Creativity and Historical Correctness in gun building

[Kermit]

I personally do not think a picasso is art

 
Sounds like some one hasn't experienced the breadth of Pablo's work over his lifetime. But we digress...

[razor62]

As a novice builder and a non-historian I believe that I can offer a completely different point of view on this topic...
I log into this site and a few others almost daily because I appreciate the craftsmanship and skills which are displayed in the wonderful pieces which are produced by many of the members here. I'm also a lover of guns of all sorts but I will add that for me guns should be constructed of wood and classic metals. I have no use for materials such as plastic or aluminum in gun building. Modern day guns which employ these materials become less like art to me and more like modern tools.
One does not necessarily have to be a historian in order to appreciate a fine piece of workmanship even if the piece is representative of an original, historical piece
If we consider music for instance. Would it be wrong to hear a historic song played with modern instruments such as how we often hear our own National anthem played? Of course not. The intent of the song remains intact and the beauty is reinterpreted by the modern artist who performs it.
I like old cars because of the classic lines and nostalgia that goes along with them. I wouldn't know if the hubcaps were't correct however on a given reproduction and to be quite honest, to a guy like me it would make absolutely no difference. Assuming that the builder's work showed evidence of his skills as a craftsman I'd most certainly be impressed by the workmanship. I love old wooden boats too. Modern boat builders who stick with original materials turn out absolutely beautiful vessels. If the builder builds a sailboat of wood, brass and linen would it be any less beautiful if he incorporated a modern head, navigation system or even auxiliary motor. If, on the other hand the intent is at restoration rather than creation then the whole thing changes as we already have a model to aspire toward. Gun builders are not necessarily gun restorationists. (Did I just invent this word?)
While I can fully understand and appreciate why a builder / historian would strive toward "recreating" a piece which incorporates the styles of a particular school or even a particular builder at a certain point in his life, to me this is far less important than producing a thing of beauty and function which is easily recognizable as an early style rifle but to my eye perhaps the style is less important than the overall impression of the piece. In short, If the piece is built well and resembles an original in most respects than it most certainly is just as valid of an attempt as a piece that holds strictly to any one style or original piece. I'm much more concerned with the beauty and functionality of the piece than it's historical correctness.
Here is an excellent example of what I'm trying to say. I can't for the life of me find the original post. It may or may not have been on this forum. I apologize in advance that I cannot remember who the builder was. Perhaps he'll chime in or someone else will fill in the blanks.
The only photo that I could come up with is this one. I absolutely adore this gun. The builder's imagination and talents are represented wonderfully here. While it's certainly not HC it offers many of the features that draw me to classic muzzleloaders. If memory serves me (and it usually doesn't.) He built this for a youngster. The theme is of fish and insects. The stuff that makes little boys flip over rocks or toss a line into the local fish pond. A beautiful gun and a wonderful display of imagination and craftsmanship. Hopefully someone will post better pics.

As it is with most endeavors in life, there will be parameters on how things should and should not be done. We all do this to some degree. I believe that problems arise when we begin to judge the work of others based upon our own sense of just what those parameters should be.

[Dphariss]

