Exageration?

[flehto]

Have only viewed a couple of original LRs  but have studied many in the best reference books and the conclusion arrived at is...the various levels of skilled builders today are by far outdoing the American "masters of old". What started this thought was the post on bbl channel quality and some of the expedient shortcuts by the original makers asre quality of other components and work due to "having to make a living". The sophisicated workmanship and art  achieved by modern day LR builders isn't reflective in 95% or more of the original  LRs and one has to ask..."are we exagerating the LRs we're trying to simulate? ......Fred

[rich pierce]

Well, I think that the old fellas were probably about 3x as efficient as we are, time-wise, and had enough experience to not make architectural errors that are common to most who are early in their gunmaking "careers" now.  So it would be rare for them to make a clunker that was beautifully inletted and finished.  And we've probably all done that before.  I know my first scratch flintlock has major architectural errors and "pasted on" carving, etc but the fit and finish is as good as I can ever do.

Guys like Mike Brooks and Don Getz and others of that sort are the closest modern day approximation to the old makers in my opinion. They have made enough guns that they know exactly what they are doing and are efficient and do very clean work. Because we generally get our barrels machine inlet and ramrod grooves done and ramrod holes drilled, that work is more precise than you'd see on originals.

There are originals that show a degree of workmanship that is very high.  But even on those, I bet the build went much faster than today's makers do it.  The carving on a Berlin rifle, for example, or the Peter Resor "Ghost rifle" or a Newcomer would be hard to beat.  And if we get into Golden Age makers like the Sells, Nolls, and Bonewitz to name just a few, the carving is enviable. 

These fellas started from a much rougher, often not square blank or plank and had to have the skills to get it done from  a rougher start than we do.  Plus these guys knew how to and did fix locks by brazing a cock or tumbler in a forge, forged new springs, etc, rifled their barrels or freshed them out and many made their own castings.  So their skill sets were more expansive than ours.  The Colonial Williamsburg smiths, the House brothers, and Jud Brennan and others can do all that today.  But there were probably a good many gunstockers back in the day who worked for Gonter or Dickert or Henry and had limited skillsets.

I admire many different styles of workmanship but many today use a style that was infrequently applied in the flintlock longrifle era here.  That is the super-clean, meticulous, perfect carving, engraving and fit and finish that is virtually flawless.  For some of us, that style is not even a choice we have to discount, because we aren't capable yet of doing it.

I like "warm work" that is well done.  David Dodds is a good example of that sort of builder.

[J. Talbert]

Every modern builder, shooter, collector comes to the table with their own likes, dislikes, preferences, requirements and prejudices when it comes to making or selecting a longrifle, but as I see it there is one major difference between then and now.  The longriflmen of the past was driven by a true NEED, we on the other hand, are driven by desire.  Not withstanding the full time builders whose livelihood is derived from the making of these guns, no one today depends on them for their very life.
With that in mind, I'd say that the biggest influences on today's builder are personal likes, consumer tastes, and competition.
Some are driven by a stronger desire to emulate the past masters than are others.
Ultimately, you're either building something that YOU want, or that you hope someone else will.

Jeff

[Dave Faletti]

I do the very best I can without driving myself crazy.  I only make them for myself so making a living isn't an issue.  It would be nice to see a number of originals to see the range of quality from back then. My last one fits nice, shoots good, and people say it looks nice so I'm happy.

[Berks Liberty]

