Kettenburg Rifle

[Dphariss]

It is obvious from this thread and others on this subject that there are a lot of people with their heads in the sand concerning the misrepresentation of antiqued modern guns and accouterments.
But if someone tries to point this out they are threatened with expulsion for "accusing" people. BTDT
There are people out there making money off this right now but we must not mention it lest we ruffle someone's feathers.
An unsigned (even a makers name does not warrant that people will not be lied to about the article within weeks of its being sold by the maker) or undated "antiqued" rifle/horn/knife or teapot is a fake in my mind *no matter the makers motives or how he advertises it*. Its a free country I can call it what my experience has shown it to be.
In my experience few collectors have a conscience.
Building a gun from a collection of old parts is the SAME THING. It is not done to "rebuild an old rifle" its done to make money and defraud people.
Its done all the time with old Colts, Winchesters and such. If the parts are carefully chosen its undetectable if the gun is not lettered. Thus one can scrounge parts at gun shows and piece them together and make a shootable, salable rifle that is a fake. A "parts gun".

Dan

[rich pierce]

BY DEFINITION we strive to emulate originals.  Therefore:

ANYBODY'S WORK CAN BE PRESENTED AS A FAKE.  PERIOD.  Give me your fine longrifle and in 2 months of work either you or I could present it as an original here for all to admire.  I don't care if you signed and dated it.  So much the better!  Folks will be eager to try to figure out what that signature is!

To prevent this, let's all agree on the following rules for our longrifles:

1) We will always use the Large Siler and Small Siler locks, which everyone can recognize as modern-made (oops, I see them on many originals so maybe that won't help!). Still, there will be no use of locks patterned after specific originals.  Period.  Too much risk of faking.

2) We will all use A, B, C, or D weight swamped barrels exactly 38, 42, or 44" long (oops, i also see those C and D weight new barrels, nicely pitted at the breech and rounded at the corners on restored originals sometimes, so maybe that won't help either!).  OK, only straight-walled Douglas barrels will be allowed.  Swamped barrels are out as far as I can see.  Too close to the originals.

3) White Lightning touch-hole liners are required and you must use the bright ones.

4) We will give up the use of sand cast furniture, particularly anything Reeves has copied from any original.  Have one of his pieces?  You are faking, my friend!  Go with the new "yellow bronze" for everything. Go with the (dare I say?) awful Bivins buttplate, which resembles nothing original ever made.   Are you using anything from The Rifle Shoppe?  You need to confess and repent, my friend.  There is healing in these waters!

5) Nobody may hand-forge guards or buttplates for iron-mounted guns anymore.  Use standard cast steel, for heaven's sakes!  No riveting.  No brazing.  No welding. No copper whatever it is called joining in the forge ESPECIALLY.  Same for brass work.  No hand-forming of brass furniture or thimbles or whatever.  All pieces must be cast if they were originally made of sheet.  If they were originally cast, then they must be made of sheet.

6) For metal accoutrements, aluminum or stainless steel must be used.  Anything else will be considered a fake.  Horning is over.  Let's face it, nobody can mark a horn in a way that can't be obliterated easily.  The only solution is to make new plastic cow horns and impregnate them with steel powder.  They will be magnetic and we can all detect them.  Anyone caught using an actual cow horn will be considered a faker.

7) Bags must be made of naugahyde.  I don't care if there IS a "Save the Naugas" group out there that will protest.  I'll fight them off with my inline!  Cause that's where we're going with this line of reasoning.

[Acer Saccharum]

Well, now, this topic is warming up nicely.

So far it's really opinion. Whether it's a fake or a piece of contemporary Americana, depends where your point of view is. Opinion can't really be argued successfully, but  you sure can try. If you have the answer, please bring out the facts so we can decide what the truth is.

Until then, it's Americana for me. We are artists, and are free to practice our art in any form it takes. Anyone willing to deny me that freedom?

Acer

[Robby]

Acer, I'd be glad to answer that last question, but, it would involve the naming of dozens of polititions, moving the discussion into the realm of the dreaded non-postables.

