Layout lines left on the stock

[Bennypapa]

I've given up hope of finding this on my own after a couple of sessions searching previous posts but I remember seeing a post about an original flintlock that had traces of layout lines left on the stock. My memory is hazy but I seem to remember it being on this forum and it seems that the weapon had recently been purchased by a member and they were kind enough to share the photos.
This would have been in the last year or two and I believe it was a smooth bore made with various parts possibly reused from previous guns. Simple gun, nothing fancy.

If this rings a bell for anyone I'd like to see those pictures again if you could point me to the thread I'd appreciate it.
Thank you,
Ben

[Elnathan]

I remember that too. I think it was part of a discussion about the differences in level of finish detail on original work and many modern guns, the main question being whether modern makers should emulate the "workmanlike" finish found on most originals or try to create the best firearm possible even if the result was "too perfect" to be mistaken for original work.

I am pretty sure that the line in question was a scratch left by a marking awl or knife, and I think it was on a Lehigh by a famous maker (Jacob Kuntz?), and I think that it was posted by Acer Saccharum, but it has been a very long time.

[BGC]

Sorry guys, I realize I'm opening a Pandora's box here; but thought I'd share something that was shared with me a long time ago.
I was told by an old time collector many years ago that to find layout lines in a gunstock was probably done by a carpenter and the gun stock could have been re-stocked. That a gunsmith wouldn't leave such lines in the wood of a gunstock. I guess one needs to examine that stock in close detail to know for sure.

[PPatch]

Ben;

The only reference I can find for layout lines left on a work is one by Acer in 2008 but it concerns an 1825 wooden plane.

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=1714.0

dave

[Elnathan]

Found it. I was wrong on two counts: It was smshea, not Acer, and it was J. Roop (I probably confused him with Rupp, which Kindig expressly says not to do!).

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=7556.msg71590#msg71590

Definitely a layout line.


Addendum: I just reread the originial post on this thread, and it looks like I was thinking about an entirely different post! I'll go ahead and post this to prove that I am not completely crazy.

I found another reference to visible scribe lines on the comb: Eric Kettenburg's description of the Musician's rifle
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=3296.msg30974#msg30974

[PPatch]

Found it. I was wrong on two counts: It was smshea, not Acer, and it was J. Roop (I probably confused him with Rupp, which Kindig expressly says not to do!).

http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=7556.msg71590#msg71590

Definitely a layout line.


Addendum: I just reread the originial post on this thread, and it looks like I was thinking about an entirely different post! I'll go ahead and post this to prove that I am not completely crazy.

I found another reference to visible scribe lines on the comb: Eric Kettenburg's description of the Musician's rifle
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=3296.msg30974#msg30974

Great finds, good threads actually. Note that Ben had it mostly right but the thread's title was "Tool marks on original rifles" and, as he thought, began as our man Acer Tom's thread.

dave

[Elnathan]

Great finds, good threads actually. Note that Ben had it mostly right but the thread's title was "Tool marks on original rifles" and, as he thought, began as our man Acer Tom's thread.

dave

I am afraid that that was me, not Ben. Ben was looking for a different post altogether - one about a parts-built fowler that a member had acquired - and I saw the "visible layout lines" part and apparently skipped right over the rest of his post.

I have looked, but I can't find the thread Ben was asking about.

[Dphariss]

When we look at scribe lines in a gunstock I have to wonder if they were not overlooked until the rifle was stained and the smith then just said to heck with it and let it go. Did an apprentice mark it too deeply? I would catch this in the grain raising process. So I would ask was this a mistake? From MY standpoint it is and I would be compelled to fix it on a stock I was making.

Tool marks will usually show up like a sore thumb when the stock is stained. Would this look good to a customer? How smooth was the furniture of the time? Were ALL guns finished crudely or just some? If only some then we must assume its related to the determination of the stocker to make it "nice" or lack there of.
Varnish will cover some tool marks until its worn off. Especially if the stock is not stained but colored with the varnish.
We then must ask ourselves what level of workmanship would the customer accept?
These people were not buying rifles because of some fad or because they thought that crude was cool.

