numbering rifles

[spgordon]

Two rifles by Christian Oerter, both dated on the barrels 1775, are also numbered: 162 & 164.

Many collectors have assumed that these numbers represent the total output of complete new arms stocked by Oerter, or by the shop at Christiansbrunn (Oerter and Albrecht and others), to that date. (When the sequence starts is a mystery, but I am not asking about that right now.)

But it seems extremely unlikely or coincidental that, if 164 rifles were produced by the shop at Christiansbrunn, the only two that would have survived were two rifles from 1775 with numbers very close to one another. At least it seems unlikely to me.

SO: I am wondering whether 162 and 164 might mean something other than the rifle number in some sequence of rifles completed at the Christiansbrunn shop. But I am stumped as to what else these numbers might mean.

Do any list members have any thoughts?

Scott

[Sequatchie Rifle]

Could it be the caliber in number of balls per pound?  Example: 160 is .310 caliber.

[spgordon]

The idea that the numbers are dates is really clever!! But in one instance (at least) the engraving seems to say "No. 164," so I don't think they can be dates. -- Scott

[Eric Kettenburg]

There are more than two Oerter rifles that have survived.  Are you referring to the two in Shumway's RCA vol. 1?  Those two are the only two pieces of which he had photos at the time of publication.  The stolen Valley Forge rifle has yet to be recovered although there is a small group of local (to the area) detectives who are *still* active in reviewing the details of the thefts at Valley Forge (the park was hit on two separate occasions and multiple antique arms were stolen) and remain hopeful the stolen pieces - Oerter's included - may be recovered.  Also there is the 1774 dated rifle made for/owned by Samuel Coykendall.  I know I have photos of that one, but I'd have to dig them out and I do not recall if it is numbered.  The "Griffin" rifle made for William Marshall is Christian Oerter.  I'll have to check to see if there are any others; I have photos piled in storage, on CD and scattered across two functionally-challenged macs, one of which will only run in safe mode now yikes.

I have to say, George made a pretty good case for the numbers being relative to output at CS over his time there.  Coincidences may seem, well, coincidental, but nevertheless it doesn't negate the possibility of the coincidence being an accurate assessment.  I think there may not exist enough surviving output of the guy to make anything other than a working hypothesis, perpetually working in this case…..

edit 9/24:  oh I see, I should dig through photos more often before typing, memory is starting to slip!  So you're referencing the Griffin gun at 164 and one from RCA as 162, am I correct? Now I don't remember what the Valley Forge gun was numbered.  I was contacted a while back by one of the guys from the Upper Darby police department as I noted above and he sent me a whole pile of photos as well as detailed descriptions of all the stolen arms (it was a LONG list) but I can't find them at the moment.  Unfortunately there were not many photos of the Oerter, most of which have been published already and I don't recall if there was a good photo of the signature.  I'll have to find the box with the files on the Coykendall rifle, I know some of them have been published but not all of them I believe.

Do you have a theory as to what they might represent, if not numbered output?  I suppose they could represent something like a contract number, or numbered stand of arms, although the Griffin gun *seems* to have been made for William Marshall directly (via family info, I do realize this is not concrete) and furthermore seems a bit rich to have been simply lumped in a with a contracted number of pieces.  Hmmmmmm….

[spgordon]

Thanks for this reply, Eric. My understanding is that of the seven or so Oerter rifles that survive, two are numbered--one on the barrel, one elsewhere. Nos. 162 and 164.

With respect to Mr. Shumway, there is simply no easy way to move from these numbers--if they are production numbers--to even a rough guess at output of the shop--because we have no idea when the sequence began.

Did the sequence begin when Oerter took over the shop in 1766? When the shop was built in 1763? When Albrecht moved to Christiansbrunn in 1759? (That is, if this is a numbering system and at least 163 are unknown to us, we have no idea whether the numbering began with Oerter or with Albrecht.) Or when Oerter began to receive partial compensation for his work in 1771?

I know the last option--1771--has been favored, but it really makes no sense if you understand what changes really occurred in the Moravian economy at Christiansbrunn. In 1771, the economic arrangements at Christiansbrunn altered. Some brethren remained fully communal. Others became full wage laborers and had to pay for their food, clothing, housing, etc., just as everybody did in Bethlehem beginning in 1762. Others--and Oerter was in this group--received a lump sum each year (Oerter received £15, others got more or less) but still remained largely in the communal system: he did not have to pay for food, housing, etc. So there is no reason that, in 1771, Oerter would come to think of his work differently to the extent that he would sign his work. (And, of course, many unsigned rifles are attributed to him, so he certainly didn't start to sign his work consistently because he thought the work was "his" and not the church's.)

So I'm afraid that, to me at least, the numbering system remains mysterious. It's most likely that it is some sort of numbering system related to production, as Shumway posited. I don't have an alternate theory: I'm fishing about to see if others more clever than I can imagine another reason for these numbers.

[spgordon]

I do not know, nor do the folks I've talked to, whether the Valley Forge Oerter was numbered.

The Coykendall has something that looks like an "N" on the patchbox, to the right of the year, but there is no number that follows it (or, if there were one, it is entirely obscured).

I have not heard of any other numbered Oerter rifles.

