The trouble with copies

[Artificer]

I  can assure you that even the original gunsmith could not make an exact copy of his original work! Nothing is ever the same!! I am amazed that present day craftsmen can get as close as they do! I am not even a fan of copies! I like to see the elements from the original used but doubt that an exact copy could ever be made!! The old timers would not do a copy (and probably couldn't get it exact) but thier work would be unmistakenly be similar!

You very well put down many of my thoughts on the subject.  If we could speak with many/most of the original builders and asked them to make a copy of their own work, I have the impression they would say, "I built that rifle for one person and it won't fit you." 

The only time I could see an original builder attempting to make a perfect copy of his own work would have been a matched set of pistols, and most of the time for duelling purposes.

Gus

[tallbear]

Pete
I'm currently working one one of these"copies" that you are talking about.I will try to explain my reasoning for diverging from the original.I am not making a "bench" copy as I don't have the original in front of me and am working from pictures.Without the original in front of me I know that there are details I will miss.I am making it as close as I can.The only thing totally different will be the lock.Reason!!While I really like the rifle I don't like the lock that's on the original,it's unremarkable.I made my own lock from one of Chambers "Gunmakers"kits.Two reasons first for the experience of making the lock and sec0ond I wanted to use a different style of lock.I don't feel that it will detract in any way from the finished rifle but time and others reactions will be the final determination As one of my past teachers would say I'm expanding my vocabulary



Mitch

[rich pierce]

Good discussion.  I think the main issue is terminology.  I can see why a person would expect a copy to be a copy, and expect the builder to do everthing reasonable to duplicate the original.  When I do a build based on an original, I say the gun is inspired  by such and such a gun.

[Acer Saccharum]

When I say I build a copy of a certain gun, I know what I mean.

But what does my customer THINK is meant by 'copy'? That is where one can get into a sticky situation, where expectations are involved. The terming of the gun 'inspired by' will remove most of the expectational problems.

Tom

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Amen Brother Tom!!....  

Interesting as you say Rich. No one seems to disagree substantially, its just the terminology....

Well, people seem to recognize my Peter Berry as typical of his style.......nobody has accused me of "copying" it....  

[skillman]

I have "attempted" to make a living as a scale modeler years ago. I don't do it any more. I can assure you there are people who can make an "exact" copy in any scale you want. I wouldn't want to do it and don't think many people would pay the bill. I think most of us are into the creative art more than the scale modeling aspects of this hobby.
Steve

[Captchee]

 

I have "attempted" to make a living as a scale modeler years ago. I don't do it any more

been there and done that as well Skillman  from 1/12 stand off  all the way up to 1/3  .
 even was arrested in Germany  for doing it .

 however that’s little different.
 While many folks can build say an exact scale  version of say a  Mitsubishi A6M Zero
 Or ME 109 G  right down to the engine , frames from metal . Working scale landing gear  and such . those still are not  what folks are speaking of .
 
 Its kind of like say, building a Zerolli 1/3 scale model of  a BF 109. Modifying it into a  G-6   flown by   Gerhard Barkhorns . but  having the stick  from a F1  an air cooler from a F-2z. Wing bulges from a G-3 with the Oil pump cover of a G6/Trop
 Who would know.  but for those of us that would say ahhhhh hold on now . The G6 didn’t have this , this , this .
Barkhorns , G also had  bullet holes , here , here and there from an encounter .
 He also had  armor plates added here , here and here ..
 The glass in the cockpit  is not  they type used by Messerschmitt. There for it cannot be exact scale  of Buckhorns G

[J. Talbert]

One can find fault with anything, if one tries hard enough, but I prefer to look at Mark's article more in the spirit that I feel it was presented; a rather nonjudgmental presentation of the benefits and challenges involved in making a copy of an original gun.
As far as what's right or wrong with a given copy, I'll let others debate that.  I know the things that I look for in a rifle, and the things that turn me off, but that doesn't mean that I'm right and someone else is wrong. 
In the end, it's all subjective, but there certainly are those, whose opinion I value more than others

Jeff

[Karl Kunkel]

Fantatic discusion/debate.  That's why I love this forum.  The Bf 109 analogy was great.