Me? I don't like wavy forends, I don't like barrels with bores off center at the muzzle. I don't like scratches and such. I consider them flaws just like sloppy inletting or beveled locks that have not had the lock panels lowered to properly expose the bevel.
But I don't make rifles for a living in competition with Leman or Henry either as some later smiths had to.
 
Dan

[Jim Kibler]

The key to this is trying to understand what a "mistake" is.  That is trying to understand what was acceptable workmanship in a given time period and place on a particular type of product.  It's pretty obvious, but what we view as a mistake might not necesarily have been the case in the period.  It's fine to finish guns very carefully.  I've done this myself, but I think it's also good to be aware of what is the case from an historical perspective.  When you become a little more open minded, some of these things initially viewed as "mistakes" can actually add to the appeal.  It pays to try to understand this point of view. 

[Dphariss]

The key to this is trying to understand what a "mistake" is.  That is trying to understand what was acceptable workmanship in a given time period and place on a particular type of product.  It's pretty obvious, but what we view as a mistake might not necesarily have been the case in the period.  It's fine to finish guns very carefully.  I've done this myself, but I think it's also good to be aware of what is the case from an historical perspective.  When you become a little more open minded, some of these things initially viewed as "mistakes" can actually add to the appeal.  It pays to try to understand this point of view. 

Sloppy work is sloppy work. I cannot see where tolerating poor workmanship improves the longrifle. Just because someone in the PAST may or may not have done poor work does not compel me to do poor quality work.
The appeal of crude work goes back to fads and what many see as "cool". It started with the Buckskinner wanting something "used" and has flowered as more and more people seem to think its "cool". Finish flaws on original guns can be explained in several ways. Lack of skill/determination, the clientele is so cheap or ignorant that better finishes are not required, laziness/apathy on the part of the stocker, there is a war on. It is one thing to make a crude gun and sell it for 700 or 1000 bucks. It is quite another to make a crude gun (that I would be afraid to shoot BTW) and then have it sell for 40000+ NOT because of the WORKMANSHIP but because it has a name on it and people think its "cool".
Forged barrels with the bore off center, inletting done poorly because the gun will be distressed anyway, carving is "worn" to the point that it may or may not have been well done before it was attacked to make it look "cool", is not quality gun work. Sorry but I spent too many years stocking guns that would not have been accepted with rough wood work, scratches and malformations if I did sloppy work I would have been out of work.
Accepting increasingly crude work as "OK" is a slippery slope that I have no intention of going down.
This reminds me of the "dog @#$%/!! with sticks" ceramic art seen in pottery magazines back when I was making functional pottery.  Its ugly and serves no function but if someone can convince people to think its cool then its OK and it will likely sell.
The longrifle is a piece of functional artwork. But I see on the WWW guns people here praise that I would saw the stock up and put in my wood stove rather than let someone see it I HAVE DONE THIS TO MY OWN WORK. But nobody wants to say the thing is butt ugly so they praise it instead. While its not polite to insult people it is not necessary to praise ugly guns or to recreate them.

Dan

[tallbear]

Dan
Just because you don’t appreciate rifles done in a “workman like” fashion or the “naïve style “ of the originals doesn’t mean that there aren’t those of us that can and do. There are many builders who both appreciate and enjoy making rifles that reflect the folk art nature of the originals defects and all,and there are many collectors who enjoy collecting them.You seem to equate those that like to recreate the look of the original rifles that we love so much or the ageing of rifles as  poor quality.One has nothing to do with the other.Sure there are poor quality guns out there but simply because it is aged or honestly reflects the folk art quality of the originals doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s of poor quality. You jump on this soapbox often,if it’s not your cup of tea that’s fine but don’t disparage those that enjoy recreating/collecting rifles that reflect the originals, warts and all.You build a fine rifle no doubt but you seem very petty when you whine about the fact that others are recognized for their work in a style you don’t appreciate.

