The Golden Mean

[jerrywh]

That Jean Berain cock doesn't look right to me. it's too fat on the bottom. If that fits the goldem mean
 leave me out.

[California Kid]

Jerry, I think you're right about that. The numbers seem like they were applied to a section on another part of the drawing, which is not visible in the post. I think it's too fat too.  Suzie will let us know.

[Dave B]

You guys are funny.
The cock is perfect for the lock it is intended for, circa 1680. The purpose of the illustration is so should a craftsman wish to recreate the pattern with out having the pattern book he could do it with the dividers. We take for granted our being able to go to the computer and print off what ever we want or modify it with a drawing program. Pattern books were guarded jealously and only the select few had access. If you teach some one how to fish he can feed him self. The dividers were a means to reproduce correctly those details that they thought were important. Sure its fat compaired to what we are used to seeing but you have to remember they valued having plump beauties at this time. You are not going to see any size two nudes in any of their art work. I like this time period for its generous proportions and busty models. I hope to give Tom a run for his money with my Jager project but I am having a problem getting a good model. But I digress.

 Obviously it is not to everyones taste but the plate clearly shows how the GM was used by one of the worlds best gunmakers.
Like it or not its a fact. Use calipers or not but those who feel that its a kick to see how the GM  is found in so many of the golden age rifles we all find attractive, have an inside track when building them. I know that it was not applied exclusively but there is no doubt that it was used in my estimation by the better smiths for portions of their work.

To say that the American Longrifle smiths didn't use the GM wether by caliper or calculation is just silly. They may not have named it as we call it today but statistically  the percentages of rifles with some of their details that fit perfectly the GM answers the question with out a doubt in my mind.

Now I just need to find a generous proportioned Model for my Jaeger cheek plate.
I think size 12 and up to 16 should do.

[Ohioan]

Dave, are you trying to get someone to volunteer their wife?  Mine's to skinny for your tastes, sorry.

I don't think Suzy will ever be able to change Jerry's mind, short of finding the diary of j.p beck saying "we all use the golden mean."

I'm going to try and find a copy of that book, just so I can add one more tool to my mental toolbox.  I don't think it can hurt.  Heck, it might even make me a better gunmaker.

I wonder, has anyone ever applied the golden mean to antique powder horns?

[J. Talbert]

overheard in a small an 18th century gunshop in (pick one - Pennsylvania, Virginia, N.C.)...

"Yaaa, I've seen a set of those dividers before, but I don't need 'em.  I know what looks good on a gun and what doesn't."

[HistoricalArmsMaker]

That Jean Berain cock doesn't look right to me. it's too fat on the bottom. If that fits the goldem mean
 leave me out.

Actually, it doesn't float my boat either, but its been a long time since I measured that drawing. If I remember right, it was layed out to proportion but not necessarily Golden Mean. Notice on dividers that there is a multitude of settings. And also, if I remember right, I think this plate was drawn around 1650 or so, and was a French designer of his idea of the new flint cock. That early stuff was one step past ugly ...oops...sorry.... but you ought to see the English locks at that same moment of time ....puke....oops sorry.... again! Actually this plate represents approximately the first attempts at their new round faced flint designs!
Susie

[jerrywh]

People have used dividers probably before recorded history. The simple fact that there are a set of dividers in the drawing doesn't mean he used the Golden means theory. From what I can observe ,the drawing does not illustrate the so called Golden means proportion.  I have proportional dividers but I don't use the so called golden means, proportion. They are usually used by most craftsmen and artists to simply enlarge or reduce a drawing or other object or in map reading. The hammer is still ugly. the top jaw is too short also.
  PS --Jean Berain wasn't a gun maker. He was an artist and designer. Many of his designs were never actually used in the making of real firearms , furniture or anything other than art.  The gun makers design book was just that [ a design book. Some of the designs were actually used but lots of them never were. At least there is no evidence to prove that they were.  Some of them are totally impractical fantasies.
  I personally think most of the colonial gunsmiths just used patterns for cutting out stocks. Most of us guys have patterns hanging around the shop. You can see them hanging on the walls in the engravings of old gunshops.

