18th century barrel stamps

[James Rogers]

I will use the ancient proof marks but I only will use my own maker mark. It looks like an original but none has been found to date that is exactly like mine and it was designed that way. My guns are also named and dated under the barrel. I dont have a problem with someone recutting in a cast maker name but I personally would put my own on there. I also dont have a problem with those who do not want to add these features to their guns as long as they dont get up my nose. That is my personal take on it.

[hammer]

Flintfan, in the UK a proof does not have a time limit.  So an 18th century proof is still valid today.   Except where a firearm has gone 'out of proof'.  That might be because the bore has become too worn or there is a defective breech.  You get the picture?
Proof is a serious thing in every country except the USA.  US manufactured arms (that have no proof) may not be legally resold in the UK or, I would expect, any other country without first being proved in that country.   A modern copy with copy proofs would be illegal to sell in the UK.   But might suggest to an innocent purchaser that it had been properly proved .......    Government proof is there for a good reason.
We all have our own opinions on the subject of  copy proofs or identification stamps.   If the maker doesn't intend to defraud you can bet a future owner will, even if by ignorance.   I would be more content if there was a deeply engraved legend somewhere visible on the barrel that explained it was a modern copy.   To my mind that is honourable and also recognises the ability of the maker for posterity.  A win, win.

[Clark Badgett]

Flintfan, in the UK a proof does not have a time limit.  So an 18th century proof is still valid today.   Except where a firearm has gone 'out of proof'.  That might be because the bore has become too worn or there is a defective breech.  You get the picture?
Proof is a serious thing in every country except the USA.  US manufactured arms (that have no proof) may not be legally resold in the UK or, I would expect, any other country without first being proved in that country.   A modern copy with copy proofs would be illegal to sell in the UK.   But might suggest to an innocent purchaser that it had been properly proved .......    Government proof is there for a good reason.
We all have our own opinions on the subject of  copy proofs or identification stamps.   If the maker doesn't intend to defraud you can bet a future owner will, even if by ignorance.   I would be more content if there was a deeply engraved legend somewhere visible on the barrel that explained it was a modern copy.   To my mind that is honourable and also recognises the ability of the maker for posterity.  A win, win.

Not exactly true. Many American made firearms are proofed, some are even marked. ALL military rifles are proofed in more than one method, HP, MPI etc.

[Dphariss]

John
So in my quest to build a believable interpretation of a British Gun I can ;

Pull rubber molds off an original to have correct hardware.

Purchase the proper wood.

Study the architechture, carving  and engraving of the original using the same tools and techniques right down to the tool cuts.

Make my own stain and varnish using original recipes

But if I stamp a couple of 200 year old proof marks in my Getz barrel or engrave Ketland on my Chambers  lock  I have crossed the line and am now unethical???

Mitch

Then there is the question; "Why do you need someone else's  name on YOUR work?"

Dan

[tallbear]

"Why do you need someone else's  name on YOUR work?"

My name or touchmark is Always on my work  

[Dphariss]

"Why do you need someone else's  name on YOUR work?"

My name or touchmark is Always on my work  

So you make the gun "more believable" by using fake stamps. But then you mark it with something to make it "unbelievable".
So tell me again the logic for using the counterfeit stamps in the first place.

Dan

[tallbear]

I find this a fascinating discussion(maybe just  because I’m polishing my lock and metal furniture for a gun and my mind wanders)and it brings up many questions to my mind.

First let me say that all this discussion assumes that the modern makers name or touch mark is on the gun in question .Whether a new gun or a restoration the original maker has no control after it leaves his shop.

If I recut a makers’ name cast into a lock is this fakery or unethical. Almost every lock the Rifle Shoppe catalogue(and many other makers as well) offers has a makers name cast in.How many modern trade guns out there have a circle fox or Tulle cut in the side.How can you have a Bess lock without a crown and makers name,is it still a Bess lock without them?? Is it only fakery if I have to skill to pull of a belivable interpretation of the original as a whole?(No one would mistake an Indian Brown Bess or many other marketed recreations as an original )

Is it only  fakery or unethical to cut a original makers name in a lock with no cast in engraving?

If I want to build a bench copy of WV gun in my collection that sports a Maslin lock shouldn’t  my bench copy say Maslin on the lock?If I am restoring my original WV gun back to flint and it had a Maslin lock and I make a new plate should’nt it say Maslin on the lock??

