Bob Smalser's MB article thoughts

[Tom Currie]

I received my Muzzle Blasts today and read Bob Smalser's article with interest. While many points were discussed in a previous tread here over farmers owning firearms, one that wasn't was of the probability that Peter Neihardt apprenticed to Johannes Moll. Mr Smalser surmises this apprenticeship based on Moll's arrival in Northhampton, Neihardt's age and apparent poor future with his father and older brothers farming ahead of him. There is also a Moll/Neihardt marraige in later generations.

The only problem for me,  in my opinion, is the lack of design evidence of a master/apprentice relationship in the work of Moll and Neihardt. That is usually the first place we look for this relationship. I'd bet money that Herman Rupp apprenticed under Johannes Moll but I don't see that same connection with Neihardt's work.

I would be interested in others observations on this subject.

[JTR]

I remember him writing here that he didn't really care to actually study the rifles, so it's not surprising the lack of similarity didn't bother him with his assumption.

John

[Eric Kettenburg]

Anyone care to scan a copy of it and email it to me?

[Eric Kettenburg]

I can address the notion of Neihart being trained by Moll, although I can't address the remainder of the article as I don't have it.

"Trained?"  I would doubt it, although discussion of any relationship between the two men is speculation.

(1) Neihart was already 20-21 years old by the time Moll arrived in Allentown.
(2) Neihart was only once, prior to the Revolution, noted as anything other than a "yeoman."  A single 1767 assessment or township list (on file at HSP) noted him as a 'smith,' but in all other documents prior to the 1780s he was noted as a yeoman.
(3) His work does not look like the signed work of John Moll; I am not merely indicating decoration, as he (Neihart) had a VERY distinctive decorative style that is easily identifiable.  Architecturally, Neihart favored a longer and lower cheekpiece in his stocking which is very different than the typical high, short Moll/Oerter/Rupp style.

There are one or two later "Allentown" rifles which have been pictured in some texts ca. 1960s- 1980s and attributed to Neihart, although they are unsigned.  It is my *opinion,* based upon a long and focused study of NH County arms, that they were definitely not made by Peter Neihart.  I believe these old attributions have muddied the water a bit.  While he may have possibly adopted a more typical Moll/Rupp form of stocking later in the early Federal period (and I emphasize 'may have'), his earliest post-War i.e. 1780s-early 1790s era work is very distinctive and different than that of John Moll (who was dead by 1794) and Herman Rupp's dated 1793 rifle, so we are comparing very contemporary pieces.

[Tom Currie]

Eric, The article is on its way via your website email address

[Eric Kettenburg]

Thanks for the article Tom.  It's quite a nice article, very nice.  I may personally take issue with some of the speculative aspects of it, but then we're all entitled to our own speculations.  It's good to see some of the genealogy of the later generations mapped out in one place.

I must say I am quite surprised that there was no mention at all, nor any references to, this forum.

[spgordon]

I just posted a reply to Bob on the long thread above, but I'll repeat here that I just read the article--and it's pretty terrific! Bob's a good writer and he tells the story well; I'm persuaded that the Whitehall Massacre may have been an important catalyst to the relocation of Moll and so the start of the Moll/Newhart/Kuntz gunsmithing dynasty. Other parts of the article, which aren't even necessary to the main story, are much more dubious--and it's telling that as support for these parts Bob quotes only his own work.

It's equally telling that Bob's article does contain information that he obtained from this forum but fails to acknowledge where that information came from. Why the dubious parts of the article weren't revised in light of other information offered here--the extensive evidence of gun ownership among Northampton County's German farmers--is just bizarre. Bob's claim that "by all evidence [German immigrants] were slow to acquire" arms should have been caught by any good editor: "what evidence?" that editor should have asked. That would have been an interesting conversation.

[Bob Smalser]

As the magazine article is only a short (and heavily edited) spinoff of a larger work, you'll find most of the references you seek in the main work, which is downloadable here:

http://trees.ancestry.com/tree/16986857/person/1144477636/story/upload/meta?cacheid=64edcbb0-4bbd-450a-b457-c02cc05b0d6b&pg=32768&pgpl=pid&fc=

And if you don't have a subscription to ancestry, pm me your email address and I'll send you all 48 pages of it in Word 97.

[Bob Smalser]

I served the 1950-60's equivalence of a trade apprenticeship from age 12 to age 18, and I couldn't wait to be free of the shackles of my father and uncle to implement my own ideas.