[Randy Hedden]

I wonder, has anyone ever applied the golden mean to antique powder horns?

Zach,

In an article for "The Book Of Buckskinning", volume II, Don Wright wrote about constructing powder horns. I don't remember if he actually mentioned the golden mean, but I believe he does talk about a 3:5 ratio between the body of the horn and the throat/spout part of the horn that results in pleasing architecture on powder horns.

However, if you look at any of the powder horn reference books it is easy to see that a lot of the horns pictured don't even come close to having been made with consideration for the golden mean ratio.

I don't believe I have ever seen another reference to the golden mean being used to construct powder horns. At least not in a primary source document. I might believe that the golden mean ratio could be applied to the building of powder horns because the ratio would only be applied once between the length of the body and the length of the throat/spout.

Randy Hedden

[Ohioan]

Randy, that was what I was thinking about.  It just kind of popped into my head when I saw my horn hanging on the wall.

the body looked to be about 3/5 of the length of the horn.

[rich pierce]

Dixon's powder horn judges expect Golden mean proportions.

This Golden Mean thing seems to be a hot button topic.  I think it's interesting and would like to learn how to apply it and give it a try.  But it is confusing to me because there seems to always be some way to make a good longrifle fit by mixing around what is a proportion of what.  

Example- some exceptional longrifles made by acknowledged "masters" are short-wristed (Oerter for example) and some are long-wristed (Bucks County rifles, Antes, some Lehigh guns).  Look at where the rear of the guard terminates in relation to the comb.  This is very fundamental.   Some adherents of the Golden Mean will find a way to make long and short-wristed rifles both fit the Golden Mean principles.  That really does not help much for the person trying to figure out, "How long should the comb be in relation to the length of the buttstock?"

[Ohioan]

It's funny, this thread has really got me looking for the "Golden Ratio" in everyday objects, and it's interesting the things that are at least close to the golden ratio.  If if it was not designed that way on purpose.

[Randy Hedden]

Dixon's powder horn judges expect Golden mean proportions.

Rich,

Along with some of the other judging criteria used at Dixons, I wonder how they arrived at using the golden mean when judging powder horns. Did they find some primary source document that stated that the golden mean proportion was used when constructing powder horns or is this another one of those judging criteria, like the depth of the patch box cavity, that they just pulled out of the air and applied?

Randy Hedden

www.harddogrifles.com

[rich pierce]

The critique of the horn I submitted 2 years ago stated the neck or spout end should be about 2/5 of the total length.  The horn I submitted started that way then the plug end cracked a little when I inserted the plug.  So I had to trim off 3/4 of an inch at the base plug end, and that made the neck end closer to half the length of the horn than I wanted.  Maybe 45%.

I'm not trying to start another Dixon's judging threads, but it does point out that at least some judges probably use Golden Mean "eyes" even on horns.  Bags and knives and hawks may be next.   It was a good, solid, strong, clean horn; it was nontypical of early horns (black striping lengthwise from the base to solid black at the tip) and a very fine gunmaker uses it now.  Course I had to give it to him for free to get him to use it. 

[Marty]

Do you have any idea how many cows the have to cull out to get one that will grow golden mean horns!!!

[hyltoto]

I read in National Geographic that a reciept for one of D. Boone's guns specified a barrel long enought he could blow down the barrel without looking down. They used this to estimate his height.

[Dave B]

Jerry, you are correct that Jean Berain didnt make guns but he decorated them. He was an engraver as well as a painter. His father was a master gunsmith. The layout of the cock infact does use the golden mean for portions of the layout. Not all of it only portions. I think the consensus is that it is good to know it and how to apply it but not necessary to use it for every thing only portions where it helps best.

[rich pierce]

Do you have any idea how many cows the have to cull out to get one that will grow golden mean horns!!!

I don't know about Golden Mean horns but we had some cows with mean horns.  Least they felt that way when they "hooked" ya.