When I was young, I was into scale modeling, and loved the challenge of finding a picture of a specific aircraft, and trying to recreate the aircraft as it appear in that time and place.  Much historical investigation, kit bashing, decal combinations and painting would sometimes result in the hoped for rendition.  But even then, someone with a knowing eye could pick out and spot subtle flaws, oversights and mistakes.

In this modern age, I thnk it would be possible to reproduce an exact, digital copy of a specific longrifle using laser scanners, CNCs, etc, etc - but I think the 'exact' copy would be lifeless/souless.

[jwh1947]

Behold the words of Dr. Shipman and Don Getz.  They are filled with experience and down-to earth wisdom. 

[Dphariss]

Exact copies in this context are nearly impossible. The parts involved cannot be copied with cookie cutter precision.
Make a pair of pistols and unless the hardware is all cast the hardware will have some differences. I made a pair of percussion lock plates for a pair once. Clamped them together to file to final shape and they are still slightly different and would not fit the same mortise well.
It would be nearly impossible to make a stock that was exactly like the original in all regards. It might be very close and even undetectable by eyeball but it will measure different
My idea of the value of a bench copy is not in making it exact but as close as possible and so gaining a better understanding of the shaping and lines of the stock. THIS is the important part, how things were shaped and how the gun REALLY looks. In a Kentucky Rifle the lines make/break the gun. So, to me, a copy of a rifle that closely maintains the original lines and handling is more important that the patch box being off by 1/16" or whatever.
I would expect this to some greater or lesser extent so I did not even compare the various originals and copies since I knew there would be some differences.

Dan

[Dphariss]

Im with Mike and Don on this subject .
 I think making an exact bench copy  would be near impossible to do . I sure wouldn’t want to try it  and my hat is off to those that do  attempt it .
 Myself I would never attempt such a thing . Simply because I could never do it .
 If  I don’t like something , I have a  great urge to want to change it . I don’t think I could or will ever get over that . At least in 30 years I haven’t and frankly see no reason to change  now .
 I also wonder what the opinion would be about fit of parts .
 Through the years I have handled many original pieces . For the most part  all   but a few, all  had seen hard use .
Some years back , I was   given the chance to  inspect an early Manton SXS  that’s in the Cody museum . To say I was thrilled would be an  understatement.
 That piece  was very well cared for .   While the quality of workmanship was high .  I wouldn’t call it beyond  what many   of today’s newer builders or smiths are turning out

 I also wonder  if many times folks simply get confused , do to how someone describes a given piece .
 If these were  intended to indeed be copies of original pieces  then why would there  by large patent issues like having the wrong lock or cock ?
 I could see  them possibly having smaller  issues like  not quite proper pan shapes   or slight differences in the carvings . But  past that ?
 So im wondering if the case isn’t  more to the point  the piece the author is critiquing, 
 were  possibly never intended to be  what they are trying to be made out as .


 Something I learned long , long ago in the Trades  .
 Never  criticize or pick apart someone else work   unless they themselves ask you to .
 Without them standing there , its very easy to say  how you would do something differently . But you never will know the situation of why something was done the way it was  without them  justifying it
Doing so  in their absence , is a very good way  down the road  at a later date , to get a punch in the nose

Somethings are not justifiable. "Copying" original with really crappy lines just shows the copier can't tell a good rifle from a clunky one and the stocker of the original probably could not either.

To comment or not depends on how blatant the errors might be in a particular gun and the context of the conversation.
If the darned thing has serious errors in line and you have neophyte builders asking questions about it is one supposed to fib and tell them that angular breaks a the end of the tang are "OK", that grossly out of shape lock panels are "artistic expression" when they are not and in reality make for a clunky, angular, ugly gun that needs a 1/8, 1/4" or even more wood taken off the correct it assuming its correctable at all?
Nose punching carries with it a great element of risk.