Frankly, I think the notion that the apprentices' rifles have to closely match the masters' rifles is all wet.  Besides implementing one's own ideas, just like tradesmen do today they serviced their market.  The result may or may not look like the work the boss did 20 years ago.

But assuming y'all are correct, how do you explain the Jacob Kuntz rifles, which didn't look very much like either Moll's or Newhard's?  And there's no doubt at all in my mind that Kuntz was trained by Newhard, Moll or probably both, depending on workload.  

[JTR]

But assuming y'all are correct, how do you explain the Jacob Kuntz rifles, which didn't look very much like either Moll's or Newhard's?  

Thin ice here, as there are plenty of instances where the Master/Apprentice similarity of guns is very evident.
Bonewitz/Reedy/Fitchthorn for one, or the general similarity of Lancaster or Allentown rifles that lasted for at least six decades!

Perhaps you should consider the Kuntz/Moll/Newhard as an anomaly, instead of the norm.

John

[Bob Smalser]

Thin ice here, as there are plenty of instances where the Master/Apprentice similarity of guns is very evident.

And these aren’t?  Even the trigger guards and patchbox profiles match almost identically on the first two.





And how do you explain this?  A signed example by one of the above of entirely different style and workmanship? (except for the trigger guard, which could have been cast from the same mold as the three above, and perhaps was)

[JTR]

The bottom gun was made in the Philadelphia style, the three above weren't.
Different local, different style from the maker.

Lot's of makers changed their style depending on the area they were working in at the time.
Look at Peter White as he moved around...

John

[Bob Smalser]

Lot's of makers changed their style depending on the area they were working in at the time.

You mean Kuntz serviced his market, perhaps using a trigger guard casting he copied from one of his mentors.

Besides implementing one's own ideas, just like tradesmen do today they serviced their market.  The result may or may not look like the work the boss did 20 years ago.

But that doesn't address the obvious similarities between the Johannes Moll and Peter Newhard rifles in the top two photos.

[JTR]

Bob, If you want to just run it around in circles to try to make a point, be my guest. But I'm not going to chase your tail...

John

[rich pierce]

Several makers displayed a wide range of styles

[Bob Smalser]

But I'm not going to chase your tail...

Fine.  Hopefully someone else will address it.  Here’s another germane argument for you to chew on instead:

Has the collecting community been living in an echo chamber for so long it’s ignoring cultural constraints, religious and family connections and even historical context?  While important, weighing artifact attribution above those seems rather absurd to me.

Hence do y’all really, really believe that someone who lost aunts, uncles and cousins to Indian atrocities in their lifetime would fashion these decorations with a whimsical heart?



It’s especially interesting that among the three gunmakers addressed here, that single-barrel rifles had one Indian head, and double-barrel rifles had two.

[JTR]

No one really knows what that figure depicts.

I believe general consensus now is that could just as easily be Lady Liberty, and not an injun at all.
Take a look at some of the coins of the time for similar figures.

John

[Eric Kettenburg]

We are really delving into speculation here at this point. 

I do not believe the figure represents an Indian.  I believe it is something of a social or "club" (best way to put it, although I don't really mean club in the contemporary sense) symbol.  My opinion is that it is derivative of the War effort and probably originated with the group of men who worked at Allentown supplying/repairing arms for the War effort and later became something of a regional trademark among those working in the general vicinity (including over into Berks Co.).  I have seen maybe two or three that ARE clearly an indian, with what is clearly a feather, however I believe these busty women are something entirely different and a representation of the same spirit which shortly thereafter manifests upon the earliest US coinage.  I have yet to see a single example of these that could pre-date the Rev War; if it was somehow tied to the NH County situation in 1755-56 and later in 1763, I believe somewhere one would have turned up on an earlier piece (and there ARE pre-War pieces extant).  If one has, I have never seen it.

The rifles illustrated:  I have looked long and hard at Allentown rifles for a very long time.  I fortunately have been privy to a number which have never been photographed, and as yet are not photographed or published.  I believe the top rifle is John Moll II, not the elder Johannes.

I maintain that I do not believe Neihart was "trained" by Moll Sr. in any formal or near-formal way.  IF he was a gunsmith prior to the War - and there is absolutely no evidence that he was, although we are all free to speculate and in fact I think it possible that he may have stocked the "David Deshler" rifle - he certainly would have known Johannes and been familiar with what he was doing slightly down-river in Allentown.  However, I would maintain that the real pressure cooker, the real cauldron of all of these Northampton guys' amalgamation of style, was the close working quarters of the Allentown armories ca. 1777-1779.  Moll and Neihart - while there is no documentation to the effect - as well as others such as George Leyendecker, possibly Jacob Neihart etc. all very likely were working together and Moll being the eldest and probably (at that point) most established of the bunch was likely setting the example when it came time to actually restock anything.   