[Acer Saccharum]

Robby, I'm talking about the longrifle, not politics.

Anything signed is out of the picture, in my opinion. It was never made with the intention of being passed off as an antique.

Objects not signed enter the gray area, where they could have been made to fool that buyer, or sold at a later date as antique by an unscrupulous dealer/collector.

In any event, if you collect, you MUST know your game. You have a responsibility to protect yourself. Knowledge is your best insurance. You can still get burnt, but you reduce your chances.

[Robby]

Acer, I to was referring to the art of longrifle building, specifically, your last question, "Anyone willing to deny me that freedom?".

[Acer Saccharum]

I am talking about people on the ALR, other builders and collectors, the KRA, the CLA, not the bigger political picture. As Rich suggested, are we wishing to create a rule book of building..."the Do's and Don'ts of the Longrifle" ? This might please some of us. We would make one kind of rifle, one that surely will offend no one. Think how easy it would be to make the kit. Never have to change the design once it's approved by the overseers.

[billd]

I may be misunderstanding this thread totally, probably am.  It seems to me someone is saying if a gun is made to look old and not visibly signed and then misrepresented by a second or third buyer it's the original builders fault for not identifying it as a 2008 creation.  Isn't that like the gun control people's claim that if Remington makes a sporting rifle, sells it to a hunter who sells it again to someone who kills with it Remington is responsible?

I say let Eric do what he's good at, he's making a living, keeping his customers happy and deceiving no one.  200 years from now someone will take one of his guns apart and find an EK somewhere.  Let them figure it out.

Just my 2 cents.

[JTR]

Fakes of all sorts have been made forever, and I don’t expect it to stop anytime soon.
As Acer points out, the best insurance against being had, is to be as familiar as possible with the subject of your interest, before you plop out your hard earned cash.
The rifle that started this thread is a non-issue, as EK has made it perfectly clear that anything he makes is signed, if not on top of the barrel, at least someplace. I don’t have a problem with that as he’s put his name on it and isn’t trying to fool anyone.
I’m certainly not going to suggest that any of you stifle you artistic license when building a gun, like Richs’ funny post of rules, as you’re free to make whatever moves you. All I asked back on page 1 was that you just sign it, like most all great artists do. Although I guess signing it might be considered an infringement of your rights in some way. 
I guess what really surprises me here is the somewhat less than favorable opinion some of you obviously have for those guys that enjoy collecting.
This surprises me because you all certainly seem to enjoy seeing pictures of guns posted by collectors on the forum. Certainly have no problem asking for more, or for pics of specific areas or measurements, and then post comments like collectors have no conscience, collectors/ restorers build up parts guns simply to pass them on as original and make a buck, or that you don’t really consider what collector think, etc.   
I’m just one guy with a small collection, but thought posting pictures might have been of some help to some of you. Thought I was being helpful when I took my Hawk Swivel Breech apart to take and send pictures to three separate guys that had asked. One grateful guy never even replied.
So much for goodwill.
John

[Eric Kettenburg]

JTR you make a good and frankly quite biting point.  I hope nothing that I have written has come across as an attempt to single anyone out.  I do not intend it that way and I'm certainly not directing anything towards anyone who has contributed here thus far.  Let me tell a little story and hopefully no one will fall asleep.  Right now, I like to make heavily aged guns.  I haven't always and maybe 6 months from now I'll be tired of it.  But for the moment I do.  This past August, following the CLA show wherein it is my understanding that a few of my aged pieces were displayed (I was not present), I received a small barrage of very derogatory and insulting email messages and two phone calls of like intent.  Essentially I was being accused of immorality, fraud, being a crook etc.  I was threatened with expulsion from the KRA (although I do not believe the individual making this threat was in any position to back it up).  I am very cursorily acquainted with a few of these individuals and have seen displays in Carlisle belonging to all.  What was most upsetting to me was the vehemence with which these individuals were attacking my credibility and my motives without knowing me or speaking to me in a sane manner.  What was also upsetting was the very evident - to me - hypocrisy involved:  I can speak with certainty when I say that the majority of these men own pieces which they have represented as being all-original 'untouched' flint  when in fact said pieces have undergone varying degrees and in some cases extremely heavy 'restoration' WHILE IN THEIR POSSESSION.  (That's the real kicker.)  Restoration of the type which adds boxes to arms which had none, or flintlocks to rifles which were originally built as percussion, or complete and fanciful replacement of missing hardware etc.  These 'collectors' are in no position to preach to me and it is the sour taste which this experience has left behind which has instigated any rant on my part.  I suppose anything negative I have directed towards any collector is basically directed at these individuals who may possibly be reading this.  I know there are a lot of good folks out there who do not tolerate such nonsense and I believe I have always been sure to thank those who have been courteous enough to share with me and further my research (which is where my real interest often lies).

