Happoldt rifle with 1785 captured lid silver patchbox

[Eric Kettenburg]

BTW Scott and Bob, have either of you come across any reference to Beck working on guns following the War?  I don't believe there was any reference in Fries to this, and it would appear that he was ill for at least a few years prior to his death in 1791.  I believe the above reference to pouring spoons was the only reference I found indicating he was doing anything other than pastoral duties.

[spgordon]

I've never followed Beck after he leaves Pennsylvania, so Bob'll have to tackle that one.

I don't think Beck worked much as a gunstocker here in PA, though Bob and I may disagree on this one. At least there's very little evidence that he did. My view goes something like this: sure, Beck and Albrecht and Oerter are all in Bethlehem and Christiansbrunn from 1761-64. Could have been an amazing gathering of talent. But it's important to realize that there was little work for a gunstocker in these years. Moravian gunstockers at this time were doing repair work and may have built some rifles on demand: but how much demand was there? Not much, according to surviving records. So the problem for Moravian authorities, I think, was what else these men could do: both Albrecht and Beck were assigned to work with children. (Our article on gunmaking in Bethlehem, Christiansbrunn, and Nazareth makes this argument in more detail, pp. 15-16.)

Scott

[ajcraig]

A couple of notes, surmises and questions from a neophyte:

1. The outline of the patchbox does look like a refined version of the patchbox on #42.
2. The "nick and dot" border engraving is very small and well executed. I did not find many (if any) borders like this in looking at various North Carolina guns in the books that I have. In particular it does not appear to be a border used by any Volger in any of the guns that I reviewed. Is it possible that this engraving is the work of a silversmith and not a gunsmith?
3. Also regarding the patchbox, note the small projection in the lower rear corner of the box - it almost looks like the tip of the screw or a button. However, it might just be some corrosion.
4. Are my lying eyes fooling me (again!) or is the toeplate not a separate piece but rather the end of the buttplate that has been bent over? This doesn't seem right but I just can't see a clean line or seam between the buttplate and the toeplate. Note that the auction description of the reused gun furniture omits mentioning a toeplate ("utilized the coin silver patch box, buttplate, trigger guard, lock escutcheon, and ramrod thimble, from silver mounted flintlock rifle"). Also, it appears that the toe plate is not engraved - unlike the rest of the silver furniture (per the auction description). Finally, it is a very basic toeplate when compared to many of the elaborate North Carolina toeplates, particularly for a fancy gun.
5. The trigger guard has a fairly long handrail when compared to the bow of the guard. I wonder if this feature is connected to a particular region, school, or maker?
6. The buttplate is a bit hard to explain, as others have noted.

[blienemann]

ajcraig - thanks for this interesting post, link and your comments.

The early details and possible connections are very interesting.

I find the later details and connections equally interesting - concurrent with some fine threads on Hawken rifles and building same.  Is this breech identical to those used by J&S Hawken in St Louis?  Other similar details?  Did both makers buy the components from the same source, were these commonly available, etc.?  Locks and breeches with hook made here or imported?  Do our Hawken students have info and observations to share?  Thanks

[Eric Kettenburg]

ajcraig - the protrusion near the rear of the box is the end of a screw (screwed in from underneath) which is a part of the catch mechanism.  Likewise, the same can be seen near the front (above the lid) which is holding the pop-open spring.  The idea here is that the entire box lid including catch and kick mechanisms is an entirely self-contained unit, thus not requiring anything other than the entire 'package' to be mounted to the stock.

[ajcraig]

Eric:

Many thanks for the explanation - I see it now!

Alex

[Collector]

I've not the depth to contribute anything of substantive value to this discussion, but I am

reminded, in the instant case, that this is the very type of continuing 'conversation' that

eventually allowed the identification and proper attribution to Lancaster gunsmith John

Newcomer, of the the smooth-rifle piece formerly attributed, by Shumway, to John Bullard.


I've always admired RCA#42 and speculated, on these very pages, that the current patchbox is/was a replacement.  I hope that someone has downloaded copies of these digital photos (with the watermark) for future discussion and reference, before they disappear.

Virtually everything on this rifle has been re-purposed, right down to the lock plate, on which a double stamp is clearly evident.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Wallace has always been adamant that the box on #42 is entirely original.  We *might* have discussed the possibility of it being a replacement many moons ago on this board when his articles were being published in MB and it became somewhat of a heated topic.  I've personally been somewhat 50/50 on it being original vs. not.  I can see it both ways.  I can see it as a prototypical side opening box essentially as it exists now and the box on the Deshler rifle is at least of the same age I would say, and essentially the same manner of construction.  Then you see the evolution to later Bucks Co boxes.  Then meanwhile, you have a couple of these very neat self-contained units as per this silver box as well as one or two others of brass, all of the same design but of indeterminate origin.  This silver one, at least, would seem to be a "southern" made box and my gut tells me it may very well have been made in Salem by Jacob Loesch.  Now, does the design of 42 preface this more mechanically involved, self-contained style?  WAS there an original box of exactly this style on 42, something happened to it very early on and it was replaced more simplistically, thus rendering the appearance of great age?  Given the size of the cavity in 42, I can see how all the evidence may have been chiseled away.  I simply do not know what to think.  The current box was on it when it was auctioned by Serven's in the 1950s, but there was a lot more restoration work done to these old rifles in the 1920s, 30s and 40s than people generally are given to think.  And it wasn't all poor quality or cheesy either.

[Collector]

I'd have to say given the introduction of this particular (patch)box and the fact that it's dated; that while not conclusively disproving Wallace's considered opinion, it certainly points toward an extremely reasonable alternative.

EK's question(s) of a 'before' and 'after' 'involved' (evolved- ?) hinge and latch mechanism is, I think, a further means of narrowing investigation and distilling away preconceptions and assumptions on either side. 

Obviously, it's never been a 'settled' matter, nor a 'finding of fact,' as there are adherents and advocates on both sides of an issue that has been lingering just below the surface. 

There's hardly what I'd call a true 'consensus' on this matter.