Kettenburg Rifle

[don getz]

Has anyone checked out the "Kettenberg" rifle on the contemporary blog site?   When I say Kettenberg, I am assuming
that he made it.  It is not signed.  This rifle, in the wrong hands, could easily be passed off as an antique.  I am just curious as to what some of your thoughts are on this approach to gun building.........Don

[Dave B]

Don,
Who ever made it did an amaising job. I dont have a problem with some one making a piece to look old as long as they have marked it so one can tell that it is contemporrary. I was foolde by a rifle that I saw at the CLA show one year that was I believe a Dickert and went as far as having my picture taken with it. I was looking over the top flat which was signed J Dickert with the crossed arrow and tomahawk touch mark between and then further up the barrel here was the signature of Earl Lanning where you generallly wouldnt look for one!

I was at a gun show an saw a beautiful swivel breach french piece and wanted to take some pictures of it but the wife of the owner said no. I figured if I chatted them up and let them know I was a builder and liked to have details to make more authentic recreations they would be more receptive. I was wrong. They looked at me as a faker of antiques and told me as much. " I dont think very highly of what you have chosen as a past time". AS if it were my intent to fool people by my craft.
They must have been taken in by some one with a fake and were jaded by that.
I explained that I enjoy building, hunting and shooting my work and clearly sign and date them. The reply was" thats all fine and good but once out of your hands whats to keep some one from changing all that." If thats supose to keep me from doing what I love to do he is mistaken. I love Eric's Work, it is art of the highest form but if it is used by others to mislead buyers by removing his mark, shame on them. I don't think Eric should stop building in his perfected style because someone may make a spurious claim about his art and sell one for $150,000.

[Doug Cline]

I just saw Eric's rifle on the contemporary blog site, I agree with Dave, it should be marked so it's known as a contemporary rifle, as it would be easy to pass off as an original, at least from the pictures. If Eric signed this one people might wonder how old he really is  .The "used/old" look to gun building has been discussed before, and I think it's a matter of personal taste, some people really like the look. Personally I like a gun to look fairly new when built and age through use, if I buy a used rifle I expect it to look used, new to look new. I hope Eric will provide some information on this rifle.

Doug

[Dave B]

This raises the next question if its original what was done to it and what is still apart of the Original rifle?
I heard of a case where a collector had Bill Large do a re-rifling job on an original Hawken barrel and he stampped the barrel with his mark so folks would know that he had done work on the barrel. The collector was very up set about that but it is exactly what needed to be done to be ethical. It is held that any restoration work needs to be clearly indicated for future owners to know what is and is not original. Others have information glued to the inside lid of the patchbox on what was done.
I have heard of guys signing a barrel J P Beck  on the top flat but  signing on the bottom barrel flat their name and date all on a new made rifle made to look original. The one that Earl had done was the best contemporrary recreation of an old rifle I have ever seen.  He had some how got verdigries growing in and under the patch box lid and chipped out a chunk of wood at the toe plate and the wood look like it was broken in the fight for our independance all worn over at the break with more verdigries on the exposed butt plate . I wish we could have had it all on camera when we found his signature on the middle of the barrel. All of our jaws dropped in amaisement.

[T.C.Albert]

Very good point Dave...Its a very touchy subject , but I wonder why such a great piece of contemporary art could be judged by any collector to be worth less than a heavily restored "generic" type original any way?

It may be apples to oranges, but I think the House Brothers project rifle has that old time look too , and is already rumored to have a standing offer of $60,000 to the raffle winner? Its a hand made and "signed" contemporary rifle, which in this case makes it worth way more right? If Eric made that masterpiece in question, then its gotta be right up there with the best of the best contemporary pieces, and with his signature, in my humble opinion should be worth what the best of the best commands...
T.Albert

[richardn]

I have always liked Eric's work but do not care for the distressed (some would say "beatened up") styled pieces I have seen recently.  Notwithstanding the risk of somebody using these guns to fool unsuspecting collectors. I, like most people, would rather age the gun through good honest use. Some aging is fine - burnished barrels, mounts; judicious application of grease or dirt around carving, etc. But to remove wood from barrel channel rails, apply rust to the lock, dents and cracks etc. are not considered "adding value" in my opinion. Maybe a rabid, but well heeled (these guns aren't inexpensive) reenactor might appreciate this presentation. What's ironic is that some of Eric's artificial"wear points" would be eligible for restoration if it was an original piece.