One of the things that will always be held in the back of my mind is a rifle Bonewitz made that I was grateful to be able to hold and look over.  This rifle was stocked in Cherry and was what I expected to be made by the hands of Bonewitz.  During the building of the rifle the cherry split just behind the cheek piece.  You could tell by the carving Bonewitz did on that rifle, that he used that split as part of the carving.  You could tell, in my mind and the owners mind that he did this on purpose.  Would you do that these days?  Especially if you were selling it?  I could probably hear a number of builders from miles away letting out their frustration on that stock!   Fred, I think you have made a good point.  But as we all know, there are a lot of rifles out there hidden from view and probably will never be brought out of that safe so we all could learn more about all the makers.  Some good and some very good.  Just like today.  So think that they were more efficient then most builders of today, because of that NEED as Jeff said.  They used tools and techniques, most of today's builders would probably never want to learn how to do because we live in a world which getting to the end quicker is better.  Now I'll admit I'm not a professional builder but I am trying to learn to build by using the tools they had.  I think the rifle will mean more to the owner who really cares that it was really hand made without machines.  But then again today's builders who have another job or raising a family or other avenues need the machines to push out a rifle a little quicker.  Also how many builders out there have apprentices under them doing some of the work for them as the masters did? 

Good topic Fred! 
 
Jason

[smart dog]

HI Fred,
Isn't it possible that we are part of a living craft and art form that is evolving.  Isn't it possible that the craft of making LR is not dead and we are not simply trying to relive the past but advancing the craft using a blend of modern ideas and traditional methods. Perhaps some want to live in a museum, but others realize the long rifle is a traditional art form that lives, breathes, and can be improved with modern methods.

dave

[jerrywh]

The good builders now are better by far than the good ones back in the 18th century. Mostly due to the fact that we have a lot better tools, more time and don't have to make a living at it, usually.  The bad builders now are the same as the bad ones back then.  Now there are more of both because there are more people.  The bad builders back then had a better excuse than the bad ones now. It was harder to learn and the tools were harder to obtain. People just starting out will get good fast if they want to.
 
 Human nature doesn't seem to change much.  If exaggeration means paying more attention to detail and striving for perfection, That is what some of us do now and that is what some of them did then. Everything should always get better. Should it be our motive to stay the same and never progress. How boring. --- not me.

[Leprechaun]

I think the question is hard to answer because it appears to make a few assumptions. First, it appears to assume that many/most/all modern makers are trying to duplicate the work of the "old masters". While a few makers do, I believe that most aren't. I beleive that most builders today want to build a rifle to the best of their ability and to keep challenging themselves to improve. A GOOD example is the "masterpiece" rifle posted by Hugh. To my eye, this rifle represents an 18th-early 19th century longrifle about as much as an Aston Matrin represents a Model A. If one ASSUMES that Hugh was attempting to duplicate the work of the "old masters" then yes, he failed miserably. However, I don't recall seeing anything to indicate that this was hughs intention and as a representation of a 21st century longrifle, there are few better (although it's the presentation case that impresses me). Unless a maker specifically states that a gun is intended to be a representation of a gun built in the 18th cent, then I think we must assume that it is not rather than the other way around. Like Dave Person suggested, the building of longrifles never died. Todays guns are a continuation of the craft and has evolved as such. The other assumption that people seem to make is that all guns from the 18th cent were built by a "Master" and therefore, anything we find on an "original" is acceptable as being "correct". I've seen pictures of some old guns that, if it weren't for the age evidence, they could almost pass for a CVA. Some of them are just not good and yet I see comments like "WOW that's awsome". When examining the old ones we need to look at them the same way we look at conteporary guns. Rather than looking to justify things that just aren't right, we need to look at them with the same critical eye we use with todays builds and call a spade a spade. If the lock panels are fat and ugly, it's not justification to make panels fat and ugly. It's just proof that some of the old makers were amatures too.

[rich pierce]

Most old cob-jobs are either late flint or percussion era guns.  There are rare examples of early-looking guns apparently made by unskilled workmen but they are rare.  Even cheap trade guns often had better and slimmer lines than many beginning makers are able to achieve today.  I think that craftsmanship can be artificially broken down into several categories:

1) Architecture
2) Fit and finish
2) Decoration

If you look at 1770's-1790's guns, most had excellent architecture.  Good lines, nice lock panels, nothing too bulky or clunky regardless of "school".  If you look at a plain rifle built by Don Getz for example, a "schimmel", you won't find architectural errors.  Or a Richard Hujsa schimmel.  Nothing too fancy, but clean lines carry it.  That comes from experience, studying and handling originals, and having a good eye.