Mitch Yates

[Dennis Glazener]

This reminds me of when I was a young telephone installer and was complaining to my Supervisor how so many customer's wanted me to mount telephone equipment/wiring differently than how the Bell System wanted me to do it. His reply was "If the cat wants buttermilk, let him have it"! if the customer wants fresh clean quality work he should get it. If the customer wishes to purchase "aged" work let him, after all its his money. Un-safe work is a different story and should never be allowed out of the shop.
Dennis

[Elnathan]

Sloppy work is sloppy work. I cannot see where tolerating poor workmanship improves the longrifle. Just because someone in the PAST may or may not have done poor work does not compel me to do poor quality work.

No one is saying you have to, Dan. Folks are just pointing out that the definition of "sloppy work" might be have been different in the past, and that even today people have different aesthetic standards and find different things appealing.  


"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

[Buck]

Dennis,
Well put.
Buck

[tallbear]

No one is condoning poor work.But simply because a rifle is aged or honestly represents the naive styleings of an original,this doesn't necessarily represent poor work.While I hate to bring any modern makers name into this, would anyone consider the work of Eric Kettenberg,Ian Pratt or Alan Martin and many others to be poor work because it was aged or you could see tool marks in the final product.I certainly wouldn't.Some of the most appealing carving I've seen on a modern longrifle was done by Wallace Gusler.It showed tool marks in all of the modeling of the carving but I would certainly not concider it sloppy.

Mitch

[Hefner]

Many contemporary builders offer rifles in the white for customers who either want to save few dollars or would like to try their hand at finishing their own rifle.  Could this have been an option for rifle buyers 200 years ago?  This might explain the occasional lower than expected quality from known gunsmiths.

[Dogshirt]

Sloppy work is sloppy work. I cannot see where tolerating poor workmanship improves the longrifle. Just because someone in the PAST may or may not have done poor work does not compel me to do poor quality work.

No one is saying you have to, Dan. Folks are just pointing out that the definition of "sloppy work" might be have been different in the past, and that even today people have different aesthetic standards and find different things appealing.  


"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

Exactly! I would no more carve on a rifle stock than on my hammer handle, but some seem to love it for some reason.

[Dphariss]

Sloppy work is sloppy work. I cannot see where tolerating poor workmanship improves the longrifle. Just because someone in the PAST may or may not have done poor work does not compel me to do poor quality work.

No one is saying you have to, Dan. Folks are just pointing out that the definition of "sloppy work" might be have been different in the past, and that even today people have different aesthetic standards and find different things appealing.  


"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

Exactly! I would no more carve on a rifle stock than on my hammer handle, but some seem to love it for some reason.

Perhaps because its historically correct for rifle stocks and is actually required for most 18th c rifles, but not so much for hammer handles.

Dan

[Dphariss]

Sloppy work is sloppy work. I cannot see where tolerating poor workmanship improves the longrifle. Just because someone in the PAST may or may not have done poor work does not compel me to do poor quality work.

No one is saying you have to, Dan. Folks are just pointing out that the definition of "sloppy work" might be have been different in the past, and that even today people have different aesthetic standards and find different things appealing.  


"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

I have seen patchbox cavities on 18c rifles that have smoother wood finish than the OUTSIDE of some guns people here insist on going ga-ga over.
Its not so much the quality of work that gets applause here but WHO DOES IT. Or people can't SEE quality work as any different than mediocre.
The right people can post photos of any (crude wording deleted by moderator)  they can hack together and get applause. From accounts of people with considerable experience there Dixon's is the same way. Its not what you DO its WHO does it.
We had a comment about safety in the thread. But most people here can't tell safe from unsafe unless someone points to it and says "this is not safe". This is WORKMANSHIP not materials. But people dare not say that something is improperly done HERE since the people doing are among the "favored ones". But its talked of when makers who KNOW meet face to face or have personal conversations.
Based on my experience and that of some others there are MANY rifles and fowlers out there with flawed breeching. But I bet that the people who made them either did not debreech to check OR they did and figure is OK because xxxx did it. So the guns are marginal in the LONG TERM and potentially unreliable in the short. Can't say anything though.... If I do the people that do the poor breeching will tell me my way of doing things is too time consuming and unnecessary. Heh heh heh!
So I say as much as I figure I can get away with without getting banned or catching too much heat.
No this is not what I REALLY think.
Dan

[Dogshirt]

Sloppy work is sloppy work. I cannot see where tolerating poor workmanship improves the longrifle. Just because someone in the PAST may or may not have done poor work does not compel me to do poor quality work.

