critiquing in general

[bob in the woods]

I figured I would try and express this without any particular brand or maker mentioned, and perhaps give one more attempt at expressing what is so difficult to put into words. [ at least for me ! ]
Putting things into a context that relates to what I do, ....excellent, even superb workmanship including decorative embellishments, does not necessarily translate into a "correct" period rifle, fowling piece, etc.
Folks sometimes get their backs up when an unfavorable remark is directed at what they consider to be a wonderful gun. Context is everything.   I built what I considered to be a decent 1770's longrifle, and everyone who saw and handled it at our club thought it was marvelous !   Problem is...fromwhat I've learned here  on this board, I now know that it is flawed...big time !   It is generic at best.  The fellow that bought it, thinks that it is great, it shoots and handles well for him.  He is happy, and I'm glad. There are a bunch of really nice rifles out there , but I want more than that. Without the blunt and fact based criticism I  see here on this board, I would be at a loss . I don't recall ever seeing a post that was mean spirited , so I'm not sure why feathers get ruffled    If I ever again ask for opinions on my work, I hope that someone like Mike Brooks will give it to me straight.  Otherwise, I'm doomed to mediocrity 
Thanks for listening/reading .

[54Bucks]

 A good subject. Unfortunately you closed the door when you suggested who could offer the proper criticism or determine if a gun/rifle is correct.
 From what I've seen, any criticism is highly subjective. And as you said context is an important factor needed to determine what a builders aim was.
 Seems to me most criticism is simply a result of someones preferences. Especially when some criticism completely lacks an attempt to be constructive.
 No one I've seen can clearly spell out what a "proper" or "correct" longrifle is. Just look thru the archives on the disagreements on judging. Such as Dixon's. Many don't agree with any judges or their criticism. But without a clearly defined baseline most criticism appears more like speculation based on a persons preferences, or loosely based on a specific original used as an example where the origin or history is unknown.

[Keb]

I use to do photo manipulating for money. I actually didn't do it for the money but for the fun of doing it. The money wasn't important. Anyway, there are web sites that have organized contests that are open to anyone with or without the ability to manipulate photos. The sites usually paid 3 places. I know, you are probably thinking, "Where is this going?" True to topic; critiquing and human nature is what this is about. It seemed a few people loved giving negative critiques whether they were needed or not (nit-picking) so other people could read the critiques and then hopefully vote less favorable which in turn made their entry better than it was by not having negative comments.
I'm not saying that is what happens on this site but egos are a funny thing. Some people want an honest critique and some just want their back patted.

[Mike Brooks]

I had a very intelligent response (for me) but bumble fingered it and lost it all..... Gotta go back to work now.

[Jim Kibler]

This is all largely a matter of perspective.  If evaluating guns based on the very best produced in the past or today, most shown on this board lack in some way.  Just how it is.  I know this is how I evaluate my own work.  Yes, you must be brutally honest with yourself.  With this said, many do not have an understanding what the best work past or present is.  Sure this can be somewhat subjective, but not entirely.  I guess in short, people on websites come from a variety of backgrounds and have a variety of expectations.  One person may be thrilled to make a rifle that looks decent to him and shoots well, while another might be trying to push his ability and results to the maximum.

[Stophel]

I think the members of this board have been real good at critiquing peoples' guns.  I've not seen too much, if any, jumping in, offering unsolicited scathing (or irrelevant) opinions.  I have seen that elsewhere...  If someone ASKS for critiques, that's when we all jump on him!     And I think that's the way to go.   Unless someone wants to hear your opinion, keep it to yourself. 

And one CAN be brutally honest, without being a jerk.  I think we've been doing pretty good with that.

[rich pierce]

A good subject. ...... No one I've seen can clearly spell out what a "proper" or "correct" longrifle is. Just look thru the archives on the disagreements on judging. Such as Dixon's. Many don't agree with any judges or their criticism. But without a clearly defined baseline most criticism appears more like speculation based on a persons preferences, or loosely based on a specific original used as an example where the origin or history is unknown.