Fit and finish today are often better than on originals.  We take more time and work to different standards than many examples in the past.  They did not obsess over having to patch a stock, include a casting with flaws, or how the mortise under the sideplate looked.

Decoration (carving, inlays and engraving) in the past varied from awful to sublime.  Same rings true today.

Longrifles or fowlers with all 3- fine architecture, great fit and finish, and sublime decoration are rare now as then.  I am a traditionalist and although I admire fantasy guns, or "naturally evolving longrifles taken to the next level", they don't excite me like best originals.  Actually, originals get a bonus score from me just because they are originals, and if I had the chance to have an original Isaac Haines or a new "Isaac Haines" style rifle done much better, I'd choose the original even if it was worth less (I know that's not possible but it's not the money that attracts me to originals.  It's knowing they were an expression of that time and place.

[Stophel]

There are a lot of people who can make an exceptionally fine flintlock gun.  Absolutely perfect.  Smooth, straight, perfectly carved, perfectly engraved, etc.  Often using styles that are modern or otherwise not appropriate to the type of gun being produced.  While I am impressed by their ability to do so, I simply do not find guns like this attractive in any way.  They hold no interest for me whatsoever.  I often wonder why they bother with flintlock rifles at all, and why they're not doing custom Remington 700's.

[Tom Currie]

I am no expert at all but find this a very interesting post. Sometimes when I see 20th or 21st century application of art on 18/19 th century object , longrifles in our case, something doesn't quite work for me.
Blacksmokes recent masterpiece rifle is an example. Terrific craftsmanship , super clean, but for my taste it didn't do anything for me. On the other hand Jerry's recent " Chief " rifle was outstanding, maybe because it was a later rifle and the level of effort seemed more appropriate. I guess it's all personal taste. I strive to get better with each effort also, it's just that my better isn't going to be ever thought of as too clean. My thoughts are pretty close to Stoph's on this.

[jerrywh]

There are a lot of people who can make an exceptionally fine flintlock gun.  Absolutely perfect.  Smooth, straight, perfectly carved, perfectly engraved, etc.  Often using styles that are modern or otherwise not appropriate to the type of gun being produced.  While I am impressed by their ability to do so, I simply do not find guns like this attractive in any way.  They hold no interest for me whatsoever.  I often wonder why they bother with flintlock rifles at all, and why they're not doing custom Remington 700's.

   Stophel.  Show me an example of such a gun. I don't remember ever seeing one.  If you don't wish to embarrass anybody just send me a private message.
   Keep in mind that J.P.Beck's guns didn't look worn down and have that patina when they were made. The other makers also. I think there is a misunderstanding of the subject by some.  Maybe I don't understand it myself.  Too perfect might also mean some mistake in period art or period finish.  In my opinion it is a mistake to put a piano finish on a long rifle or any gun for that matter, But some originals had them in England. Outside of maybe a gold barrel band , gold work doesn't fit a long rifle. But--- There are originals that are extremely elaborate , covered with silver filigreed inlays and filigree path boxes. So--- Too each his own.  Does anybody really want to see all these guns look the same. I don't think so. After one show of those I wouldn't go to another.  Variety is the spice of life.  Who wants a generic wife. Not me.

   

[JTR]

Not to degrade the guns being made today, because the best of them are beautiful and wonderfully made, but I think you’re comparing apples and oranges.
While the guns might look basically the same, they’re products of a completely different time period,
Using completely different technology,
Made for entirely different reasons,
For an entirely different cliental.

It’s sort of like comparing a Model T Ford to a new Corvette. The Vette will beat the T hands down in all respects. That’s progress.
But is it actually better? That could be a matter of opinion. The T was a master of its environment, just as the Vette might be considered today. So perhaps that might be considered comparing apples with oranges.

