being a great weapon to a piece of you know what in no time at all. I’m sure the guy who spent 35k on that piece could give a “flip” about what
any of us thought about it..!
As I’ve said about opinions , “we all have one” !

[Eric Kettenburg]

What BS?  And how did it go from being great to a piece of $#@*? 

I think it's great whether the alleged story is accurate or not.  The piece can stand on it's own without the story.  Who said it's a piece of $#@*?  Many may be much more well off than I, but 35K doesn't seem to me like a piece of $#@*.

Now the auction company has posted a very elaborate, fluffy story about the alleged owner.  They claim to have supporting documentation re: his martial activities and I have no reason to doubt what they claim.  However, the association between the man and the gun is based upon the nameplates.  Are they original?  I have no idea.  I know the piece has been 'around' for quite a while with those nameplates present.  They look old.  Is there supporting documentation that the piece descended through Beckwith's family, or something along those lines?  i.e., is it traceable?  I'd use Edward Marshall's rifle as well as the 'griffin' Oerter that belonged to William Marshall as great examples of two pieces that are actually traceable back through the family to which they are alleged to have belonged.  So what's the story here?  The auction company description makes no mention of THAT aspect of its provenance, which frankly is the important part!  So I'd be interested to see what they have on that front.

In regard to the lock - all that's been mentioned here is that some feel that the lock might be a replacement.  Sure, that's an opinion.  I guess whoever bought it for 35K will shortly be in the best position to determine this.  And if he doesn't care what we think, then what's the beef?

I don't see the antagonism to either curiosity or open discussion, nor the need to issue a veiled comment about some of us being posterior vents because we choose to engage in such discussion.  Unless it's all in defense of monetary value?

[rich pierce]

Purchasing and amassing a collection does not make one a scholar. It’s study that makes one a scholar. Also the ability to conceive of and ask questions is critical for scholarship. That takes both knowledge and a critical mind.

When one sees a nameplate on a gun like the splendid New England fowler recently sold, responses fall somewhere between 2 positions. One is acceptance. “It’s there plain as day! Says it was so-and so’s gun! How cool is that, to actually know it belonged to a person we can trace in history, and to important events!” 
Another response is, “Darn that’s unusual! I cannot think of another New England fowler of the period with such a nameplate. How can we be sure that the nameplate was original work or added correctly at a later date? What’s the added value of the nameplates? $10,00?  Double that?  I wouldn’t even be asking these questions if nameplates were common on these guns, but they are not.  If we had documentation of when the nameplate was installed, or what the chain of possession of this gun was, that could add a lot to this gun’s history.”

(Rambling on) Building guns can enhance one’s knowledge as well, because after building from the blank for decades one is intimately familiar with components available, and recognize a cock or frizzen or frizzen spring as one from a well-known contemporary lock. Many of the people most knowledgeable about early longrifles or fowlers are serious builders. I’m not sure that Bob Lienemann has an extensive collection of original Revolutionary War Moravian guns but he is a heckuva builder as well as scholar and thus sees details others might miss. Similarly, I’m sure Wallace Gusler has a collection but would also agree that seeing through the eyes of a builder helps him make connections he might otherwise miss.

My point is that there are not two sides here - collectors and builders, who are naturally opposed. Without collectors who are scholars or who work with scholars and museums, we’d not know much about originals. And without the builders who can restore, many originals would still be a pile of parts.

[mr. no gold]

Eric, go into the Library and find the Fowler with the silver wrist plate inscribed 'Abner Howe' which is also dated '1776.' This one's right as rain with exception that when it was found, the lock was missing. It has been replaced by a handmade lock done by one of the master restorers. The lock cost more than the gun at the time. There is an unusual story that accounts for the fact that the lock was gone, but I won't beleaguer you all with it here. There is a pretty extensive history that goes with this gun. Also, this will double the number of I'ded Rev War arms that you ae aware of. I wonder, does the replaced lock make this piece a fraud, fakery or a cripple?
Dick

[Rajin cajun]

Eric, go into the Library and find the Fowler with the silver wrist plate inscribed 'Abner Howe' which is also dated '1776.' This one's right as rain with exception that when it was found, the lock was missing. It has been replaced by a handmade lock done by one of the master restorers. The lock cost more than the gun at the time. There is an unusual story that accounts for the fact that the lock was gone, but I won't beleaguer you all with it here. There is a pretty extensive history that goes with this gun. Also, this will double the number of I'ded Rev War arms that you ae aware of. I wonder, does the replaced lock make this piece a fraud, fakery or a cripple?
Dick

Amen.!!!

[JTR]

Double the Amen!
John

[Eric Kettenburg]

Dick I didn't say anything about the number of ID'd war-era arms of which I'm aware.  Possibly you may be conflating one of my posts with one of Brad's (the 'brown bess' guy) who did mention something along those lines.  I do find his postings to be well-reasoned and direct, though, and based upon his own experiences, so I appreciate his as well as yours.

I have no problem with the creation of an appropriate lock to replace a completely missing original, certainly since it's fairly public knowledge at this point and is not being passed-off as 'all original.'  Now if we were talking, say, a conversion, well that's a preferential thing and personally I'd rather see something left alone in that case.  But, that's just me.  I'd have likewise preferred to see the 'griffin' Oerter left alone, but it wasn't my rifle and I have nothing but great respect for the owner who did re-convert it at the time.  I personally would have taken a different approach but then I actually enjoyed it as a percussion gun.  I don't think it "needed" to be a flintlock.

About the Howe piece:  I guess since this thread has devolved into a discussion of terminology, I don't really know what it would be called.  Not a forgery, because was no effort made by the restorer to conceal the fact that the lock is a replacement.  Likewise, it's not a fraud - yet - because it's not been represented as the original lock.  I'd not be surprised if an auction house did so at some point in the future, though, so I sure hope it's marked internally at the least.  A cripple?  Well I just outlined my thoughts on that above, and those are my own thoughts.  Since there was no lock present to molest, I guess it's not really a cripple either.  So we can each look at it in any way that we like!

Not really sure what point you're trying to make here?  This discussion has become akin to a minefield because it's obvious some participants are being aggravated in some way, and I'm not sure whether you're in that 'boat' (  ) or not, or why.


Edit - BTW, back in post #40, I specifically stated that "I surely can't speak for anyone other than myself."  Also, I specifically stated, "I do not believe that we are discussing a realm wherein all is clear-cut or in black and white..."  Meaning, again speaking only for myself, I have and will continue to view each piece on a case-by-case basis.

Any horrendous or offensive problems with either of those statements?

[rlm]

Just a short notation as to the Griffin rifle conversation back to flint. I was told by the owner that he kept the entire original lock in its converted percussion state and had a flintlock fabricated to fit the rifle’s lock mortise. One rifle, two locks, the flint version being a contemporary lock

[rich pierce]

Just a short notation as to the Griffin rifle conversation back to flint. I was told by the owner that he kept the entire original lock in its converted percussion state and had a flintlock fabricated to fit the rifle’s lock mortise. One rifle, two locks, the flint version being a contemporary lock

For a gun that important, that kind of investment is nice to see done.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Yes, I'm aware of that and Jack Brooks did a fantastic job.  But the drum of course was yanked and the barrel modified.  I've not seen it now in years so I'm not clear on whether or not the barrel mod is likewise reversible.  Kudos to Jack if he could pull it off in a reversible manner that at the same time looked believable.  Nevertheless, I'd personally have rather seen it simply left alone as a document, since it managed to survive the 20th century unmolested.  Just my opinion.  Of course I suppose thinking for myself and engaging in discussion means that I am a posterior vent.  I can live with that.