While I do not agree with aging, yes,  it is a creative process. It also is a topic for the discussion of historical correctness
But since its grown out of what I call the wannabe hippie buckskinner (as opposed to people who actually DO things other than set around camp looking like hippie buckskinners) movement I see it as a fad. I started doing buckskinner stuff about 1967.
But since its a fad, actually almost a cult, adherents delude themselves into thinking its correct. Its not. As I pointed out before  I have used guns in various weather conditions and have friends who have done so more than I and my fathers guns. I have a cheap 22 revolver he was using on the trap line last fall (he is 87 BTW) that I have not cleaned the mud off of yet.  I have carried them in the snow and wet until the linseed oil started to cloud so I know what this does to a finish without a little resin in it.
I also know, from conversations with people who did it, that old guns were often given to children to hunt with. One, a WW-1 vet, told me he was given a shotgun to heavy to carry and wore a flat on the buttstock dragging it. He had to lay down to shoot it. Another family's Grandfather gave them, along with two other antique firearms, a TIFFANY Colt to play cowboys and Indians with, I handled all the guns about 30 years ago and got the story. Which one looks the best? The US issue percussion martial pistol. It was still in very nice shape. The Tiffany was more worn, Gold plate and Silver do not stand up as well.
Then we have the "saddle wear" myth. Usually its "wagon wear" they are notoriously hard on firearms if the owner is careless. So when you see a rifle with the forend worn through to the rod its not from being carried on a saddle. A wagon will do this one days travel with an owner not paying attention. "DUI" maybe. So then work down the sharp edges and keep using the rifle.
But of course then the myths and romanticism are more convenient for people to believe than some kid dragging a lockless (so they could not shoot it) old rifle around the house place beating it up. Or its going into a closet 150 years ago being banged around, maybe the kids getting it out and whacking it on door frames since its so long, maybe dropping it now and then before putting it back.

Of course this "aging" thing carries over to numerous other items. Like powder horns, aged fakes are so common now, passed off as antiques that people COPY the fakes thinking the "original" horn shows real age. But then of course the makers never actually USE a horn to any extent so they have no idea how to age one. I have a horn that I made in 1968 and used a lot. Its been squirrel hunting in Iowa, Moose hunting in AK, and used a lot horse packing and hunting  in Montana, dunked in a beaver pond in a a horse wreck. Other than the pine base plug not holding a staple anymore and its having a somewhat "raised grain" appearance. Its does not really look like the Most aging is not based on reality its based on what people EXPECT TO SEE.
What a rifle made in 1775 looked like in 1810 or 1910 or 2010 is not how it looked while the original owner was using it at Saratoga. So some one pretending to be one of Morgans Riflemen with a rifle that looks 150 years old should be kicked out of the re-enactment for having gear that is out of context.
THIS is aging in the context of Creativity and Historical Correctness.
I need to go fit a breechplug.

Dan

[Dphariss]

There are so many styles of FL rifles alone that its very difficult to be repetitive unless the maker wants to be. After all JP Beck did a lot of "repetitive" rifles and guns.

Dan

[Dphariss]

Should we split this into a discussion of the merits of aging, or stick to the topic of creativity?  We can split it easily if that's the main topic now.

\

The topic also includes historical correctness.

Dan

[Dphariss]

<snip>

Dennis,

Taking your point a further step, was it not the Riflemen who served in the New England states during the AWR and provided the impetus for rifles to come to those states?  Unless I'm mistaken, prior to the AWR, the rifle was rare to almost unknown in New England states?

Gus

Hi Gus
I think this is a myth. They were not as common as in PA and some other colonies perhaps but they were still there.  As Burgoyne's force was coming through upstate New York they were being sniped by riflemen. This from the a German Officer. They KNEW it was rifle fire. Who was doing this? Morgan and his men were far way. Then we have Breeds Hill where so many officers and Senior NCOs were killed that they abandoned their traditional regalia for the duration of the War. This is not the hallmark of musket fire. There were riflemen there. Had to be. Then we have Gov. Dongan of New York writing the Gov. of Pa. in 1688 stating that 10% of his Militia force of the previous summer were riflemen. There are ads by Gunmakers in New England who make rifles etc etc. However, if people insist on relying on estate inventories then the numbers get skewed. EVERYONE has a Militia gun. People with no other use for a firearm still had to have one. They sure were not going pay 4 times as much for a rifle that did not make requirements anyway so these are populated with smoothbores. Especially in the cities and more settled areas.
As a result of militia laws the percentage of rifles to smoothbores is ALWAYS skewed in settled areas. By skewed I mean the number of gun OWNERS vs actual SHOOTERS.  We also have to remember than hunting in most of PA is not hunting on Chesapeake Bay where the game was shooting waterfowl for the markets. So its really hard to make hard and fast determinations. But I am convinced that there were more rifles in New England than some might care to admit. But then it is called New England

Dan

[Dennis Glazener]

Dennis,

Taking your point a further step, was it not the Riflemen who served in the New England states during the AWR and provided the impetus for rifles to come to those states?  Unless I'm mistaken, prior to the AWR, the rifle was rare to almost unknown in New England states?