I had a very nice doglock musket by Eric that was subsequently commissioned by another owner to be altered to look like it was carried through battle. Again the gun was beatened up. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, but I thought the gun lost appeal and value.

Again, I love Eric's work and count myself lucky if I owned one of his pieces - just not this aspect.

Richard Nicholas

[Mike Brooks]

Great work Eric! More power to ya man.
( Hey, I thought I was the one that had the market cornered with buttplate screws that far off center )

[JTR]

To me, everyone has the right to build what they want to build, but if something is made to look the part of an antique, I think it needs to be marked as such in a way that is not easily removed.

So far I haven’t seen any contemporary guns, that under close inspection, will pass for the real deal. The question is just how far will this phase of building go in the future.
Most of the give-aways to modern construction are the use of barrels with modern rifling, screws and bolts with modern standardized threads, modern locks, even though heavily disguised, etc. Of course all or any of this can be faked by using old parts, or with more inventive building techniques to make the deceit more believable.
The biggest difficulty in building a really good fake would be in aging the wood and finish to look the part. Antique wood and finish has a look about it that is really hard to replicate, and flat black rust-o-lium paint and a chain isn’t it. 

The problem I see with this trend is that once enough collectors are stung with these things, the only things they’ll buy are guns with known provenance or from a trusted source, and your products will get the reputation of nothing but fakes that need to be looked out for.

To me, guns aren’t the big deal yet,, but more the knifes and horns. Look on that blog site at all those items that are so artfully crafted to look antique, without a single mark to point to contemporary manufacture. What’s the point in this, other than to deceive? Aren’t you guys proud enough of your work to put your name on it?

I’m not saying that any of the makers are trying to push them as originals, but once out of their hands, the world is filled with unscrupulous guys that won’t hesitate for a second in claiming absolute originality. Doubt it, just check out e-bay.

My money is hard earned and when I put out a pile of $$$ for an original gun or knife or horn, I’d like to do it with a reasonable degree of assurance that the item is what I think it is, and not a cleverly disguised fake.

So build what you want, age it, beat it up to look the part, but be honest about it and mark it clearly in a way that can’t be obscured, unless you’re trying to sell it to a market other than the contemporary one.

I trust no one here is trying to do that, but it’s up to you as makers to be sure no one else does either.

John   
 

[Randy Hedden]

 When I say Kettenberg, I am assuming that he made it.  It is not signed.  This rifle, in the wrong hands, could easily be passed off as an antique.  I am just curious as to what some of your thoughts are on this approach to gun building.........Don

Don,

Do you have some knowledge of this rifle other than just the pictures on the blog? I don't see any place where it says that this rifle is unsigned? Maybe it is signed some place other than on the barrel?

Randy Hedden

www.harddogrifles.com

[Acer Saccharum]

I saw this rifle at Dixon's, and I have to say, it is an incredible piece of artistry. Very studied is the art of looking old, worn, used, as applied by Eric. I was not sure if this was an original or not.

Good point, Randy:
Is it unsigned? How do we know? Perhaps you should ask the builder.

I do believe works should be signed to avoid any confusion.

[Randy Hedden]

Good point, Randy:
Is it unsigned? How do we know? Perhaps you should ask the builder.

Tom,

That was my point, perhaps Erik signed it on the bottom flat or elsewhere and it is, indeed, actually a signed piece. So far, without further information, we might just all be assuming that it isn't signed. Someone needs to ask the builder to know for sure.

Randy Hedden

www.harddogrifles.com

[rich pierce]

Deja vu all over again- seems like we discussed this before extensively.  I guess I am guilty of being somewhat insensitive to the concerns of collectors because I don't collect.  I'd like to collect this one though.

Knowledgeable collectors know all about the history of well known pieces, and who restored them the first time, and who re-restored them the second time, and what work was done, when.  For the newbie, it is "buyer beware" all the time and knowledgable collectors rarely offer up any advice that might affect the sales value of a collectable piece. There doesn't seem to be as much concern for the plight of the neophyte collector.  They have to pay their dues, seems to be a common attitude sometimes.  Among the high dollar collectable pieces, there are very few that haven't had work done.  And on some, the extent of the work done is amazing.  A buttstock without lock or barrel has often been made into a complete longrifle for example.  There are guns that have had 2 or three barrels and have changed in length accordingly.  There does not seem to be a hard, fast line about when a gun is original and when it is not.  I guess it has to have an original buttstock to be considered an original. Or at least part of one.

