Well put, Bob, Mike and Jim. I know what I like, but cannot do an accurate evaluation or critique due to my lack of knowledge of the nuances, differences and subtleties in the schools and areas. I know roughly what a Lancaster is supposed to look like - late Bedford or even a Tennessee rifle, the more subtle differences (blatant differences to many of you), are beyond my observation skills. Still, I know what I like, I know the difference between clubby, slab-sided and properly proportioned. I am MOST fortunate in having Taylor for a brother, love his work, skill and patience, all of which are wayyyy beyond me & my abilities.
Many of us are learning as we look over guns made and critiqued on this and other sites - we also note when the 'better' makers don't post elaborate praise of the work, but offer constructive criticism (hopefully) to help those asking for it. I can well understand how it must grate the better makers and critique's when undeserved praise is humped/lumped/and seemingly smotheringly dumped on a piece, with each post attempting to outdo the previous praise - doesn't happen often but does happen. Such posts do not help the maker in the least - this I recognise, but along with 'instruction' should come praise for architecture or work that is done correctly, as most always happens - and we learn while not being discouraged.
I firmly believe if a gun is presented here, it is being offered up for critique - be it a 'custom' rifle or factory rifle. That puts Patagonia, TC, CVA, TVM, Jim Chambers, Taylor or whomever up for critique.
Bear with us, we're learning.