Dan

[Michael]

Great discussion!

My idea of making a copy is that another gunmaker would see it and recognize it as a 'copy' of a particular gun. 'Hey, that's number 19' or 'that's the Freeborn Gun'. The bigger challenge is to NOT copy a particular gun but make one that looks as if it came a certain gunsmiths shop. Now I have the challenge of analyzing  his work and deciding what is correct and what is not correct. The good part is now I can use my creative skills, just copying something is boring.

[Captchee]

Somethings are not justifiable. "Copying" original with really crappy lines just shows the copier can't tell a good rifle from a clunky one and the stocker of the original probably could not either.

To comment or not depends on how blatant the errors might be in a particular gun and the context of the conversation.
If the darned thing has serious errors in line and you have neophyte builders asking questions about it is one supposed to fib and tell them that angular breaks a the end of the tang are "OK", that grossly out of shape lock panels are "artistic expression" when they are not and in reality make for a clunky, angular, ugly gun that needs a 1/8, 1/4" or even more wood taken off the correct it assuming its correctable at all?
Nose punching carries with it a great element of risk.

Dan

again my point Dan
 Was it meant to be a copy of something ?
 If its meant to be a copy  then I would agree with you 100%

 If its not a copy . Well then that’s where we get different lines  isn’t it .
 If everything was meant to be a copy then why doesn’t every gun look like a Beck , Derrick ……..

[Pete G.]

  Never  criticize or pick apart someone else work   unless they themselves ask you to .
 Without them standing there , its very easy to say  how you would do something differently . But you never will know the situation of why something was done the way it was  without them  justifying it
Doing so  in their absence , is a very good way  down the road  at a later date , to get a punch in the nose

So true. My intent in starting this thread was to point out some observations and generate discussions. If you disagree, fine, but say why. Right off the bat seems that there were some guys ready to throw that punch, but thanks to all for your insights, pro and con.

[Dphariss]

Somethings are not justifiable. "Copying" original with really crappy lines just shows the copier can't tell a good rifle from a clunky one and the stocker of the original probably could not either.

To comment or not depends on how blatant the errors might be in a particular gun and the context of the conversation.
If the darned thing has serious errors in line and you have neophyte builders asking questions about it is one supposed to fib and tell them that angular breaks a the end of the tang are "OK", that grossly out of shape lock panels are "artistic expression" when they are not and in reality make for a clunky, angular, ugly gun that needs a 1/8, 1/4" or even more wood taken off the correct it assuming its correctable at all?
Nose punching carries with it a great element of risk.

Dan

again my point Dan
 Was it meant to be a copy of something ?
 If its meant to be a copy  then I would agree with you 100%

 If its not a copy . Well then that’s where we get different lines  isn’t it .
 If everything was meant to be a copy then why doesn’t every gun look like a Beck , Derrick ……..

You miss my point. Why make a gun with broken lines and ugly angles and then expect that nobody will dare say this gun is screwed up?
As I may have mentioned before I have cut up stocks and burnt them that were better architecturally than some the the dismal guns I see here and on the blog that make me near gag and some of my compatriots do the same that some people here will post glowing congratulatory posts about. I am not talking about minor errors which can be tactfully explained by someone in a critique. I am talking about major malignant screwups where the maker lacked the determination to simply throw away the wood and start over or does not know its a mistake since its not cool to tell someone that this gun is screwed up. If we cannot tell someone, hopefully with tact and in private, that the gun has serious fundamental errors, no matter who made it, then we are not being fair to the art form we are trying to recreate and continue.
This goes beyond some school or style I do especially like or aged guns etc etc. Its the making of crappy looking guns that nobody will stand up and say this is crappy looking because it might hurt someone's feelings.

