After reading this article the other day I couldn't help myself from taking a moment and emailing the director of this museum and further inquiring about the facts surrounding his decision to exhibit this rifle along with the claims they are making surrounding it. I also stated my opinion as to its date of manufacture which would make those claims impossible.
I received this very nice reply back this afternoon and basically, the director is adamant that they have sufficient evidence to support their claims.
Please note his statement "At the moment, the evidence points to this being the double-barreled rifle that history says Tim Murphy used during the Revolutionary War."
I was wondering if someone would do this gentleman a favor by providing him with the appropriate information to get a better understanding of the truth of the matter? I know there are many very knowledgeable collectors, authors and gun builders who participate in this forum... would someone take a moment to shoot him an email and help him out?
Carle J. Kopecky, Director
Schoharie County Historical Society
Old Stone Fort Museum Complex
145 Fort Road, Schoharie, NY 12157
director@SchoharieHistory.netThe following is his correspondence to me:
Dear Mr. Clark:
I appreciate your interest in the Murphy rifle.
At the museum, I / we use a variety of methodologies to identify and date an artifact. They include the material and style of manufacture, any inscriptions or trademarks, verbal and written provenance, and corroborating research. The process is ongoing for this object as well as for the single-barrel rifle which accompanied it, and I have serious doubts about that one.
In the interest of getting the word out about this acquisition, we verified it as completely as possible in a reasonable time, and described it briefly. We did relate some of the previously-published history concerning Murphy and his double-barreled rifle, which is well-known. The initial identification of this rifle was based on documents that have accompanied the weapon for several generations. I referred to that documentation as an attribution, not as a fact. The existence of the rifle has been well-known for a long time, but being in private hands very few had actually seen it until now. Another source was a drawing of Murphy’s rifle done by the well-known artist Rufus Grider in the late 19th Century. You may be familiar with Grider’s drawings of powder horns. This specimen matches that drawing. So the association of that rifle with Murphy goes back at least that far.
Is it possible that the rifle was made in the early 19th Century and still belonged to Murphy? Yes. Timothy Murphy lived until 1818. Is it possible that the documents accompanying the rifle were faked at some point? Yes – the ledger sheet was probably not torn from a book, but is more likely a transcription. However, the provenance indicated by that ledger compares favorably with a 1911 history of Easton Pennsylvania gunsmiths. There are some possible discrepancies, so more detective work can certainly be done. One question which may never be answered to my satisfaction is how Murphy, a simple farmer/woodsman in 1776 could have afforded a £20 rifle!
A number of local experts have a similar opinion to yours, and a few do not. One must be careful not to use style alone for such early rifles, since there are too few examples to cite them as the exclusive style of that early period of American rifle-making. If you care to assist us, I would be particularly interested to see examples of any Golcher over-under rifles of the 19th century. We would also like follow the story of the Committee of Safety musket manufactory set up by John Golcher in Philadelphia, later moved to Lancaster when the British threatened Philadelphia. Is there a connection between Golcher, Isaac Worly of Easton, PA and Jacob Worly – his son? – of Lancaster? The former Worly shop in Lancaster is supposedly where the ledger sheet came from.
At the moment, the evidence points to this being the double-barreled rifle that history says Tim Murphy used during the Revolutionary War. With so much folklore about Murphy, and it is possible that some of the war stories were embellished by referring to a rifle he actually acquired later in life, and this was repeated by historians. It is even possible that the gun itself is an elaborate hoax, but if so it would have to have been perpetrated before Grider saw it in the late 1800s.
Our best judgment at this time is that this is the Murphy double-barreled rifle long known by Revolutionary War historians and enthusiasts, until proven otherwise. If and when that proof is obtained, we will revise the object description accordingly.
Sincerely,
Carle Kopecky
