Howdy Professor - I actually believe that I am in the minority in accepting the scratched-on date at face value. I believe most who are familiar with the rifle believe it *might* be spurious. My alternative take - given that it has been in a single family for a very, very long time, I first would ask, "Why?" Why add a spurious date to it, when there were no attempts to sell the rifle? Quite the contrary, they seem to have been quite protective of it. Second, while there were many spurious names/dates added to a number of New England arms as well as PA rifles early in the 20th century, they generally tended to be very spectacular additions: the 1746 Matthias Roesser rifle comes to mind (which it OBVIOUSLY is not). This marking, on the other hand, *seems* to fit the same period as what most would assume to be the decade or near-decade of the rifle's manufacture (i.e. 1740s-1750s) and seems very similar to many other such secondary markings i.e. owner markings; most if not all of the early 20th century fakes were spectacular in nature (See above) and generally included names and or dates upon the barrel. This marking is much more subtle and seemingly would serve no useful purpose - it doesn't ADD to the value of the rifle. In fact, most do not realize the history of northern NJ during the F/I War nor even realize that there were settlers there and blockhouses being constructed, as well as later Moravian activity there (Hope, NJ). There were strong connections between SE PA and northern NJ through the road running from Lancaster up through Berks and NH county, and to the ferry at Easton. So, short of evidence to NOT accept the marking at face value, I would personally tend to cautiously view it as authentic. Otherwise, I would ask: why NJ? Maybe it was a later owner's initials - I really don't know. The fact that the rifle was at one point used with sling hangers would tend to at lease hint at possible martial service. JMHO.