[Collector]

I don't have any problem with longrifles like this one.  The skills required to do expert restoration work on virtually priceless firearms is rarely, if ever, publicized, but is certainly no secret.  This longrifle represents the best in a blend of the contemporary builder and restorers art.  
I submit that an entirely new 'school', in contemporary longrifle making, be established to recognize pieces such as these.  Perhaps Dixons' and the CLA could extend their current shows to provide for submissions to and publications of the products of this new 'school.'  
If I was paying the freight and this is what I commissioned a master builder to create, without opinion or interference, on my part, I'd be ecstatic with this longrifle.
This IS contemporary longrifle building... just on a very, very, very different level.  
[Kinda like Tiger Woods when he hit the golf scene.  Every one of his competitors was playing golf, just not on the same level as Woods.  It looked like he was playing a completely different game than everyone else was playing.]
We are all witnesses to a seriously different set of skills and art in this longrifle, that 99% of us typically would not come in contact with, in a lifetime.  Thank goodness for the Internet and this web site.
Fortunately, Eric (and others like him) will still build impressive longrifles that the 99% of us can afford and we'd be thrilled to death to own.
Further, I sayeth naught.            
      

[don getz]

Eric.....I have no idea of who in the KRA said that, but it doesn't surprise me.  After belonging to the KRA for quite a few
years, it didn't take too long to realize that almost all of the great guns are owned by very wealthy people, which makes
sense, they are the only ones that can afford them.  Many times wealth brings with it a certain haughtiness.  My son John was at the Baltimore gun show and saw a few guys looking at one of the real early guns, don't remember which one,
behind his table.  As John leaned over to get a better look, this gentlemand asked if he would like to see it better.  John
said "sure", he replied it's on page so and so of volume I of RCA.  Fortunately, most of them are not like that......Don

[Dave B]

I think that the important thing here is to make sure we take the time to apreciate the beauty of what has been done and accept it for what it is noting that it is not every ones cup of tea. I love Eric's work and some day may have the knack of making my work even one tenth as nice as he does I can die knowing I have arived.

JTR,  I think that I can speak for all of us that we are all very greatful to those of you that have shared details and photos of  guns from your collections. I had been starving for originals to study out here in our area and it has been a godsend to have the resource of you guys here at ALR that have been willing to share these pieces with us. I have been lucky enough over the last couple of years to find a few oringinals that could be picked up reasonably cheep so to improve my knowlege of what it takes to make a rifle "look right." If you still have copies of the Hawk swivel breach taken down I would like to see them. I don't know that I will ever get around to building a swivel but the mechanisims of these are intriquing to me.

I vote that we create a new school of gun making since we have the Woodbury school we need the Kettenburg school of GunMaking. The first class will be Phliosophy of Recreating the past 101.