Perhaps the ultimate test for original vs new rifles might be that nasty old value thing. Take your very best rendition of a Beck, or Sell or Dickert or whatever, and sell it. If it brings more bucks than the very best from the maker you’ve imitated, then you’ve succeeded.

If not, well, then? Perhaps you’d call that comparing apples with oranges.

John

[Acer Saccharum]

It's all of the above.

How does one decide who the most beautiful woman in the world is? Every man is going to have a different perception. Ok, now try to have a committee decide. It becomes almost impossible to come to a decision.

In this field, everyone has their own mission for their work. I, being one of those multi-personality types, have a different reason for every gun I build. How can I even begin to explain what all you guys do, if I can't even explain myself?

This is a form of expression, just as painting or drawing is. The shapes and colors, decorative elements we use are as varied as people are, as snowflakes, as ripples on the water. Define that for me, would you?

This is meant to be somewhat humorous, yet I am serious. How do explain the universe, the mysterious, the concept of......

Acer

[Stophel]

Every so often, you will see in Muzzle Blasts, or some other magazine, a flintlock rifle that will have a big American eagle or something on the cheekpiece, inlays, wirework, and carving, all done in a decidedly modern style.  It may be absolutey exceptional work, but it just isn't "right".  I don't find these interesting at all, and I honestly wonder how anyone could.  I have a Mauser rifle I need to get around to stocking.  I could put baroque/rococco carving all over it, acanthus leaves, putti, scrolls, shells, ruffles, etc., but that would be an anachronism just like modern-decorated flintlock.  It just wouldn't look "right" to me.  It should get checkering or carving like acorns or something that is more correct for the period of the gun.

Sorry to have steered the discussion in that direction.

Even folks who build guns entirely in period styles often go overboard in fitting and finishing (in my not so humble opinion  ).  Absolutely glass smooth wood, metal polished to a ridiculous level of fineness, going through a dozen grades of abrasive, and inletting parts so perfectly a human hair couldn't pass beneath them.  Again, I applaud their ability (and patience) to do this, but I think guns like this lose something.

Oh, yes, there are fairly finely finished 18th century guns (particularly English), but they're not the norm, and even then, they're not generally as "perfect", as some made today!  Almost every old gun I have ever seen, even really fine European guns, will show visible file marks on the metal, for example.

For me, the goal is to build a rifle that looks and feels like a real 18th century gun, to the best of my ability.

Different strokes for different folks, and so on, and so on, and scooby dooby dooby...

[roundball]

FWIW, from a simple onlooker who can't cut a straight line on a 2x4 with a skill saw, I never-the-less have some similar thoughts or reactions to the visual impact of one LR compared to another...never was attracted to gaudy, tricked out looking LRs but do like/appreciate excellent wood and craftsmanship...this is a great thread for an interested but unskilled onlooker to soak up...thanks

[Mike Brooks]

I'm with Stophel, especially the scooby dooby dooby part......

[jerrywh]

This is an original American flintlock long rifle.
 We are not so different today than they were. They probably underwent the same criticism
  This gun has a gold inlaid hunting scene on top of the barrel.

  PS. In my opinion it is ugly.

[Mike R]

There are several 'classes' in the art of the modern American longrifle and people build them for different reasons.  Some folks just couldn't stand building a fine rifle without using their impressive skills in fit and finish and carving, inlays, etc. --that is part of their 'art'. Others want to 'copy' the old masters or at least use many of their design features and techniques. Others may not know what they are doing, admittedly, but there is room for all perspectives on the "quality" issue. Art is personal, beauty is in the eye of the beholder, perfection is a judgement, and even a rifle that does not copy some old master can be beautiful.  Are some of you saying that if a modern made longrifle form did not exist exactly in the past it cannot be a beautiful piece of work?  We touched on this in another post on creativity vs copyists...While I agree that many old masters made architecturally beautiful guns, many also with fine carving and engraving, many old makers guns are not so well thought out or executed--and to my eyes some are butt ugly.  Same can be said for modern made longrifles--there are gorgeous rifles that are in line with the old masters and some that are not. There are butt ugly ones of both classes too.