Gus

Gus,
Sorry I hadn't replied, we had our show last weekend and I have been distracted for awhile, trying to catch-up.

It was my understanding from Wallace that he believed that was the start of the longrifle,  along with the some of the riflemen's clothing, appearing in the New England area.
Dennis

[rich pierce]

Should we split this into a discussion of the merits of aging, or stick to the topic of creativity?  We can split it easily if that's the main topic now.

Aging is a large part of creativity and belongs in this conversation. We already know who likes it and who doesn't so maybe we don't need to rehash that part of it.

Makes sense!

[rich pierce]

While I do not agree with aging, yes,  it is a creative process. It also is a topic for the discussion of historical correctness
But since its grown out of what I call the wannabe hippie buckskinner (as opposed to people who actually DO things other than set around camp looking like hippie buckskinners) movement I see it as a fad. I started doing buckskinner stuff about 1967.

But since its a fad, actually almost a cult, adherents delude themselves into thinking its correct. Its not.

But of course then the myths and romanticism are more convenient for people to believe than some kid dragging a lockless (so they could not shoot it) old rifle around the house place beating it up.

Dan

People pick their myths, like Dinglehofer believing that Hawken rifles predominated in the fur trade/ rendezvous era.  How do people feel about creativity in certain styles of rifles?  When is a creative Hawken not a Hawken?  Would it need to incorporate concurrent components and stylistic hallmarks from existing known Hawken rifles to be seen as historically correct?  Is this necessarily more constrained than a Lancaster 1770s rifle? I would think so.  Probably a "JP Beck" build is similarly constrained.    This raises the question of when the line is crossed between historical correctness and creativity, which has been addressed on page 1.

[kaintuck]

Im ageing naturally just like my rifles.....

heck...i like both, a flawless Lancaster with #9 wood, and  mr. moors moravian aged beautifully......

like Reba and Megan........both are beautiful to me......

[Acer Saccharum]

While I do not agree with aging, yes,  it is a creative process. It also is a topic for the discussion of historical correctness
But since its grown out of what I call the wannabe hippie buckskinner (as opposed to people who actually DO things other than set around camp looking like hippie buckskinners) movement I see it as a fad. I started doing buckskinner stuff about 1967.
But since its a fad, actually almost a cult, adherents delude themselves into thinking its correct.

Dan, while I see your chain of thought, I don't agree with your conclusions, which I hope I am free to do.

Aging is a process, we agree on that.

Maybe gun aging is a fad, the jury is still out on that. But it's also an art. Gun builders are increasingly crossing the threshold into the art world with their gun work.  Collectors are buying it, which is one clue. Museums are showing it, which is another affirmation of the concept that the gun can also be art.


But what I think you want me to admit, which I will freely do, and won't argue with you on, is that aging is NOT historically correct. I assume most guns were built as new, and the aging happened over time.


Gun artists get to express their dreams and concepts through their work. If you like to finish your piece as new, that is probably the most historically correct method. If I like to finish my gun as if it saw a year or two of use, that is my artist's prerogative. But is that Historically correct? Not really. But it's my life, my work, so I get to make it any way I like.

Is my gun 'finished as a new gun'  historically correct?

Well, golly, where do I begin? Was my iron mined from Adirondack Bog iron? Was my barrel forge welded from flat iron bar? My thimble brass is a modern rolled alloy. My wood was kiln dried. My stock was stained with ferric nitrate.......finished with Tru-Oil....

Oh, my god, I have committed so many faux-pas against PC/HC, I don't think I can use those terms, no matter what I make.

I think I finally agree with you!

Hahahahhahaha. That's funny.

