If you use ferric nitrate or any compound where you rot iron into another substance and then apply it lavishly to a gunstock, would that not engender additional oxidation (ie. rust) to any steel part that comes in contact with it?
not when it's done right - and besides FN aka Aqua Fortis was one of if not the most popular "stains" for maple during the period and IMO still works better than ANY dye and over the last 50 years working wood with it I've used about everything else......some come close, but none give the chatoyance to the wood that AF/FN does.
Un-neutralized aqua fortis and a little sunlight, most likely.
As noted probably CT and not FN which if not neutralized properly and left in the sun will turn dark, approaching black, not green, dependent on time and conditions. In fact FN and sunlight is how I learned to ebonize wood.......
While I haven't built a gun in years (have one in the works though, but funding is currently slow) I build perod knives, tomahawks, etc. and use most of the same techniques. As to aging - I've always seemed to have a knack for it and like Mike Brooks I just plain like and so do my customers. As to whether one should or should not do it - that's all opinion and not all look 200 years old anyway - at least no when done right..........
something to ponder - this is based on the thoughts of Alex Kozlov, a maker of period beadwork:
REPLICAS: The copying with exact reproduction of all features of an original, including dimensions, size and color of fittings, number of stitches, and all other materials.
MADE AFTER: Closely copying an original with fair selection of its materials or close substitutes and layout of the design pattern.
IN THE STYLE: When a piece is made "in Style", it bears all features that belong to this particular cultural region, ethnicity, or time period, but is not an exacting copy.
THE ORIGINAL: Any piece created entirely from the imagination of the craftsman, whether two hundred years ago or yesterday and having no exact analog - a complete original while still using appropriate materials, methods, etc. (i.e. the "new school" guns being produced today by such as the House Brothers, Ian Pratt, etc..) The quality of craftsmanship is the main measure of the piece.
Problems with "in Style" or "Original" pieces can arise if/when they are mis-labeled as Replicas, Reproductions, or Copies
For myself I spent beau coup years learning by copying originals (my apprenticeship) and it's one of the best ways I know how to get the "feel", but then I ran into a wall and got burned out - mostly bored to tears making the same exact items over and over again. After a while I returned to building, but it is "MY" stuff rather than copies (albeit well footed in the past) and my work is now once again enjoyable. On the other hand, taking time off from building copies has given me a new fresh view of doing such work and there's some originals I've been looking at to do.
A sound understanding of traditional work must be in place first. The key in my opinion is that it be designed and created in an asthetically pleasing manner. The sort of feeling you get when you pick up a great rifle and just don't want to put it down is the goal..... There's really no limit to what can be created. for me, this is one of the most exciting parts of this gunbuilding stuff.
Couldn't agree more......
Aging, patination etc. can certainly add to this appeal, however it shouldn't be relied upon too much. In my opinion, the current strong interest in aging is sometimes at the expense of design and execution.
Jim - I agree and IMO this is one of the "problems" when something becomes popular - those with out the proper background pick up on the popular and do only the one part, in this case aging, with only a nod of consideration for the rest. IMO to do anything "right" one must start with the basics and go from there.........
IMO bottomline - do what YOU enjoy doing, find your muse (something that can and often will change) and go for it............