It's important when presenting work to be clear about the goal.  Was it a bench copy?  Was it meant to represent a particular original builder's work, combining and expanding a little on elements he used?  Is it a "school" gun, say a "Lehigh" or "Lancaster" and from what period?  Did you attempt to replicate the quality of original work, or did you intend to use original work as the baseline and improve on it?

An example is a "black rifle" that Ian Pratt built, based on guns Wallace Gusler wrote about in a Muzzle Blasts article several years ago.  The original of particular interest to me is about a 1770's, walnut stocked, iron mounted rifle with an English lock and open guard.  I think that gun served as inspiration for one of Ian's builds.  I saw it on the blogspot then 2 or so years ago saw the rifle in person at CLA.  Very nicely done, Ian's rifle is 12 notches better than the original in almost every way. I loved it.  I also applaud and appreciate work done "in the manner" of typical originals.  For example the work done by the late David Dodds was evocative of original work. By and large he seemed to build rifles like the originals, not "improved Kentucky rifles" like Bivins or Mondarino, etc.  if we judge them all the same without knowing intent, one can assume there is greater virtuosity in one approach than another.  The vast majority can, but maybe not all "improved Kentucky rifle" builders can build a convincing rifle, where, unless I took wear and tear into consideration, it could be an original, or not.

Main point: knowing the intent makes it easier to evaluate the work.  

Next point: If I don't like Bedfords, I don't evaluate them and say, "stock is too bent, looks like a hockey stick!"  In other words, if you wish to critique, know the subject matter and don't think all rifles should look alike or have one specific architecture.  The advice, "Needs to see more originals" should be given as freely to those who critique as to those who build.

[bob in the woods]

54 Bucks-  I purposely mentioned Mr. Brooks as an example only because he was the only one who offered
a critical opinion on what I posted. The only one .  It was not favorable, but it helped me .  I don't think that
I've closed amy doors at all, but will refrain from referring to anyone specific from this point on since that too seems a bit contentious  
I do disagree that the process is entirely subjective. Opinions will vary , however, the basics of what makes for a Bucks county , or a Lehigh, or Lancaster etc etc are really not that variable  
example- I believe that I have probably seen literally a dozen "Lehigh's " that were an approximation at best. Top notch workmanship, and finishing etc, ...but" no cigar"  

[Stophel]

- I believe that I have probably seen literally a dozen "Lehigh's " that were an approximation at best. Top notch workmanship, and finishing etc, ...but" no cigar"  

   I believe I've seen way more than a dozen like that!!!

  

[Robby]

A critique on critiquing, cool!! Well said Rich, and the rest of you for that matter.
Robby

[Mike Brooks]

"improved Kentucky rifles" like Bivins or Mondarino, etc

BLASPHEMER!  

[bgf]

This is all largely a matter of perspective.  If evaluating guns based on the very best produced in the past or today, most shown on this board lack in some way.  Just how it is.  I know this is how I evaluate my own work.  Yes, you must be brutally honest with yourself.  With this said, many do not have an understanding what the best work past or present is.  Sure this can be somewhat subjective, but not entirely.  I guess in short, people on websites come from a variety of backgrounds and have a variety of expectations.  One person may be thrilled to make a rifle that looks decent to him and shoots well, while another might be trying to push his ability and results to the maximum.

"The best" is the sticking point.  Even if we agreed on stylistic points, there are a thousand ways to differ on implementation.  I must not have very good taste, because I would just as soon shop for dining room furniture as look at, e.g., a Bivins rifle -- both hold similar levels of interest to me, and have the same basic relationship to actual American Long Rifles (they are made of wood).  On the other hand, David Dodds' work always catches my eye, and are some of the very few I've actually mistaken for originals, and it holds up very well under inspection -- I can see the hand of a workman.  Applying contemporary standards to old forms always produces a dissonance and is one reason that a contemporary in a rack of originals normally stands out like a sore thumb from 100 feet away.  Sometimes rifles use that tension to produce art, but some just come off looking fake to me.  I cannot separate my interest in Am. long rifles from my interest in the historical and cultural milieu whence they come, and I feel no connection is made if a rifle departs too much the typical for that time/place.  In closing, for illustration (of my position, not necessarily THE TRUTH I think one of the best contemporaries I've seen lately was a Soddy-Daisy by Jack Duprey -- it was hard to tell even holding it when it came from, but to be honest, no one would confuse it with the work of Bivins.