I wish there were a number on a rifle that wasn't 1775: this would give us a better idea about production numbers and maybe when the sequence started, although it will still be speculative since we can't assume production was the same each year. If there was a 1773 rifle numbered 132, for instance, we could make some rough estimates.

Of course, if we found a 1774 rifle with an higher number than 162, that would call the hypothesis that these are part of a sequence of production numbers into serious question.....

[Eric Kettenburg]

Both you as well as Bob surely have a better understanding of what was going on there than the rest of us, and of course much of what you've posted makes a lot of sense.  I will say that bringing the few unsigned/attributed rifles into the mix complicates things further because as you note above, it then raises the secondary question of why signatures on some but not on others (especially in light of what you posted directly above)?  I know I do not have answers here!

[spgordon]

Agreed about trying not to complicate the question of numbering by bringing in the question of why rifles are signed and why not!

Bob and I are finishing up an essay about the Christiansbrunn gunshop that should be in print in mid 2016, I would guess. We discuss the numbering system, briefly, which is why I asked about it here. (We use other evidence, too, to discuss production levels at the shop at different periods.)

Just to repeat (unecessarily, probably): it is such a freak of history that of 164 (at least: probably more) numbered rifles, the only two that have survived are 162 and 164 and both are from the same year. It just makes one wonder whether there might not be a different purpose to these numbers than we have as yet imagined. I don't mean to dismiss the suggestion that the numbers relate to a production sequence. I am only wondering out loud whether there are other possibilities.

Scott

[Cory Joe Stewart]

Could it be the caliber in number of balls per pound?  Example: 160 is .310 caliber.

You could be on to something here.  I know when research was done on Blackbeard's ship they assumed numbers on cannons were dates.  They later found out that it was the weight of the Cannon itself. 

Coryjoe

[Eric Kettenburg]

But wouldn't 162/164 balls to the pound be even smaller than .310?  That wouldn't work for these particular rifles.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Looking through my pictures of the Coykendall rifle; while there are a pile of odd letters and markings on the box lid, I don't see anything that could be construed as a numbering system.  Furthermore, the barrel marking on that one is very worn and it appears more abbreviated than the others.  There's certainly no number on the barrel tang like 162, and there doesn't appear to be one between the "1774" on the barrel and the rear sight although there is a squiggle or two following the date albeit very worn.  A detailed examination of that specific area of the barrel might be more productive but I don't think so.  Too bad because it being a 1774 rifle, a number on that would go a long way toward offering another piece of the puzzle.

[Dphariss]

But wouldn't 162/164 balls to the pound be even smaller than .310?  That wouldn't work for these particular rifles.

I doubt that a rifle that was 164 to the pound (about .305" ball) would function very well with the powder available in America in 1775. Which in general was not all that good even by the standards of 1810.
Dan

[Eric Kettenburg]

Scott are there extant records from 1775 indicating they were aiding the war effort yet?  He had the contract for 50 guns in 1776, which surely he was not assembling all by his lonesome.  How many were working there in 1775:  could they possibly have been cranking out a LOT (i.e. 164 at least…) in 1775 alone?  Seems like a stretch but then there are references through the war years indicating contracts were being fulfilled very, very fast.  I don't mean among the Moravians although I do recall somewhere a reference to Bethlehem supplying or repairing arms, and it was pretty good number of them too.

[spgordon]

Thanks to everybody who has engaged with my question.

Eric, the "N" that might be part of "No." on the Cokyendall rifle is on the patchbox. I'm not saying it is the start of a number, but others have.

Scott are there extant records from 1775 indicating they were aiding the war effort yet?  He had the contract for 50 guns in 1776, which surely he was not assembling all by his lonesome.  How many were working there in 1775:  could they possibly have been cranking out a LOT (i.e. 164 at least…) in 1775 alone?  Seems like a stretch but then there are references through the war years indicating contracts were being fulfilled very, very fast.  I don't mean among the Moravians although I do recall somewhere a reference to Bethlehem supplying or repairing arms, and it was pretty good number of them too.

In an 1801 letter, which Bob & I discuss at length, William Henry states that when he arrived at Christiansbrunn in August 1776, Oerter had already agreed to a contract with Pennsylvania to supply 500 stand of arms. These would have been muskets, though, not the rifles that survive with numbers. I have not found information that would reveal when Oerter formed this contract. He supplied, as far as we know, only 200 muskets, the 50 you refer to (May 13, 1776) and 150 more by October 1778. Moravian authorities recalled young men who were working with Albrecht in Lititz so they could help Oerter with the enormous amount of work.

I cannot remember off the top of my head when exactly Pennsylvania sets the quotas for each county--sometime in 1775, though. It is in mid-1775 that the Northampton County committee establishes its militia companies; it is in November 1775 that Lancaster County, at least, puts enormous pressure on the gunsmiths there to abandon rifle-making and supply muskets or else be identified as enemies of the state.

So for a bunch of reasons I'd doubt that these rifles had to do with military contracts (and, as you've said, the Edward Marshall rifle is a bit nice for that anyway)....

Scott

[Eric Kettenburg]

Scott I just sent both you and Bob a message relative to all this.

Maybe these are customer numbers?