[Jim Kibler]

Dan,

Do you really think people care whether you agree with aging a gun or not?  It's certainly a personal choice.  Now, if someone were to say the an artificially aged gun is original then that's a different story.  If someone were to point to a modern made and "aged" gun and then say this is how an original gun looks, then that would also probably be a different story.  Fact of the matter, in almost all examples, this process just creates a "look".  A look that appeals to the sense of style of many highly competent builders and collectors.  Why the desire to attempt to insult those who like it?  Why the desire to move in the direction of imposing a right or wrong?  If it trips your trigger that's fine.  If it doesn't well that's cool too.  If you choose to respond, please be pointed and address the issues I have brought up above.  I find it frustrating to read a diatribe that in the end says little.  Haven't we been down this road before?  

[Archie Otto]

In 100 years I think the aesthetically important longrifles from this era will be the ones that stand apart from all the others from both this era and the originals. 

I was looking at the AOLR site earlier and the one thing that stood out to me is the similarities in all the different builders products.  Now I am not very well versed in these rifles so my lack of knowledge and inability to pick any one of them out of the crowd really stands out here.  There were dozens of people building rifles in that region but it is the Vincent example the contemporary stock copiers picked as the foremost example of the "Ohio halfstock" style of rifle.  What is it that made them or any other of the current popular styles stand out in the crowd? 

In terms of aging a recently built gun, in 100 years will anyone know it was aged?  Will that detract from its collectability?  Will it look the same as all the other non-aged guns that aged normally through time or will it look faked? 

[Artificer]

<snip>

Dennis,

Taking your point a further step, was it not the Riflemen who served in the New England states during the AWR and provided the impetus for rifles to come to those states?  Unless I'm mistaken, prior to the AWR, the rifle was rare to almost unknown in New England states?

Gus

Hi Gus
I think this is a myth. They were not as common as in PA and some other colonies perhaps but they were still there.  As Burgoyne's force was coming through upstate New York they were being sniped by riflemen. This from the a German Officer. They KNEW it was rifle fire. Who was doing this? Morgan and his men were far way. Then we have Breeds Hill where so many officers and Senior NCOs were killed that they abandoned their traditional regalia for the duration of the War. This is not the hallmark of musket fire. There were riflemen there. Had to be. Then we have Gov. Dongan of New York writing the Gov. of Pa. in 1688 stating that 10% of his Militia force of the previous summer were riflemen. There are ads by Gunmakers in New England who make rifles etc etc. However, if people insist on relying on estate inventories then the numbers get skewed. EVERYONE has a Militia gun. People with no other use for a firearm still had to have one. They sure were not going pay 4 times as much for a rifle that did not make requirements anyway so these are populated with smoothbores. Especially in the cities and more settled areas.
As a result of militia laws the percentage of rifles to smoothbores is ALWAYS skewed in settled areas. By skewed I mean the number of gun OWNERS vs actual SHOOTERS.  We also have to remember than hunting in most of PA is not hunting on Chesapeake Bay where the game was shooting waterfowl for the markets. So its really hard to make hard and fast determinations. But I am convinced that there were more rifles in New England than some might care to admit. But then it is called New England

Dan

Hi Dan,

That is some interesting information you presented.  

Depending on the time period as in the 17th century, New York was considered “New England” but was it so in the 18th century?   If New York was commonly considered to be in “New England” in the 18th century, then that does open possibilities.

