First draft carving design- critique requested- Round 2

[Chowmi]

I've drawn my first draft carving designs on my Kibler Colonial Rifle.  I'm building the rifle for a friend, and would like to do a good job.  My carving skills are developing, but limited. 

I'm going for Lancaster-ish style. 

As you will see, I'm not a good artist and this will need some work. 

I'd like to hear comments about overall design, flow and proportion.  I will also welcome comments about this particular line, curve, volute etc. 

I'm not married to any of the designs, so if they are bad, then suggestions of elsewhere to look would be helpful. 

Here is the design behind the cheekpiece:




Here is essentially half of the tang.  Once I get the design right, I will copy it to the other side:

(Now that I see it in pictures, I really don't like the shape of the leaf that will be mirrored on the other side, please help.




Here is the fore-end moulding terminating in a spiral.  The fore-end moulding will morph into an incised line for the spiral.  The carving at the rear entry pipe will also be incise.





And here is the incise design at the rear entry pipe:  I don't really like the big leaf at the end.  Wanted to make it curl over, but think I should have made the curl part bigger?





here's the lock moulding.  I didn't want to to the rounded pointy thing at the front of the lock plate, so I terminated the lock moulding on the under-side with a small spiral.  Not sure if I like that idea.  Might just let it fade instead.






It's been an education just looking at the pictures.  You spend so long drawing, and think it's halfway there, then look at photos.....

Anyway, just to be clear, fire away.  I won't say "I like it that way". ha ha

Norm

[n stephenson]

" Maqua , will guide you to Fort William Henry"

[Chowmi]

" Maqua , will guide you to Fort William Henry"

Last of the Mohicans? 

[n stephenson]

Yes    When you draw your tang  and entry pipe carving , using a centerline , will help you get it more evenly proportioned. 

[Chowmi]

" Maqua , will guide you to Fort William Henry"

I can't possibly imagine that means "Get the chisels out and cut, my lad!"

Norm

[n stephenson]

Norm, I`m just funning with you .  Take some time to study some more examples. The pattern you have behind the cheek looks to me, like it is rotated up in the front. The way the edge extends back , along the bottom edge of the cheek , would look odd , with that scroll , carved across it.  You will have to design your carving to appropriately work with that edge.          I don`t know what the closest " school" or "style" that the rifle is styled after . If so , I would recommend some carving patterns found on rifles from that area and time . Hope this helps. Nate             the front curl at the bottom behind the cheek is free floating it isn't connected to the rest of the carving

[Chowmi]

Norm, I`m just funning with you .  Take some time to study some more examples. The pattern you have behind the cheek looks to me, like it is rotated up in the front. The way the edge extends back , along the bottom edge of the cheek , would look odd , with that scroll , carved across it.  You will have to design your carving to appropriately work with that edge.          I don`t know what the closest " school" or "style" that the rifle is styled after . If so , I would recommend some carving patterns found on rifles from that area and time . Hope this helps. Nate             the front curl at the bottom behind the cheek is free floating it isn't connected to the rest of the carving

Nate,
After our PM's and about 20 minutes of looking through my books and photos of originals, I understand what you are saying.  That front C-scroll to spiral is too low. 

It's funny what the brain does.  I have had it in my mind that many of them extended lower, and when I went to look at the photos that I was convinced would vindicate my view.... I was wrong. 
I did, coincidently find a few in RCA that extend below the extended line of the bottom of the cheek piece, but they were rare, and largely incised lines.  I will add that I was looking in the context of early guns, I don't mean post Rev guns, or non-Lancaster/Moravian types.  Just sayin, limited area and time for those that will howl with derisive comments. 

Thank you Nate, got my eraser ready,

Norm

[PPatch]

Chowmi;

Your first photo, behind the cheek piece. The placement and proportions look good to my eye, but your drawing seems incomplete to me, especially in the area above the forward volute. I would like to see the forward most volute connecting to the rear most, and something worked out with the design above the volute that ends on top of the cheek rest. I believe more thought and sketching would help define what is going to happen in that area. Also, some smoothing out of your lines within the design as a whole, to make the lines flow more naturally. An example is the somewhat abrupt transition from the rear most volute upwards. To my eye the little "bud" at the lower rear of your design, leading to the toe, needs its left side shortened a bit and the bud tilted outward a little.

The Tang sketch; It needs a heap more thought given it. For one thing that leaf is too literal, another is the element below the leaf - what is that? Do some more research and sketching for that area, it seems sort of muddled to me.

Your designs around the entry pipe are not bad, but do need some refining - especially the element on the centerline behind the pipe. I can tell it is a stylized leaf element but would like to see it more refined, the same with the "buds" on each side, they need to be improved to reflect one another more closely. Those volutes on either side will work just fine.

Your teardrops (I forget their actual name) behind the lock panels, on each side of the wrist, will work, I carve them a bit plumper though. But those are done all sorts of ways on originals and yours fit right in.