Dan

[bama]

As has been said there is no such thing as an exact copy of anything that is hand made. Even the hand that made it the first time could not exactly replicate it. There are those that have the capabilities to get close and more power to them. I personally think that the making of these close copies is important for the preservation of the longrifle history. I hope that there will always be someone who has the foresight to keep the rifles that we hold so dear in a safe and good home and taken great care of. A close or documentary copy is a great way to help preserve our heritage. 200 years from now these will be in the same spotlight as the originals we love today.

I have tried to make a bench copy - it is no easy task. I have an original patch box that I am trying to replicate. Even with it in hand I can not get it exact and this is just a patch box much less a whole rifle.

I hope that many more of what we call original rifles are closely copied because that is what the builders of these rifles were doing, they were copying styles that had been set by others many years before. I wonder if there was someone that was looking at their work and saying this is not how so and so did it?


I just hope to build a rifle someday that anyone thinks is worth coping.

[Cody Tetachuk]

I think some are missing Pete's point (or maybe it's me). I think the point is not that some copies are not EXACTLY like those they mean to duplicate, rather, why do people go to great lengths to make an "exact copy" but then incorporate OBVIOUS and glaring differences IE a totally different lock, butt plate, Trigger guard etc. Minor differences can be expected with hand made items but to copy a gun that has a fine english lock but use a stock siler for the copy just doesn't fly. Reminds me years ago a friend asked for my rum recipe. I spelled it out in detail for him. On his first batch, he complained that it wasn't as good as mine. I asked if he followed the recipe EXACTY, he said "yes.......well, I used different yeast 'cause the kind you specified was the wrong stuff.....and I used different sugar..but other wise......". To this day, he has never followed the recipe and has never produced a decent batch. But he keeps trying . Those that have suggested that the trouble is in the definition I believe hit the nail on the head. In my world, a copy is just that, a COPY, and as such has to be as close to the original as humanly possible. If you stuck a picture of your wife in a copier and the copy came out and she had a handlebar moustache, I doubt that you would show it to friends and say "this is my wife". If it was an exact copy of the original picture  but with slightly less definition (being a copy), it would be acceptable. Same goes when building ANY gun. Build 'just a flintlock' (fantasy gun if you like) and it can be whatever you like and it isn't wrong. Build to a specific school, and you have certain parameters that the gun must conform to. Build to a specific builder, and the parameters tighten more. Build a copy of a specific gun and you have NO leeway. It if you are unable or unwilling to make it as exact as humanly possible (even if it means making the lock from scratch), then it aint a copy, bench, documentary or otherwise, it's just a copy made to a specific maker, not a specific gun.

[oakridge]

Amen

[Fred]

I don't have the vast experience and knowledge of you gents I have only built one flinter and that was years ago, but at that time and the old geeser that was helping build it was a stickler for having the screws in line and he was plum serious about it. To this day that is the first thing I look for , I guess old habits die hard.

[bgf]

Build a copy of a specific gun and you have NO leeway. It if you are unable or unwilling to make it as exact as humanly possible (even if it means making the lock from scratch), then it aint a copy, bench, documentary or otherwise, it's just a copy made to a specific maker, not a specific gun.

That is what I think also.  If a builder cannot control his creative impulses enough to work to that goal, then he shouldn't pretend to make copies.  Minor quibbles aside, the Mansker copy was pretty close, I thought.  Also, the "Free Born" seems generally faithful, especially working from pictures.  On the other hand, the Allen rifle pretty much rewrote the book on the original's architecture.  I'm not criticizing the builder, as there may have been customer requirements, budget constraints, etc. and it may not have been commissioned as an exact copy, but it varied enough from the original that you couldn't see what the original looked like, in the side panels for example, where it is somewhat distinctive.  That is the point where I wonder what documentary value is left in a "copy".

Also, just for the record, to my untrained eye, all the guns were very nice -- I'm only talking about their relevance as copies.

