Sanity check

[Mark Elliott]

I need another set of eyes(brain) to take a look at the William Antes attributed rifle recreated by Ken Gahagan on the Contemporary Makers blog today.    The text suggested a 1756 date for the original rifle based on the engraving on the brass plate  inlayed in the barrel.   However,  my reading of the plate on the recreated rifle is 59 (L IX).    I am assuming it was supposed to be a copy of the original.  Does anyone else read the number as 59.   If not,  what do you see and why?

[JTR]

Yep, 59.
56 would be L VI

So, yes, it does look like 59, But if you look at the way he engraved it, it could be seen as 56 as well,,,,,, I've seen the original gun before, but to tell the truth I don't remember exactly how it was engraved. If I can refresh my memory I'll let you know.

John

[Mark Elliott]

Thanks John.   It would seem I am seeing the same thing as you.    I can see how one might read it as 56, but I think 59 would be a more conservative reading.

[Majorjoel]

'56 or '59, seems this original rifle would predate the John Shreit rifle of 1761. It is the first time I have seen or heard of this piece. I often wonder if anyone out there takes notes on these known works that change all of the information that we have been using and seem to keep using to this day?  I would make a note of this, but would need to study the old rifle that was copied.

[JTR]

Mark, After a quick refresher, the numerals on Ken's gun are done as they are on the original gun. So I guess 56 or 59, take your pick as you see them.

The gun is pictured in Shumways Vol 1, pg 78. Although he doesn't mention the numerals other than noting them as 'curious letters of unknown meaning' and the picture of that area is washed out.

Joel, This gun has been around for a long time, but the question is whether it is Euro/German or American made, maple stocked here using an earlier barrel, or just what.

John

[Mark Elliott]

The "number" could also be some sort of a serial number.   There is no telling.    I have seen production numbers in roman numerals.   I think roman numerals were used for such purposes because they are so related to counting with hash marks.   

[rich pierce]

Great gun.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Yes very cool gun.  The markings may indicate a date… or they may not.  How would we know?

I'm still waiting, here, I don't know how many years later, for someone to explain to me why William Antes name is associated with this.  Seriously.  It's got to be more than a 'faith' thing.

BTW Ken's copy of it looks absolutely awesome.

[Don Stith]

It does bear some resemblance to the Antes in the Kansas Historical  Society Museum. That one is a swivel breech though

[Tom Currie]

I saw Ken's rifle at Dixon's and it is superbly done. Very impressive.

Most of you guys on this thread know the reasons for attribution but for Joel's sake I'll note them.

Similar sideplate to signed Antes work with vertical moulding design and in regards to the incised butt carving "  it does show a very strong resemblance to the pattern of cheekpiece carving on the signed Kansas State Historical society swivel breech " KRA Moravian book.

I'm no expert for sure but I've sudied these in my refernece books forever and am having a hard time purring the carvings together. If only one characteristic matched up for me I could be convinced.

[rich pierce]

Yes very cool gun.  The markings may indicate a date… or they may not.  How would we know?

I'm still waiting, here, I don't know how many years later, for someone to explain to me why William Antes name is associated with this.  Seriously.  It's got to be more than a 'faith' thing.

BTW Ken's copy of it looks absolutely awesome.

I'm not the attributor but I did engage in some silliness.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Yeah.  I just don't buy it, jmho.  I need a bit more than a few lines here or there, or a generic sideplate design or carved design (very nice carving, but I feel like it's just a simplified version of a typical form).  Basically back to back scrolls with some minor fluff.

I would love to have seen it when new, before the whole thing was worked over.  Don't get me wrong it's a great story in and of itself as it now stands but when new it must have been a very professional piece.

[rich pierce]

There's nothing but conjecture to go on.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Exactly.  But anyway…..  largely my fault, we're digressing -

Ken has achieved a spectacular piece of work and some KILLER aging!