[Dphariss]

JTR you make a good and frankly quite biting point.  I hope nothing that I have written has come across as an attempt to single anyone out.  I do not intend it that way and I'm certainly not directing anything towards anyone who has contributed here thus far.  Let me tell a little story and hopefully no one will fall asleep.  Right now, I like to make heavily aged guns.  I haven't always and maybe 6 months from now I'll be tired of it.  But for the moment I do.  This past August, following the CLA show wherein it is my understanding that a few of my aged pieces were displayed (I was not present), I received a small barrage of very derogatory and insulting email messages and two phone calls of like intent.  Essentially I was being accused of immorality, fraud, being a crook etc.  I was threatened with expulsion from the KRA (although I do not believe the individual making this threat was in any position to back it up).  I am very cursorily acquainted with a few of these individuals and have seen displays in Carlisle belonging to all.  What was most upsetting to me was the vehemence with which these individuals were attacking my credibility and my motives without knowing me or speaking to me in a sane manner.  What was also upsetting was the very evident - to me - hypocrisy involved:  I can speak with certainty when I say that the majority of these men own pieces which they have represented as being all-original 'untouched' flint  when in fact said pieces have undergone varying degrees and in some cases extremely heavy 'restoration' WHILE IN THEIR POSSESSION.  (That's the real kicker.)  Restoration of the type which adds boxes to arms which had none, or flintlocks to rifles which were originally built as percussion, or complete and fanciful replacement of missing hardware etc.  These 'collectors' are in no position to preach to me and it is the sour taste which this experience has left behind which has instigated any rant on my part.  I suppose anything negative I have directed towards any collector is basically directed at these individuals who may possibly be reading this.  I know there are a lot of good folks out there who do not tolerate such nonsense and I believe I have always been sure to thank those who have been courteous enough to share with me and further my research (which is where my real interest often lies).

This illustrates the problem. When people do run across good fakes they are not happy especially if it costs them money. When they see someone with the ability to do the work they make assumptions. Never mind they have no proof. Never mind they don't know the guy. They see the ability as the proof.

Why do some people think the ager is a faker? Because to be a good faker you must be an expert "ager".

This does not mean that you make fakes but it proves you have the ability, to some this is all that is needed as "proof". 
There is a some validity to this line of thinking. But to assume all "agers" are fakers makes no more sense than assuming all men are rapists but it can lead to suspicion, rumors and apparently crank e-mails etc. This is one reason why I dislike aged guns. It opens the maker to suspicion and in collectors circles suspicion is not good. It is unlikely that the people who vented their outrage will ever really trust you. This is likely their loss, but it does not really help you either.

PLEASE I am am NOT accusing anyone of making fakes. I hope SOMEONE here understands this. I do not know Eric but he is obviously likable, highly skilled and has done valuable research. I really like the online articles. But the story he relates above shows the downside of aging rifles and accouterments.

As you point out there is a fine line between restoration and fakery. It is one thing to replace a missing lock or a piece of broken stock wood. Boy this is a tough one too. Why replace the wood one might ask? The only reason is to increase the value. Is this reason enough to modify an original gun?

I think I have mentioned a Beck I know of that really needs the replacement lock replaced with something more suitable. This I can see, its in a museum and would display much better with a proper lock, but someplace in the process the brakes need to be applied.  Its a shame to see a nice rifle with no lock or a partially missing forend or missing inlays or the patchbox all or partly gone but where do we draw the line? Sure the owner is likely going to want the parts replaced. Unfortunately many surviving rifles were "fixed" long ago...  Boy were some fixed. There is a Dickert Contract rifle that someone years ago decided needed a real Dickert patchbox... Never mind its a Contract Rifle all he knew was it was a Dickert with the "wrong" patchbox.
Some work is valid restoration some is criminal fakery....

Dan

[rich pierce]

This has turned out to be a very good discussion and I dare say it could not be so anywhere else.  Argggggh, I have had to look in the mirror again and it's not a pretty sight some mornings, or lunchtimes, or bedtimes.  I used a very broad brush when talking about "collectors", strongly implying that creative restoration is common. That is "profiling" and I apologize. Just because I am not a high end collector (not a collector at all, really) is no excuse to not bother to look at things from their perspectives.  One of the great things about this forum is the passion with which we embrace the art of the longrifle, but it can run over sometimes. I get a laser focus on a topic and in my desire to make a strong argument, I fired up the torch.  After helping to fuel a fire that has run free, it doesn't help much for me to say, "Oops, sorry about that." 