Moll's earliest signed work seems to be the progenitor of all of the later work that came after, so in that sense he may possibly be viewed as the "Master" but perhaps more within the parameters of regional trend-setter.

[spgordon]

Is Bob right that double-barreled rifles routinely have two of these figures and single-barreled rifles have one? Or do some single-barreled rifles have two figures and some double-barreled rifles have only one?

[heinz]

Eric, that was nicely put.  I am impressed by your argument both on the figure, and the concept of proximity as an influence on style in times of stressful output..

[Eric Kettenburg]

There are a couple of wender rifles (over under) that have two, each carved forward of the lock.  Of course there are two - it would look weird if it was carved or inlayed on one side and not on the other, wouldn;t it?

I think the "EB" rifle which is a single barrel has two, again, each carved forward of the lock - symetrical.

I sghould mention that the figures that clearly were Indians w/ feather were all eastern Berks Co. guns, one or two of them signed Peter Angstadt rifles.

[mkeen]

However, I would maintain that the real pressure cooker, the real cauldron of all of these Northampton guys' amalgamation of style, was the close working quarters of the Allentown armories ca. 1777-1779.  Moll and Neihart - while there is no documentation to the effect - as well as others such as George Leyendecker, possibly Jacob Neihart etc. all very likely were working together and Moll being the eldest and probably (at that point) most established of the bunch was likely setting the example when it came time to actually restock anything.   

Eric, I'm not familiar with the Northampton gunsmiths. When you mention the close working quarters of the Allentown armories are they in same building or the same street? Do you know how close their various gunshops are to one another or were they working together? It's amazing sometimes the close proximity of various gunshops.

Martin

[Eric Kettenburg]

Martin - I have a bit of an article involving the Allentown situation ca. 1777-1779 posted here:

http://www.erickettenburg.com/Site_2/Part_4.html

It has never been made entirely clear how many buildings were involved.  At least one, large "central" armory seems to have been erected as indicated by surviving letters from Ebenezer Cowell, however there are also surviving letters of John Tyler (who was sent up from Philadelphia as well) which might indicate more than one building.  Then of course, there is the issue of Johannes Moll:  he had already been established there as a gunsmith for 13-14 years when Philadelphia was evacuated and major operations were removed to Northampton Co., so the question of his involvement remains.  *Assuming* he was involved in gun work for the cause, one has to assume that he remained working in his own shop.  Tyler and Cowell noted 16 employees under their supervision; was Moll one of them?  Or, was he operating independently, or semi-independently, and did he have additional 'helpers' in his own shop?  These questions remain as I have not (yet) been able to find documentation to conclusively answer them.

[spgordon]

I know we're way off the topic of the title of this thread ... but:

The William Henry mentioned in that January 1, 1778 isn't William Henry of Lancaster: this is another William Henry who was city lieutenant of Philadelphia (note the phrase "other City Lieute'ts"--and that he's referred to as Colonel, which WH of Lancaster never was--and this was a title or rank that all City and County Lieutenants had).

I'm very interested in the shape these "factories" took during the Revolution. In an article coming out next month in PMHB, I argue that William Henry of Lancaster wasn't directly involved in arms production at all during the Revolution (or in the decade before): in fact, he was legally prohibited from producing arms as soon as he had an appointment as a continental procurement officer. He procured arms precisely as he procured shoes and flour and spontoons and hats: he purchased them from producers and made them available to troops. Long inventories of Henry's payments to gunmakers survive: from these lists, it seems that Dickert may have had a "factory" in Lancaster (as Samuel Sarjent supervised one in Carlisle that had at least nine men working there). It's clear from the Henry materials that he purchased guns from some gunsmiths who were working individually and some who were working in larger factory situations. (The exact same factory & non-factory situation obtained with shoe production, which he also fostered.)

Contrary to what has often been written, there was no Henry gun factory in the 1760s (which then "ramped up" for increased work during the war). Henry had left his gunsmithing activities behind entirely by 1760.

I should add that these contentions are my best attempt to make sense of the evidence--a lot of which is new for this article--but I'm very happy to hear differing opinions!

Scott

[Eric Kettenburg]

That's interesting!  And thanks for pointing that out - can be easily corrected, one of the vast benefits of internet publication...