No one is saying you have to, Dan. Folks are just pointing out that the definition of "sloppy work" might be have been different in the past, and that even today people have different aesthetic standards and find different things appealing.  


"The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there."

Exactly! I would no more carve on a rifle stock than on my hammer handle, but some seem to love it for some reason.

Perhaps because its historically correct for rifle stocks and is actually required for most 18th c rifles, but not so much for hammer handles.

Dan

Which is just one point on a long list of things I dislike about 18th C rifles.

[axelp]

Folk art can be far more difficult to duplicate and make believable than highly refined work. There is a natural whimsy and honest simplicity that is almost impossible to duplicate, where the refined stuff is highly structured and certain rules are consistently applied to it and we can know these rules. There are no rules to folk art. It is often random and whimsical and usually involves an "intimate context" of the people and the time--its one of a kind. I appreciate the skill of a painter that can paint photographically, but as far as humanity and passion? other techniques express that better.

Just try and duplicate a child's drawing sometime. You think it might be easy but its almost impossible. Our attempts are almost always stiff and awkward and obviously contrived compared to the real deal... I can relate it to the difference between real honest patina involving time and history? and imitation aging.

I am someone who prefers folk art to the highly refined stuff. When I run my eyes and hands across a work, I like to think I can almost feel the heartbeat of the guy who made it. Folk art is exactly that. Often the refined work does not have a heartbeat--- to me at least. Folk art is HARD to duplicate.

K

[Jim Kibler]

First, from a safety and functionality perspective, there is no excuse for poor workmanship.  This really isn't the crux of the debate, however. What's being questioned are the merits of different aesthetic approaches.  

A second point I don't think can be debated...  Levels of finish and how fine work was completed in the period depended on many factors including where it was produced, when it was produced, the skill of the builder, the perceived value of the object etc.  It follows that there were different standards or workmanshiop (fit, finish) during the time in question. For example a Twigg fowler was finished different than an English trade gun, or a John Armstrong rifle, was generally finished to a different degree than an Appalachian mountain rifle.  I'm not refering to mistakes, but a commonly accepted level of finish given the above criterea.  So if approaching building today, from a purely historical perspective, a variety of finish levels would be appropriate depending on the project.  In fact, I would say that given this approach, overfinishing a gun today, may make it less representative of what is being emulated.  The opposite could be true as well.

Putting saftey, functionality and historical correctness aside, it comes down to aesthetics and what people find appealing.  This is a purely subjective decision.  To say that individuals are wrong for having certain likes makes no sense at all.  There is no right or wrong.  This is a slippery slope and it's not uncommon for some who might be on the outside to attack the commonly held beliefs of what is valuable or has merit.  Not a good tact to take in my view.

If people disagree with this assesment, that's fine, but please try to addres what about my above arguement is not valid.  These sorts of discussions can explode into tirades, but oftentimes little is really said.

Jim  

[Buck]

Jim,
I cannot speak for Mr. Phariss, but there is an element (at times) where it appears that if a certain individual posseses or fabricates an item it is held in high regard, and when a comparable or better item is held by another it is inferior. It happens here often, I have experienced it many times. It also appears that if you speek your mind you are disregarded immediately. I have posted opinions many times to see the thread die immediately after, or not even get recognized or corrected. It becomes disapointing, so I can understand Dan's sentiments. I could put it in true midwest fashion, but I am sure it would offend most here.
Buck    

[Jim Kibler]

Sounds like a case of sour grapes.  My experience is that if you try hard, make something with merit, study original work carefully, share thoughts, etc. while treating people with at least a little respect the positive response is overwhelming.  Although not everyone is extremely knowledgeable, I think this commumunity of people is kind and they generally mean well.  It's easy to just blame others, but I'm not sure that's too wise.

[Buck]

Jim,
No sour grapes or finger pointing, only an observation of the truth. Thank you for the encouraging words.
Buck