[hanshi]

From my own - limited, I confess - reading/research on Pen-Ken rifles the one thing that has really gotten my attention is the variation even within counties.  This continues around county borders and over short time spans.  Individual builders, like painters, evolve over time as well.  Someone will say, for instance, that a rifle's wrist is too thick when a little searching will reveal a comparable rifle of the same period and place that HAS a thicker wrist than is (maybe) usually seen.  Rifles exist that can't conclusively be assigned to a "school", time period or location, much less a particular builder.  Guns weren't stamped out with a cookie cutter allowing individual expression to occur rather frequently.  Judgement of unsigned guns is very subjective in many cases.

When we consider that probably less than 1% of guns built still known to exist, my question is what about the other 99%?  Just because a rifle is built "generically and in the manner of" and not a copy (replica) of a particular gun dies not make it a - please excuse the euphemism - bastard or even a nice, good looking b______.  My point is that a thing that someone creates can rightfully be called what it is intended to represent.  I know I've been jumped on more than once by simply asking a question or posting a picture.  In general the pointing out of points of departure is fine by me and is occasionally enlightening.  But yes, these things too often degenerate into arguments that question the morality of the poster's mother.  This forum is not at all that bad even including the feud I got innocently caught up in a while back.  I have to say, however, that most (here) have been quite sincere and honest  and for that I am grateful.

[Mike Brooks]

I generally don't critique unless I find a ridiculous amount of praise heaped on a dog. The "TVM forum" has completely burnt me out on TVM guns so I'm some what hasty in my critique of their guns.
 I'm also quick in praise for good work too, so don't think I'm all bad. I could make a list of my favorite makers, but I'm sure most of you know who they are.

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Here are some things about critiquing that I have found useful........

The first question in preparing a critique is to ask yourself what your intent is in offering the critique? Is it a gift to the builder? Are you trying to push someone to change? Are you trying to puff yourself up?  Yeah... sometime we even need that..... can you admit that??

Second, share your opinion as just that, or the way you see it, or think it should be... Odds are you don't have the last word on the proper design and build of any rifle.... they seem to vary a lot............

Take into account the goal the builder had in mind as Rich said... bench copy, characteristic of a school, contemporary etc.  Now you can describe things that match your notion of the ideal or that vary from your notion of the ideal.... notice I said describe..it takes work to paint word pictures....( how confident are you that your notion of the ideal closely reflects reality--do you have real first hand knowledge?). ....  but if you really want to help the builder improve.... that is what it takes. Describe requires measurement and sensory grounded language..not judgmental abstraction..... This isn't the law.. its just what seems to work best if you want your feedback to be heard and valued by thoose receiving it..

You can also say what you personally like or don't like about the gun..its your opinion..just remember everyone is entitled to one...  This is where the intangibles and aesthetics come in.... but even here, the more descriptive you can be...or by showing another gun for comparison, you can be more helpful.

If you don't know a lot about the type of gun being shown you can always say so and then express your appreciation or dislike

Where there is a problem most of the time is not the content of criticism, rather it is the style and attitude with which it is delivered.... useful feedback should help the builder....

So that my thoughts, hope they might be helpful to someone......  And hey...it OK to have fun...........

Besides that, I love this site because there is so much to learn and so many here who are so much further  down the road than I.........

[Acer Saccharum]

I only give criticism if someone has posted in order to get feedback. "help with my rifle, please" or 'does this look OK to you?" are a couple of postings that will get me to talk about the work. This person is looking for advice. Give it to them, worded as thoughtfully as possible, while keeping in mind that criticism, even when asked for, can be a tough pill to swallow. I try to be as helpful as possible, and always polite. My intention is to help, not to hurt, and I always hope that will come through.

When someone posts their work saying 'Hey look at my latest", I will not touch that with a ten foot pole. They are not looking for criticism, only praise or kudos. That's OK, too. It's a free country. But I can't say, 'great job' when I don't feel it. Better to keep my mouth shut.