First to the Battle of Breed’s (Bunker Hill) .  There is little, if any, documentation that rifles were used there and frankly there was no need of them the way the battle played out.  None of the American units there were armed with Rifles, though perhaps a very small number of rifles might have been there.  The one example of the American Marksman standing on the Parapet and taking out a number of British Soldiers SOUNDS like it could have been a Rifleman, but that falls apart for three reasons.  The first reason is that in the original accounts, he was passed loaded guns to shoot and those would have been muskets.  The second reason is from both British and American Accounts, the distance the Americans opened fire on the British was AT MOST 60 yards while they were still advancing, though most accounts and including the British accounts, say it was 50 yards or less.  As a matter of fact, when Prescott urgently called for reinforcements prior to the battle, Colonels John Stark and James Reed rushed to support them.  John Stark learned his military trade as a Lieutenant in Roger’s Rangers.  Stark had  “Ranging Stakes” driven into the ground at 40 yards from his position and vehemently forbade his troops fire until the British crossed that line.  At 50 yards or less where the British stopped to fire, a good shot (as the noted Marksmen probably was) with a musket could easily have taken out many British Soldiers. The third and final reason, though not as good as the first two, is the fact the British eventually killed that American Marksman with Musket Fire.  No one can say for sure if they fired volleys or individual shots at the American Marksman, but at that close of range, it could have been either.  

The quote from the German Officer who stated they were harassed by RIFLE fire on their way to Saratoga is very interesting, indeed.  Does the reference say when and where it happened?  The reason I ask is because Morgan and his Riflemen reported to General Gates on 30 August and the skirmishing when the British crossed the Hudson on 17 September were followed by the Battles of Saratoga were on 19 September and 7 October.   Morgan’s men were there WELL in time to scout and harass the British and Germans even before the first large skirmish.  Though it is difficult at best to document what Morgan’s men did during the 17 days (31 August to 16 September) before the general skirmishing on the 17th, I find it hard to believe that Morgan’s men would have all remained in camp and at least some elements of Morgan’s forces were not sent north to scout and harass Burgoyne’s Army.  After all, that is what Morgan and his men had done earlier in the war on the way to Quebec.  So it is quite possible to downright probable it was Morgan’s Riflemen who were the ones who shot at the aforementioned German Officer with rifles?  

I was extremely interested to read the following from your post.  “Then we have Gov. Dongan of New York writing the Gov. of Pa. in 1688 stating that 10% of his Militia force of the previous summer were riflemen.”  I would love to see this source as that is an EXTREMELY early account of that large of a percentage of rifles in militia use.  I have searched where I can, and admit I have not found the letter.  Governor Dongan was recalled by the King by a letter of 22 April of 1688 in the link following this paragraph, so perhaps the letter may have been written before 1688?  Perhaps it is in the papers mentioned in the second link following this paragraph?  

http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=70528
http://alpha2.suffolk.lib.ny.us/search~S46?/dLimerick%2C+Thomas+Dongan%2C+Earl+of%2C+1634-1715+--+Ar/dlimerick+thomas+dongan+earl+of+1634+1715+archives/-3%2C-1%2C0%2CB/frameset&FF=dlimerick+thomas+dongan+earl+of+1634+1715+archives&1%2C1%2C


Your point of “There are ads by Gunmakers in New England who make rifles etc etc.” is the best evidence for rifles in New England.  I have read of only very little of such ads prior to the Revolution and would very much like to see them as well.  However, such ads would definitely mean there were at least some rifles in use at that time.  Excellent point.
Gus

[Artificer]

Dennis,

Taking your point a further step, was it not the Riflemen who served in the New England states during the AWR and provided the impetus for rifles to come to those states?  Unless I'm mistaken, prior to the AWR, the rifle was rare to almost unknown in New England states?

Gus

Gus,
Sorry I hadn't replied, we had our show last weekend and I have been distracted for awhile, trying to catch-up.

It was my understanding from Wallace that he believed that was the start of the longrifle,  along with the some of the riflemen's clothing, appearing in the New England area.
Dennis

Dennis,

Thanks for responding.  No problem taking the time to answer and I do envy you and others who could attend the Williamsburg Show.  I had to work a modern gun show and I was kicking myself all weekend for not being able to join you all. 

Dan made good points about rifles in New England prior to the war, so perhaps it is better to say that the ARW provided a more general knowledge and impetus for longrifles in New England from then on?
Gus

[Artificer]

Speaking of boredom that can rob the craftsman's/artist's sense of creativity.....