[jerrywh]

  Saying that part of an object fits the golden means is a real desperate stretch in my opinion.
  Almost , part of, real close is like trying to screw a metric nut on to a standard American fine bolt. It just doesn't fit.  It's like the parachute that almsot opened. 

[HistoricalArmsMaker]

Example- some exceptional longrifles made by acknowledged "masters" are short-wristed (Oerter for example) and some are long-wristed (Bucks County rifles, Antes, some Lehigh guns).  Look at where the rear of the guard terminates in relation to the comb.  This is very fundamental.   Some adherents of the Golden Mean will find a way to make long and short-wristed rifles both fit the Golden Mean principles.  That really does not help much for the person trying to figure out, "How long should the comb be in relation to the length of the buttstock?"

Good catch Rich. You are at least looking for it! For the most part, I have found that once the maker knew the trigger pull of the customer he was building for, he then must have marked that length out on the blank. Once he had that, the nose of the comb falls at Mean proportion, or 3 to 4.854 from that pull spot to the end of the barrel. At least that where it usually is on the Lehigh and Bucks county rifles I have explored. If its a little off, I think that happens in the finishing. I have been doing this experimenting with my fiindings and the guns lay out very nicely on a blank.
Susie

[jerrywh]

Rich.
  Don't you know? It's usually a little off or almost exact or close but sometimes, and once in a while it fits part of it except for the other part. Then occasionally it fits real close. Almost exactly.

[T*O*F]

Once he had that, the nose of the comb falls at Mean proportion, or 3 to 4.854 from that pull spot to the end of the barrel.

So, explain a Bedford.

[Tim Crosby]

 An artist no matter the medium be it wood, metal, paint, ink, stone,etc...knows the look that makes the piece flow and it's parts and pieces work together. The proper proportions are in their mind and they have the ability to transfer them into a piece of art that is pleasing to the eye. The GM is like instinct shooting, some people need a front and rear sight to get things lined up and hit the target. Others don't need or use sights at all and not only hit the target but the bullseye every time.   

Tim C

[Jim Kibler]

Ask those gunbuilders that are considered to be tops in the field if they consciously apply golden mean.  Think you'll have your answer there.  Not trying to offend anyone, but to me it seems like something those less experienced are fascinated with and sometimes drawn to. 

[HistoricalArmsMaker]

Excellent post Tim! I agree.
I know lots of you think I'm too "in" to this GM thing. Like I keep saying, its art in the craft and was a tool to use to make it better. I don't think its in all guns because all makers weren't taught the use of it. But I do think, as I said very early in this thread, that European trained makers (and those who came here) did use it as an aid and a tool for layout. And I also think it became a lost art. I think I have a good eye, but I use it as a tool to make my guns even better. And, I know for a fact that Mark Silver, Jim Chambers and a whole host of other masters use it too. So, I figure to be in good company.
Susie

[Stophel]

Rich.
  Don't you know? It's usually a little off or almost exact or close but sometimes, and once in a while it fits part of it except for the other part. Then occasionally it fits real close. Almost exactly.

 

You know, I just looked at some of my old gun drawings and measured some things like where I put the top screw in the buttplate tang, the length of this, the length of that and such and you know, some of the things ended up being "close" to the celebrated 3:5 ratio!  Wow! I MUST have used 3:5 dividers, and was purposely building to the "golden mean" right?  Of course not.  I have NEVER measured anything out on my guns trying to get the magic ratio.  It just sometimes comes out that way because that often is the most attractive way to do it.

 Same thing with makers 200+ years ago.  "They got things really close to 3:5 a lot of times, they MUST have used the golden mean...right?", No, probably they got things close to 3:5 because they had a good eye!  THE WHOLE POINT of this ratio is that this division is what is considered to be naturally most pleasing to the eye.  Imagine that!  They could tell what looked good!  ANYONE with any kind of artistic ablity is going to be able to draw something out reasonably close to a 3:5 ratio, whether they are trying or not. 

The ratio is found in the art, art is not found in the ratio.