[greybeard]

I only give criticism if someone has posted in order to get feedback. "help with my rifle, please" or 'does this look OK to you?" are a couple of postings that will get me to talk about the work. This person is looking for advice. Give it to them, worded as thoughtfully as possible, while keeping in mind that criticism, even when asked for, can be a tough pill to swallow. I try to be as helpful as possible, and always polite. My intention is to help, not to hurt, and I always hope that will come through.

When someone posts their work saying 'Hey look at my latest", I will not touch that with a ten foot pole. They are not looking for criticism, only praise or kudos. That's OK, too. It's a free country. But I can't say, 'great job' when I don't feel it. Better to keep my mouth shut.

Spoken like a true gentleman.   Bob.

[Michael]

AMEN, Tom

[hanshi]

I suppose, then, that I'm just a "blue collar" gun person since I've never met a gun I didn't like....at least some.  I can't, for the life of me, NOT see something I like in any gun posted by its proud owner; there's always something I find that I like.  Right now I still don't know enough to truly critique any gun other than to say "I don't know; it just doesn't look 'right'".  That's about it.  I never critique unless a critique is asked for.  Nether do I mind a bit of constructive criticism just as long as the critic's not carrying a flaming torch.

It's my firm belief that no one should be criticized for their taste in guns.  Anyone who gets a new one should be ENCOURAGED for acquiring, exploring deeper and showing what they've snagged.  A gun is what it is and if it satisfies the owner it is perfect.  It's perfect in the sense that there's nothing else that the gun can really do.

I know full well that Mike Brooks (among others) does tend to jump a bit quickly on posts of certain guns.  But I also know he will just as quickly tell you if there are things he likes about them, as well.  It's all about being honest.

[b bogart]

I have been the recipent of some criticsim on a rifle I am trying to finish up. Some was generic, such as I don't think the lock panels look right. Well the lock panels were being made to look like the originals (I was trying anyhow). Others were right on the money and I made some modifications according to the input. I don't know that any input was what I would consider harsh. Some was to the point, with out any back patting etc. I perfer it that way. I consider it help, not an attack. At least one gentleman chimed in that with some of what I was doing was school consistent. He understood what was trying to be accomplished without injecting contemporary ideas into the gunIf a guy is going to build or acquire a rifle and present it as a certain age and/or school then he should be ready for input as to the details in keeping with the school. If the gun presented as a contemporary style gun, details that make an excellent contemporary gun should be pointed out. If you are just plain happy about getting a gun to shoot and it makes you happy, don't ask for comments just show that gun off and tell us you are glad you got it. If you need help with anything about the gun many here will give you good advice. Above all we should enjoy that we are all involved in the same avocation.
Sorry too long winded again!

[fdf]

Seems that asking for an evaluation of a rifle is like taking a test and having it graded by the Dean, you did well or you need to spend some time studying a bit more, seems simple.

Recently  there was a speaker at a high school graduation and the summation of his speech was,  "you are not special, just beause you received a soccer medal does not make you special" and if everyone recieved a medal,  medals would not mean anything.

Honest evaluations are what they are.  Asking Mike Brooks a question on a forum will get you the un-varnished truth, no more nor less.  Seems fair and simple.

fdf

[Acer Saccharum]

To Bruce's point: It's important to ask criticism from people who know what they are looking at. When you put your work out on the web for criticism, you're inviting comment from all over the universe.  You have to weed out the commentary for what's useful.

If you have school-specific questions, it is crucial to approach those who know that particular school.

This is why Dixon's Fair and other hands-on, in person events are so powerful. You can often get a builder to take a quick look at what you've done when he/she has a quiet moment.

[KLMoors]

I find it super helpful when the experienced folks  here offer advice/critique. Often, I will learn something about a detail I was unaware of when somebody critiques a gun. Other times, I will look at a picture and think "something isn't quite right with that detail" but I can't put my finger on it. Well, somebody comes along and explains what is out of whack and once again, I learn from it. So, for my own selfish reasons, I love the give and take!

To think that we have some of the best builders in the country regularly visiting this site, AND that they are willing to teach a whole planet full of strangers what they know, is really an amazing thing that I try not to take for granted.

[Dr. Tim-Boone]

Amen!!

[Robby]

Be brutal, brutally honest. It helps with understanding .
Robby