To some or even many of us, perhaps our "dream job or career" would be working at Colonial Williamsburg.  However, check out the video linked below where an Interpretive Craftsman talks about the boredom that can come even there.  It starts about 11:55 in the video. 

http://www.renaissancewoodworker.com/even-williamsburg-tradesmen-make-mistakes/

Gus

[galamb]

Speaking of boredom that can rob the craftsman's/artist's sense of creativity.....

Your comment brings to memory a recent conversation I had with Peter Alexander. He was displaying some of his work and I noted that a Silver Armstrong, perhaps one of his more famous pieces was absent.

He noted that he had built a couple for fundraisers and that he had done a number to order. He also told me of a gentleman that had made the trip to his shop to see him.

The man said to him "if money wasn't an object and you were asked to build a representative collection of Armstrong's work, what might you build"

So Peter thinks for a moment and says you would want an early flint, the Silver rifle obviously, a somewhat plain flint, a later percussion and probably a nice matched set of pistols.

To this the gentleman replies "when can you get started".

Peter went on to say that since completing this project he has kinda lost interest in building anything by Armstrong, at least for the foreseeable future.

Made me kinda wonder - did John Armstrong (or plug in any builders name here) get tired of building rifles? did it simply become "a job".

Maybe he dreaded going into the shop to the same degree many of us dread going into work (?)

[Clark Badgett]

Peter went on to say that since completing this project he has kinda lost interest in building anything by Armstrong, at least for the foreseeable future.

Made me kinda wonder - did John Armstrong (or plug in any builders name here) get tired of building rifles? did it simply become "a job".

Maybe he dreaded going into the shop to the same degree many of us dread going into work (?)

I would say that the answer is probably yes. It doesn't matter if you absolutely love what you are doing, for the most part doing it under production stresses, constraints and budgets would turn anything into pure drudgery. I love WHAT I do for a living, even though there are times I don't like doing it.

[Artificer]

Speaking of boredom that can rob the craftsman's/artist's sense of creativity.....

Made me kinda wonder - did John Armstrong (or plug in any builders name here) get tired of building rifles? did it simply become "a job".

Maybe he dreaded going into the shop to the same degree many of us dread going into work (?)

I like Clark B's comment that "I love my work there are times I don't like it. " GRIN.  I think that pretty much describes what the original builders may have thought at times.

In much of my own career, I built National Match M14's or NM M1911A1 pistols.  Having to rebuild 5 NM rifles per week and/or building 3 to 4 new NM rifles from standard M14's per week for 5 to 7 months with a production schedule got tedious.  I actually enjoyed being the "Instructor or OJT's" or Apprenticeship Instructor more because it was challenging to teach each student for the three to four week period. 

I imagine that carving the stocks, engraving and perhaps the artistic style they put into some of the parts probably relieved some of the tedium.  I also bet they looked forward to and enjoyed making something unusual or even repairing guns made by others.  The last would have been a special treat to see how others did what they did. 

In one of the old Colonial Williamsburg films, they showed a customer ordering an axe smaller than usual for his young son.  I'll bet the blacksmith or cutler who made that got a special treat out of making in modern times as an original blacksmith/cutler would have enjoyed it as something different, then.

Gus.

[Dociron]

     I've been a HC reproduction 17th & 18th century house hardware smith for over 40 years. I absolutely love my work. But that has nothing to do with holding boredom at bay.
     
      For all intents and purposes my work is performed just as it was during the period , other than an electric forge blower and lights.When the building season is hot in the summer months I can find it hard to go in knowing my week is going to consist of forging and filing 50 or 60 been latches by weeks end only to start the next week making the h&l hinges to go with them. Presumably not much different than for a period smith.

     Boredom isn't a new word it's origin is assumed circa 1850 prior to that the word used probably would have been Tedium and in a way seems to fit what we're speaking of better.

     Time place or period doesn't circumvent the tedium one feels from the seemingly mindless mass production of hand made items or tasks. As a matter of fact one of the still more contemporary tasks that I know would drive me crazy would be being a brick layer.