I'd as soon collect this one, because I can appreciate the work that went into it.

[Acer Saccharum]

I'm with you, Rich , on several points. One, I've always wanted to own an EK, and this one is no exception.

Another point is that I never collected because I was never sure what was real and what was not. I am more educated about this now, but I am still poor .

Not only has EK studied long rifles with a passion like few others, a true scholar, he has studied and replicated the wear patterns and breaks so often found on an old relic. My hat's off to him in both of these regards. He has a masterful hand and eye.

[Ohioan]

I've been a student of history for all of my short 27 years.  I have experience with archaeology, political science, reenactments, teaching, woodwork, blacksmithing and recently, gun building.

I believe, it is our MORAL DUTY to sign, and date our pieces.  Even if they are not made to look like they have been through 200 years of service to this country.  Remember, our rifles may still be around in another 200 years. 

[don getz]

Randy.....No, I am not familiar with this gun.  I only saw it posted on the blog site....I do not know if it is signed or not,
could not see any name when enlarging the pictures.   It is a neat gun, and it does look old....has wood chipped out at
the right places, or where you think it probably would have happened, if it was old.  If you wanted to move something
like this, I would give it to some old local guy here to store in his attic for a year or two, then let him show it to the right
person at the right time, along with a story about his grandfather owning it.   Do you think it would fool a lot of people?
Don

[albert]

Is this the same rifle that is on his website? I am having trouble getting any pictures to come up on the blog site.

[Randy Hedden]

Randy.....No, I am not familiar with this gun.  I only saw it posted on the blog site....I do not know if it is signed or not,
could not see any name when enlarging the pictures.   It is a neat gun, and it does look old....has wood chipped out at
the right places, or where you think it probably would have happened, if it was old.  If you wanted to move something
like this, I would give it to some old local guy here to store in his attic for a year or two, then let him show it to the right
person at the right time, along with a story about his grandfather owning it.   Do you think it would fool a lot of people?
Don

Don,

EK has the antiquing of muzzle loaders down pat. I believe it might fool a lot of people, especially some less knowledgeable newer collectors, but guys who have been collecting for a long time would probably see through it. However, I just can't imagine Erik building such a rifle and not signing it someplace.

Randy Hedden

[Acer Saccharum]

This gun adds another level to the collecting of PA rifles. If you are a serious collector, and study these rifles, and it's you passion, and you stay current with the shows, and other collectors, this gun and its kind will not pose a problem to you. It's those collectors with a lot of money who depend on others for their information who might be getting burnt. Of course the newbies coming into collecting won't have a clue.

The message here I think is educate yourself. There is no excuse for except lack of knowledge. Yes, there is the trust issue, but how many people down through the ages have fallen for the old "trust me" line? It is far more to your advantage to learn about the guns before you buy, than to become disillusioned through a bad purchase, enabled through your own lack of knowledge.

I don't know what EK is up to, but I find yet again, this gun brings a smile to my face. Is he trying to fool us? Mess with us? Is he trying make fakes? Did he sign the gun?

Look at all the questions that come up around this piece. In a way, it makes us question our own reasons for collecting, and building, about the morals of sellers, and the responsibilities that we must take to protect ourselves and others.

Acer

[don getz]

How many of you remember the gun, I think it was a "Frederick Sell" that was sold at auction for over $100,000 about a
year ago.  Upon examination of the pictures, I think it was a consensus of opinion that it was a rather newly built gun,
just too many things wrong with it to attribute it to an original.  How much do you think this gun of Eric's would bring?
Don

[Collector]

Don, Interesting previous comment by Rich Pierce about whole 'original' longrifles being made up from nothing more than a buttstock, requires more exploration.  One of Shumways' RCA volumes had a photo of an orginal buttstock mated with a 'found' barrel, waiting for just such a restoration.  Lends itself to the speculation that this EK piece just could be a masterful restock of a collection of truly (genuine) 'original' parts (for the most part.)  In the instant case, what then, would we call it?   