[Stophel]

Jerry, I feel the same way when I look at some of the Boutet guns made for the Napoleonic family.  I am REALLY impressed with their workmanship, but egad, them guns is ugly.

[jerrywh]

I would be more inclined to call a lot of Boutet's guns gaudy. But the craftsmanship is probably the best that ever was. What a lot of people don't know about Boutet is , he had as many as 4000 people working under him at times. What does that mean. I think it means that he never really made any of those guns himself but probably did the gold work or art work on them. Manton had 250 men working for him. When one of us make a gun from scratch, it is a major accomplishment. Very few so called old masters did that.  Personally ,  what I can't stand is being  ordinary. I have a hard time understanding why anybody wants to be common. Are we striving to be an ant colony or what?  I don't want to be like anybody else, I want to be outstanding when it comes to my profession.  The lack of the desire to be the best one can be is a mystery to me.  The world needs more than VW bugs to drive. And people want more than barn guns.   
   The original question here was , are we exaggerating. I think the short answer is yes but by the standards of the day some in all generations always have. To sum it up let me say what an old car salesman told me once. There is a seat for every butt.
 

[flehto]

As far as LR artwork, I'm not capable of exaggerating  because the artist's "gift" wasn't bestowed upon me. If meticulous inletting, finishing and  achieving good architecture is exaggeration, then I'm possibly guilty. Builders of all  skill levels will find a niche that suits their particular artistic ability, skill w/ hand tools , historical referencing and their purpose for building. Personally, I deem utility as a very important factor as to how I appreciate a MLer. When I view a modern day high end  LR  or "masterpiece" , I am truly "awestruck" at all the attributes and the skill of the builder of such a MLer, but then the thought comes to mind...would I take such a MLer hunting.? Also, perhaps it takes an artist to fully appreciate such art? Many exquisite MLers have been shown on ALR and some blogs and they're not all "masterpieces", in fact some are pretty plain but display masterful design, excellent workmanship and an intangible quality that begs you to want to handle them.  In other words...they look "friendly"....Fred

[roundball]

As far as LR artwork, I'm not capable of exaggerating  because the artist's "gift" wasn't bestowed upon me.

And I believe its important for anybody to realize our strengths & weaknesses...I won't hesitate to tear down & rebuild an engine and have to fire right off first time I turn it over...but fine detail work like I've seen from various gunbuilders is not  a strength of mine, I've come to accept that and I'm fine with it...which is why someone ELSE is building my Virginia 

[Paddlefoot]

Just read all these posts and all of the points made are valid. As to exageration I think it's not so much that we exagerate how great the their product was it's just how we as modern people view them compared to the technological world they lived in. I'm sure that guns were made for all incomes and needs then just as now. You could buy an indian trade quality gun and if it made no sense to you to spend more for a "working gun for daily use that was great, the market had been satisfied. The next gunsmith might be building more for the Philadelpia set who bought a gun more for sport than survival or feeding the family and they might want to show off their status. The level of art and craftsmanship, as always, depends on the pricepoint of the gun. Tastes in art change over time. Maybe you could say it's just fashion sense. We look at all this decoration with a larger set of artistic values behind us (200+ years more history) but if our eye is not educated to the old styles our everyday sense of style and beauty is more likely to be based on a modern view. Just sit down and try to duplicate the psychadelic style of doodles that covered every PeeChee folder that a kid drew on back in the mid 60s-70s and you'll find that it's just as hard as trying to duplicate the germanic incised scrollwork of Kuntz or Beck. We don't have the eye for it, just 30 -40 years later, because it's not what our pointy little heads have been programmed for unless we have changed the programming through training.
  My dad tells a story about my grandfather that is sort of along this line. They were sharecroppers in Tenn. during the depression. Grandpa broke the buttstock off his H&R  16 ga. he had wood and a hatchet so he chopped a stock out to rough shape and smoothed it with pieces of broken window glass. Good enough.