     
     The one advantage I've always felt I had over the period smith is that I have the fun and intrigue of researching construction methods and period correctness of my work. For the period smith this distraction didn't exist. His work consisted of performing taught and known methods. His divergence from these methods was his creativity and his escape from tedium. This could partly explain why some known gunsmiths work changed in style over their life time. The difference between those whose work changed and those whose didn't might tell us something about who these makers were as people.

      It always seems so to easy for us to fall into the trap of our own myths. It's human nature to want to escape
it seems, our escape is to dream of a prior time when life was simpler. This is the myth it wasn't simpler it was just different. What are we trying to escape from anyway......Tedium?     

     
 

[Acer Saccharum]

    It always seems so to easy for us to fall into the trap of our own myths.

If we read history, and absorb the lessons available to us, you'd assume we'd learn. We are such creatures of the moment.

By tedium we come to appreciate the unusual and special events in our lives.

[Robby]

Some find comfort being stuck in a 'rote', while others use their imagination to escape, which can lead to innovation and invention. We are all the same, yet wired differently. Like I use to tell my kids, sometimes its not about how much fire wood you stack, more, what you think about while doing it.
Robby

[David R. Pennington]

I learned at an early age never to be bored. My Father's cure for boredom was to find more work for me to do, so I soon learned never to be bored. I often told my children only boring people can become bored. Use the creative mind God gave you to always find new ways to do things and even when tedium sets in your mind can escape by thinking on different things.
I have always liked the fact that my work takes me to different places and different tasks continually. While it isn't my dream job I still feel blessed I don't have to sit in the same office cubicle and stare at the same computer screen for 8 hours a day. To me that would be torture.

[jerrywh]

Name 5 gunmakers who are famous for copying other pepoles work.  Now name 5 gunmakers who are famous for creating their own style.
  Some in the last category are Manton. Twigg, Melchoir Fortney, Boutet, J.P.Beck.
  It is the same in every field.  All the copiers are soon forgotten.
 
   There is another way of looking at the subject. Forget fame or artistic creation.
   Some people are so fascinated with the objects of the past and so fascinated at the ability of those craftsmen of 200 or 300 years ago that they must test themselves to determine if  they also might be able to do the same with the same tools. Others probably just want one of those objects but the only way they can is to copy one.
  Whatever the case may be I can not see why there needs to be a conflict between the motives. I think all are to be admired.  It seems to me to be a contest for attention between some.
    As for myself I am in a contest with myself.  I can't stand boredom and I must determine if I can do something more difficult and beautiful on each project. Guns are sort of my canvas.
  When I started out I fell into the type that just wanted one of those longrifles but couldn't afford one.  Later on I had to see if I could build one the way the old gunsmiths did. That lasted for about 20 years and Then I got bored with it. Look At Guslers latest work and you can see a lot of the same progression, Judson Brennen also

[bama]

By trying to duplicate an original a good deal can be learned about how the original builder went about doing his business. Try as hard as you may you can never truely duplicate an original anything. I was truely amazed at how much I learned about the firearm building process by doing this. Do I want to make a steady diet of this "NO". We should all strive to be individual artist as others have pointed out very well.

As far as the aging of a firearm goes, to me this is just another type of finishing process. Browning, rust blue, fire blue, in the white, scraped finish, 600 grit sandpaper, high gloss, soft luster, BLO, No BLO, Aged, not Aged.

I do as the customer request and I am sure that the old masters did the same. A lot of people today do not want to wait 5, 10 or 20 years to have that nice, warm well used look. So if that is what they want then that is what I am going to try to give to them. If they want shinny as a new penny then that is what they are going to get.

I built a pair of rifles for a husband and wife that they hunted with. These rifles were were the only rifles they used. I had a chance to visit this couple 4 years latter. In that time the rifles had obtained that nice look of well used but not abused look. Most people want that look but very few today will invest the time to obtain it.