[Eric Kettenburg]

I've been really busy and haven't had much time to interact here lately.  Of course I'm quite happy for the attention!   I'm a bit at a loss to offer anything of 'depth' to this discussion.  I'm sure we don't need to rehash the aged vs. new discussion.  There's buyers for both, afficionados for both and a place for both.  If you can't accept that then I guess I can't really say much else to you.  Regarding the signature issue:  to those who feel the need to monitor such things, ANYTHING I make is marked.  Sometimes not on top - sometimes I fake signatures too if someone requests and/or is paying for this.  Sometimes I make up signatures on the really heavily aged 'what if' guns, this being part of the literary aspect which I choose to inject into my own work.  Again, folks who aren't buying them can take it or leave it and maintain their own opinions.  Regarding the issue of pieces being passed off as originals or folling collectors:  fakery will always be with is.  I choose to exercise controlled fakery.  Someone down the road may choose to be unscrupulous and I can't control that.  Someone else could just as easily take a new gun and make a fake wth it.  Someone could just as easily file off a top-barrel signature, ream out the rifling, age the inside of the lock, break the forestock off, bust the wrist etc.  Neither I not any contemporary maker is an antique market policeman.  Am I making the shady dealer's job easier?  I don't think so:  all of these pieces, as I stated (at least those that I make), are marked somewhere and are well-documented via photos, internet etc.  If someone wants to make a fake and actually fool people for monetary gain, anyone with even a modicum of experience w/ old guns, a good eye and a decent hand can do it.  People, including 99% of folks who have deep enough pockets to buy such things, are easy to fool.  That's been my experience anyway.  It's also been my experience that 99% of the folks trading in antiques are willing to turn a blind eye to the extensive and sometimes obvious, sometimes not obvious "restoration" work which constantly is undertaken.  A large percentage of this "restoration" work really should be termed "imaginative improvement" let's not mince words.  It goes on every day, unmarked, undocumented, often by the same people who would rail against aged contemporary pieces.  Anyone care to offer a guess as to what percentage of so-called "collectors" are also extremely competant - in many cases spectacular - gunsmiths?  You can't even imagine and it sure isn't advertised.  Look I don't intend any of my comments to be mean-spirited, or snotty, or overtly dismissive for that matter.  I am aware of the concerns harbored by some in regards to extensively aged or 'fake' pieces.  I can only speak for myself and reassure any with such concerns that I am aware of the legal issues revolving around fraud and take great pains to ensure that I am not perpetrating it.  Nothing I make is EVER represented as a genuine antique.  What may someone choose to do with one of my rifles 200 years down the road?  I don't know.  There's enough concern to go around for this lifetime.

I would suggest that perhaps, if someone is chewing off their fingernails with concern over my or any other contemporary makers construction of 'fake' antiques, he/she may be well-served to set aside the purchasing of ratty old antiques, but rather, to invest with a contemporary maker of choice (preferably me... ) in the commission of a gleaming, shiny NEW rifle so as to better ensure that said contemporary maker is occupied in the construction of such and NOT engaged in idle fakery. 

BTW I love off-center screws, including those loose within my brain.

[James Rogers]

Well put Eric.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I should add that I feel that a recent trend which is contributing to the ease with which contemporary pieces can be passed off as antiques and/or the ease with which overly-aggressive 'restoration' (i.e., the aforementioned buttstock which miraculously re-manifests itself as intact, "original" flint etc.) is the now-common tendency for buyers to refuse to do ANYTHING to a purchased piece.  No cleaning in any way, no maintenance however light, and most importantly, no dismantling to ANY degree.  Would you want to drop 80K on a piece only to yank the lock or barrel and find something which knocks it's value back to 10K?  The best way to avoid the uncovering of any fishy business, in other words, is to avoid looking for it at all costs!  I can count something like 4 or 5 times now that someone has shown me this rifle or that and proclaimed it to be original flint when I know for a fact it has made repeated trips to a 'restorer' and has the same d*** custom lock on it as can be seen on - thus far to my count - a total of 9 disparate rifles.  Even the major auction houses have become extremely careful in their choice of words included in the descriptions - frankly, you are typically assured nothing more than that the piece up for auction is in fact a firearm and not a lamp.  I guess I'm ranting and I guess what I'm saying is that in comparison to the obviously-sanctioned wink-wink, nod-nod that goes on incessantly, and always will, aged contemporary pieces with good bores and perfectly-functioning locks (people are buying these to shoot as well as look at, after all...) should be very low on the list of concerns.

[famouseagle]

I remember reading about a British counterfeiter who drew phony banknotes by hand.  His work was so good that examples are worth much more than genuine originals.

[albert]

Eric,I think you hit the nail on the head,by the way,have you thought about the not too distant future when people will be trying to pass off their own work as being made by you? just a thoought