I've had robust and helpful discussions offline with Dan who went out of his way to help me understand his viewpoints and his own experiences.  Even though I love a strong and public exchange, I am always especially moved when someone takes the time and effort to speak their heart to me, guy to guy.  Of course, I'll still try for a lively exchange!

Maybe this is one of the most important discussions we've had.  It certainly has me thinking.  We'd have nothing to go on without collectors.  What are some of our most precious resources? The books illustrating and describing originals, which all belong to and were preserved and made available to us by.... collectors.  And when collectors make the originals available for us to view up close and even handle, we're practically ready to swoon.  Time to publically appreciate that they have preserved the craft for us.

[Acer Saccharum]

Rich, Dan, JTR, Eric, Don, one thing that makes this discussion lively is that in the beginning, the dirt was flying. Now that the dust is beginning to settle, we've all had a look at each others point of view. I think this knowledge is helpful in furthering our respective interests. Personally, I am more aware of the deeper issues of collecting and restoration. There is a certain amount of misunderstanding that goes on when we get into a discussion like this. When the light of understanding and appreciation clicks on, why, it's a beautiful thing.

Dave B, I am in wholehearted agreement that this site is an unparalleled resource for photos and discussion of original guns. Please take heart, JTR, and keep sharing your pictures.

Acer

[Dphariss]

This aging, restoring, faking, "improving" is a VERY difficult subject, it is very easy when thinking about or discussing to meet oneself coming from the other direction.
I ran into this when considering wood repairs. Yes its nice to fix a broken forend or wrist on and original rifle. People like us like to fix stuff, I do anyway. However, when dealing with historical pieces the repair/restoration of the piece may be detrimental from the students perspective since it will be an interpretation, perhaps a very good one, but an interpretation of the original rifle. Now making an invisible or discrete repair to stop further deterioration is desirable.
Its a case by case thing. There is no hard fast, this is right and that is wrong answer.

But adding a spurious barrel and lock to a stock really gains nothing aside from someone's bank account. The importance of a piece like this is in the way the stock is shaped and carved adding parts does not make it better from the students or historical standpoint and probably makes it worse.
Improving is a horrid crime done simply from the stand point of greed or perhaps just ignorance.

Dan

[JTR]

No ruffled feather here, and everyone is certainly entitled to their own points of view.

Perhaps builders and collectors just look at the guns from different perspectives, but, we all enjoy the old things and that’s why we’re here.

Lot’s has been said concerning restorations, and a lot of it is true. I believe Dillon devoted a chapter in his book when he wrote it back in the 1920s. Or maybe Kindig in the 60s, or maybe both,,, ol brain is slipping here a bit.
Some of the work has been deceitful, that’s true, but a preponderance I like to think was done to help preserve the gun for future generations. Disregarding fraud as a motive, what to do, where to stop, what’s right or what’s wrong is a never ending discussion with few clear cut answers. 

The biggest problem with the old guns is that most are 175 to 225 years old, and there’s very few of them in untouched original condition. Most served a long hard life with many additions and deletions over the years, and finding a perfect example is going to be hard, and/or very expensive.

Some of the rifles mentioned here as being built up from a buttstock alone were done, at least in the view of the day, because the gun had significant merit. Maybe it was the earliest known signed and dated example, maybe the only one known by that maker, or maybe the best work of a prominent makers, etc, and in someone’s eyes had enough merit to warrant the work. I seriously doubt that any of these rifles have been offered, or sold as completely original examples.   

The other part that maybe some of you don’t realize, is that getting a top quality restoration done to some old gun isn’t taken lightly by most collectors, unless you have bags of money hanging from your belt. Adding on a piece of barrel and lengthening the forestock is going to cost you $1500/3000 depending on the gun and who does the job. Reconverting back to flint, including the barrel work, is going to set you back at least another $750 or more.

Is it worth it? That depends on the gun.
Is it right to do? That depends on your point of view.

Take the Dickert rifle I bought earlier this year. It was pictured here so many of you will remember it.

Would you rather have it hanging on your wall with the shortened barrel, missing piece of forearm and converted to percussion?
Or would you rather have it hanging on your wall as a restored piece, looking like Dickert intended it to be?