If I am asked to make a British Fowler or a Bess for a reenactor should it not have proof marks of some sort.If I make a British fowler with out proofmarks of some kind have I not just make an American Fowler in the British style.

Is “fakery” unethical I mean after all isn’t “fakery” what we are all doing to one degree or another??

In my mind all a very interesting discussion.


Back to my polishing.

Mitch

[FlintFan]

So tell me again the logic for using the counterfeit stamps in the first place.

Dan

Because the gun looks naked, and incomplete without them.  Kind of like a beautiful woman wearing a tube top with no support underneath...oh wait...maybe that isn't the best example...

[Feltwad]

Maurice Taylor IIRC.
I have him on video talking about something. A riot. I tried to locate him some gears ago for stampsb but nobody knew his location.

An old friend of mine have not heard of him for many years ,I understand that he  married and has a family and living in Australia or was it New Zealand
Feltwad

[Jim Kibler]

On the John Harman style fowling piece I built, I chose not to put proof stamps on it.  Not since I have strong feelings about it one way or the other, but just didn't feel it was absolutely necessary and it would have been more work too.  I don't completely "get" why some have such strong feelings about this.  If someone wants to use these, I say cool.  If not, that's cool too.  In my mind, fakery has everything to do with intent.  There's absolutely no intent to deceive here.  In fact, in my view, there are @!*% few guns that have been made in modern times that could deceive even someone with a little bit of knowledge.  And in the case of these very small number of guns, a proof mark isn't going to make any significant difference in the assessment.  This whole concern about fakery is WAY overblown in my view.  Restoration and work done on a gun is another matter and certainly the one to be concerned with in my opinion.

[Darrin McDonal]

Thats the correct word here Jim, intent. There is no intent to produce "fakery", My name goes on every gun I build and  I DONT file off the makers name from the bottom. I dont try to pass it off as an original, just a likeness. Some folks want to carry a piece in the woods with them ( and their persona)  that is as close to authentic
 as they can get. There is no false intent with it.
Have you ever copied an original engraving as closely as you possibly could? No different.
Darrin

[mr. no gold]

And what of these modern built 'old style' properly proofed guns in a few score years, (or fewer), down the road when they have aged through use, or aging processes have been applied? A likely result will be that they will assume antique status and be sold as such for commensurate value. As a collector, I would be furious to pay a lot of money for a gun and later learn that it is a 30 year old 'antique.' For example, it is risky to buy Boutet pistols as there was fellow who built them perfectly, decorated them and aged them. They were sold for the prevailing price for what the originals brought at that time. The man is no longer living, but he did a grave disservice to collecting. Point here, give thought to what you do and potential unintended results.
Dick

[Darrin McDonal]

That is very correct. That is why the makers name should be proudly displayed, and I date and number mine also. Nothing to wonder about.
Folks that dont sign them are doing the misleading.
Darrin

[Jim Kibler]

There is more than just age, patina that separates modern made guns from the real deal.  There are VERY few that could pass.  So few that it's not an issue in my view.  And virtually all of these carry a signature showing it was made in modern times!  This is not directed personally, but sometimes I get the feeling collectors sometimes develop strong feelings about this sort of thing out of a fear of being fooled.  I say, educate yourself and protect yourself.   It's all relative.  Someone that knows little could be fooled by a CVA.  Where do you draw the line?  Do you think there any chance of stopping this modern movement and why would you want to?  And as I said in my previous post, a proof stamp or Ketland on a lock isn't going to make any difference in an evaluation for anyone with a lick of sense.  My 2 cents....

[Darrin McDonal]

This absolutely nothing to do with faking or misleading anybody now or in the future, so. I'm finished with the topic besides my original question. Thanks for the input though. I have some great leads.
Oh ya, thanks Mike,
Darrin

[JTR]

Actually sometimes contemporary builders do build to deceive, and one such rifle was sold today on the Julia auction.
 
Over the years it fooled many guys, and most recently, the Julia appraiser. And had it not been for the research and call to Julia by one of the guys that frequents this forum, it would have gone to the block today as an original.

It did sell today, but as a contemporary rifle.