[Don Getz]

This whole thread starts out with the word "trouble with copies".    That is where the "trouble" lies.  If one of our super
builders were to do a "bench copy" of a J. P. Beck, and we were to lay it on a table full of J. P. Beck rifles it would fit right
in, as a matter of fact it would probably be done better than the originals.   When they do a bench copy, the are builing a
gun that to most would be "almost" an exact copy.   If you didn't have that exact same gun that he copied laying next to
it, you would be hard pressed to tell it from an original.   What I am trying to say here is that there is no "trouble" in the
copies that are being done today, they are outstanding and in most cases better than the orignal...........Don

[smylee grouch]

Very well said Don: I cant find any thing to fault in the guns( so called copies) discused so far. I wouldnt turn any down for any of the , in MHO so called faults.     Gary

[Captchee]

 I would agree with everything said .
 But I also think we must fully understand what  was done as a copy and what wasn’t
 I agree with Cody that as we define a given set of parameters down . Then we should in theory get tighter and tighter  on the requirements
 I also agree with Dan that lines are important and should depict the given lines of  at least an existing historic example if a person is to call it a representation of X  .
 Basically it needs to fit   even if it’s a generic representation .
 If not then we should not call it a representation
However  is not that where it stops ?
 I would think so . For if it didn’t , we would not have the different schools  or for that mater differences within smiths from those school . Each who in some way varied their work from the strict guidelines  . After all isn’t that what made  their  pieces distinctly individual

 Case in point .
 One of the most atrocious  rifle I ever held turned out to be an original .
 This was back in the mid 1980’s .
 I was  in the Army and working on my off hours  at the  Museum of the infantry .

 One evening a  fella  came  in  to donate a  rifle to the museum
  I took down his information and  logged it in  for the  duty officer  and placed it in the vault
 It was a  percussion rifle and I would have bet money that it was  something that someone had at one time re stocked .
 It was flat ugly .  The   shape was near square . Nothing graceful or flowing  about it .
The forestock was heavy .  Literally to me it looked as if someone had drawn an outline on a board . Then  inlet everything .  If I could describe the butt plate  I would say that the best description  would be   brass channel  material . It was literally that square . The butt stock following that shape
 A few days later I get called in . I remember thinking , that’s it , im done for and was preparing for the chewing of a lifetime .
 However As I recall ,it was made by a man named Higgins  in approx 1828  . I was simply dumbfounded .
 From that day on , I learned that  what is , is . What may seem wrong to me  may not be so to someone else .  I did not build the piece and therefore it did not  fit what “I” felt  it should look like
 Guns , just like people  do not fit a given set of moulds.  Things are not allways set in stone . And as soon as we try to do that , something will come along and blow  what we have defined , completely out of the water .

 Now  again that being said . If someone says  ; I  copied  X rifle  exactly . Then it should be a copy .
 If a person is new  builder and says , I built this . Then IMO it should look like what they see  not  what we want to see .
 Now if the person ask for  opinions on how they can  do the next one better.
 Then that’s where we can  give honest information on what we feel needs to be corrected . They may or may not take that  information to hand .
  If they don’t  then  possibly they will at some time  become known  for their own   distinct  pieces .
Or they simply will not  continue  with much popularity  or  anything but localy known
 Some of us may not like them . But we don’t have to buy them do we
 kinda like a Union memeber who tell a non union worker ,; you have to do it this way .


 I wonder  how many of the old masters at one time or another ask  someone who may or may not have apprenticed  under them ; GOOD GOD MAN!!!!!! What are you thinking .

LMAO  I think possibly that may have happened more then we want to think .

 But  back to the subject at hand .
 IF these were described as  “Copies” then they should look like copies .
IF ,, however they were never intended or  described by the makers as being copies . Then we should not critique them as such

 be safe folks . have a good holiday .

[Shovelbuck]

If a person is new  builder and says , I built this . Then IMO it should look like what they see  not  what we want to see .

Thank you. Well put.