Think about it, and be honest with yoyrself.

By the way, for those that asked for pics of the Hawk swivel works, I’ll be happy to send them when I return home first part of next month.

John

[Dphariss]

JTR
Builders/students of the *craft* look at guns differently than a pure collector would.
So a stock to a builder is about as important as the whole rifle from one standpoint.
The pure collector/investor would see it differently.
Again restoration is different than "improving" like adding a "real" Dickert patchbox to one of his contract rifles for an example.
I would see putting a barrel in a stock as making it stronger and less liable to damage but really doing little otherwise, adding a lock does nothing for the serious student. But by doing this the gun becomes more valuable, more appropriate for display and less likely to be lost in some way. So now we have another side of the discussion. I think its a valid idea. The more the gun is worth, be it all original or an assembly, the better care it is likely to get in the long term.
A damaged or broken gun is different than one carefully and skillfully shortened during its service life.
Etc etc...

Dan

[flintriflesmith]

John Bivins, Wallace Gusler and I taught classes in "conservation and restoration" at Western Kentucky University as part of the NMLRA Seminar for several years. A big part of the class discussions were involved in the ethics issues.

We emphasized a "6 inches vs. 6 feet" rule. While the rule’s name is a gross simplification of a complex issue, we were saying that restoration needs to look good at normal viewing distances (6 feet or 2 feet or whatever) but that it should always be left so it is readily detectable under close examination (6 inches).

As an example of this rule, when John restored the barrel on the Eagle rifle (He did an article on the work for Rifle magazine.) to its full length he used stainless steel welding rod on the bottom three flats and marked his name and date quite boldly on the new section of barrel. Sure, it required taking the rifle apart to see the evidence, and it could be reversed by someone in the future, but I believe it is a good example of making an honest effort to prevent restoration from being passed off as original work.

We stopped teaching the class when we realized that the subject was too complex to be learned in a week long class and none of us was willing to turn students loose to work on original rifles with that limited amount of training. It takes years!

Gary

[Mike R]

  Some of you folks need to be careful about "dissing" collectors--without them you'd be hard put to sell many guns.  Correct me if I am wrong, but collectors are your main clients for the higher priced "art guns" are they not? I was born a collector but without the means .  I think most collectors either know or eventually learn that "buyer beware" is a rule of the game. It is up to the collector to know what he is doing, not the responsibility of the artist to educate him--short of outright fraud. I hope Eric keeps making his absolutely beautiful pieces--and others that do likewise.  The prices on originals have driven this "new" desire for aged new guns among collectors who admire the patina of original guns. Other collectors would be quite happy with a pristine Bill Shipman rifle [or name your favorite maker, there are so many good ones].  There is also a market for aged "common" guns among reenactors--ones meant for use and not put under glass. I prefer to age my own through use, but each to his own....

[ddeaton]

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. 

That would run the archaeologists out of a job if we started dating stuff!

[Collector]

In the builders own words, an extract from his publically accessible web site:

"In the tradition of nearly all assumed early rifles, I have opted not to overtly mark or sign the exterior of the rifle however it is very well-marked upon a number of interior surfaces."

The PC crowd already has a monopoly on the 'what if's.'



           

[flintman-tx]

There is a difference between a reproduction and a fake. It seems to me  that some guys like Eric make reproductions and SOME of the collectors and the guys in it for money turn them into fakes. I have some friends that are commercial flintknappers and everyone of them sell their stuff for what it is. What happens next is that SOME of the dealers who buy them sell them for real. Does this make the flintknappers or rifle builders immoral, dishonest etc., etc., etc.? Not in my opinion.

[flintman-tx]

There is a difference between a reproduction and a fake. It seems to me  that some guys like Eric make reproductions and SOME of the collectors and the guys in it for money turn them into fakes. I have some friends that are commercial flintknappers and everyone of them sell their stuff for what it is. What happens next is that SOME of the dealers who buy them sell them for real. Does this make the flintknappers or rifle builders immoral, dishonest etc., etc., etc.? Not in my opinion.