John 

[mr. no gold]

Jim, you really don't need to educate me on collecting guns. I have been at it since I was 13 years old and am now 77 years old. I have seen it all, and well comprehend the nuances of old versus new. That notwithstanding, I recently saw a rifle by the top contemporary maker that had been aged to look quite old. Yes, it did have his name on the barrel, but it wouldn't take too much work for an expert to delete that and replace it with the name Sheetz, or Dickert, or other. With that change, it could have well passed as an original. And, there are numerous others. It seems to me that if your client wants an 'old' looking gun, you are going to give him an old looking gun. At that point you do lose control of what becomes of it, and in fact, you have no further responsibility, or duty in the matter. Understood, but you and the client started the ball rolling. There is so much concern on this forum regarding legitimate restoration, yet seemingly little, regarding things like adding proof marks to new guns and such, which could become troublesome down the road. I am scratching my head over this.
But then, I am not a builder, don't hunt or shoot, and do not have much interest in modern work. Some of it is quite beautiful, and to be highly admired, without doubt, but if it isn't old, I ain't interested. Still and all, the best work in rifle building is being done by today's  finest artisans. And, to that, permit me to say that I regard you as being in that company, (even if some of your work is art deco/noveau), in appearance.
Dick

[rich pierce]

Unbreech it if in doubt.  New standardized breech plug threads are a dead giveaway.  I think a normal disassembly would surely make fakes obvious, but perhaps some folks are more clever than I think.

[Jim Kibler]

I'm sorry if I offended you, Dick.  That wasn't my intent.  In making the statement about identifying original versus contemporary work, I was considering whether I felt I could tell the difference, even on the very best stuff.  I think I could, given the time to examine it carefully, but I might be overestimating my ability too.  And you're right, there is a different perspective from someone who is primarily a builder, but has had the chance to study quite a few original guns pretty carefully as well.  I think Rich, brought up some good points about details that could be a give away. 

With all this said, I don't know what the answer is and suspect this is one of those cases where there isn't one. 

Thanks for the kind words as well.

Jim

[Dphariss]

Unbreech it if in doubt.  New standardized breech plug threads are a dead giveaway.  I think a normal disassembly would surely make fakes obvious, but perhaps some folks are more clever than I think.

If not for fraudulent markings this would not be necessary. Since the markings are TOTALLY unnecessary except to willfully deceive fraudulent is the only accurate description.
This excuse is just more con man explanation of how the con is the victim's fault not the perpetrator. Someone gets conned and then its THEIR fault for not taking the thing to its component parts to assure its not a fake.

Besides why would the owner LET someone debreech and possibly screw up a valuable "antique".
Of course then there are the fakes made by people using old barrels and locks. How do we deal with this? One thing leads to another after all. Besides why not make screw plates and make fake screws if we are so concerned that the gun be "believable".
What is "believable" enough?
It is immoral the aid in fraud.

Dan

[tallbear]

Then there is the question; "Why do you need someone else's  name on YOUR work?"

It is immoral the aid in fraud.

Dan

 Since you obviously believe very strongly in this why would you leave Mr Mantons name on Your 16 Bore.Is this not fraudulent marking ???How does having Manton on your lock differ from what we are talking about.

[Jim Kibler]

Your message basically said it, Dan.  In theory, a gun could be made where extreme attention to historical correctness is maintained, that with some good use and time could be hard to identify as to time of manufacture.  A proof stamp has little to do with this.  The issue is quite simple...  Guns are being made in modern times in the form of those made in the 18th century.  I don't think anyone wants to take the stance that this should be curtailed.  With a super duper modern made gun, subjected to use and decades or centuries it could be hard to identify.  In practice, there are few if any guns that would fit in this category, though.  Just my opinion, of course...

[FlintFan]

Then there is the question; "Why do you need someone else's  name on YOUR work?"

It is immoral the aid in fraud.

Dan

 Since you obviously believe very strongly in this why would you leave Mr Mantons name on Your 16 Bore.Is this not fraudulent marking ???How does having Manton on your lock differ from what we are talking about.

Thank you for posting that, I remembered those photos and was in the process of looking for them when you posted it.  As usual with Dan, it's "Do as I say, not as I do".

By the way, beautiful gun Dan, it wouldn't look right if it had any other name on the lock.  Thank you for posting pictures of it.  

[mr. no gold]

Jim, no offense taken; many of my friends tell me that I can get preachy at times. This was one of them: based on the fact that I have purchased a phonied up gun in my time and two gorgeous old powderhorns. With new engraving!!! I am guilty of sensitivity on this subject.
Kind words sincerely meant. Many others have expressed similar feelings, as well.
Dick 

[Darrin McDonal]

So our Sheetz rifle must be a complete "fraud" then huh. Come on. You have got to be kidding. I think there are total polar opposite views on this idea. Fraud is intent to deceive. That is not the subject is it.  Manton? See the difference.
Darrin