To my eye, overall, you are doing ok, so don't knock yourself over this first sketch. Just relax and do some more refining of what you already have to improve the overall flow of your designs.

Cheers

dave

[David Rase]

Norm,
"And here is the incise design at the rear entry pipe:  I don't really like the big leaf at the end.  Wanted to make it curl over, but think I should have made the curl part bigger?"

"(Now that I see it in pictures, I really don't like the shape of the leaf that will be mirrored on the other side, please help."

I think the real issue here is that the design needs to be elongated.  I have experienced in the past, specifically on entry pipe and tang carving, a design that looked good after being drawn ended up looking truncated once the second dimension of depth, removal of the background, was executed.
David

[Jerry V Lape]

My opinion is the carving at the tang is not long enough, lacks any unity - meaning what does it represent as a whole?  The carving behind the cheekpiece is flat; has very little indication that it is three dimensional.  The bottom line of the cheekpiece extends too far to the rear.  You can use the cove space at the end of the cheekpiece to represent a vine tying the spiral or volute into the wood. Nothing prevents you from putting a light line on that coved area to help the illusion of depth.  You didn't show the carving at the front of the cheekpiece but it should relate to the rear carving.  Also since these carvings are Rococo art ideally they aren't symmetrical so the tang and rear pipe carvings don't usually divide on a center line - but rather balance on the line.  Both sides should appear to carry the same weight but not necessarily mirror images side to side. Look at Isaac Haines carvings for examples as he really understood Rococo.   

[Mike Brooks]

You may already do this. Get a piece of paper and draw one side of your tang and pipe carving.  Then fold it down the middle and cut it out with scissors and use it for a template, you get both sides the same that way. BUT if you look closely at original guns they certainly didn't worry about symmetry much, rarely have I seen an original tang carving on an old gun that was identical on both sides, they can be way off. We seem worry about that kind of stuff a lot these days.
On your cheek carving I don't like the way the forward volute breaks through the step of the cheek piece at the rear of it, the old ones didn't do that. The design other wise is good with a little tweaking, just have to figure out that forward volute problem.

[Chowmi]

Thanks for all the comments guys, it is appreciated, and I see a lot of what you are saying. 

Dave, thanks for the comments on the entry pipe design.  I had originally planned for it to be longer, as that seemed right.  Then, as I drew it, it kept getting shorter.  I looked at some pictures of originals, and am sure you are right.  Will fix it.

Jerry, the tang carving was meant to be reminiscent of a fleur-de-lis.  Obviously ( I hope) I only drew the one side of it.  Wanted to get the shape of the side leaf, then copy that for the other side.  References for what I was going for would be in the style of RCA #43, 66, 67, simplified 69, or 70. 
         The carving behind the cheekpiece is meant to be similar to the Dickert gun on the KRA Early Moravian guns cd, and/or inspired by the similar patterns on RCA 66, 67, 70, or even the Albrecht gun on that same KRA CD. 

Wish I could just post the photos to make discussion easier, but I certainly respect why we don't post copyrighted material. 

PPatch,
Thank you, I think I will make the beavertails a bit fatter.  I don't like the super fat ones, but these could certainly be bigger.  I think I may move them closer to the termination of the side plate/lock panel as well, so they don't appear to "hanging" off the edge as much. 
You're right, the upper edge of the forward volute on the cheek side carving needs more definition.  I had thought that the curve of the cheek piece flowing towards the corner of the butt plate would define it better, and see that effect on several examples.  In this case, it doesn't do a good job of that.  Looking at a few pictures of originals,  I see a way to fix that.

If it helps, to be more precise, I am going for early, pre-revolution Lancaster area designs, with a possible influence from Christian's Spring (fictional CS apprentice moving to Lancaster??  Like Albrecht did to Lititz?  Anyway, you get the idea).  I don't want to go too ornate, as my carving skills probably won't support that. 

I'll post my second drafts when I can.  Takes me a long time to draw, and shop time is limited. 

thank you,
Norm

[rich pierce]

What are your goals for this carving design and for this rifle in general?  What is the storyline behind your build?  That makes all the difference. Take Mike Brokks’ Recent Lehigh he tells the story. Or his CS rifle. It’s based largely on a specific Oerter rifle. How I look at those 2 is very different and knowing the story helps.

For example:
I am building a rifle meant to be a 1780s Dickert
I am building a rifle based on a specific 1780s Dickert
I am building a rifle meant to be a 1780s rifle from an unknown Lancaster maker
I am doing Bivins-style work; looking to improve on original work

[Curtis]

Norm, try this before you get too far ahead- make some copies or printouts of some original carvings you like, sized to fit your rifle.  Make a tracing of the original on your stock with carbon paper or something similar, just the basic design.  Then after much study and contemplation, make some simple modifications to have it reflect your own personality a bit.  Sit back and reflect on the resulting design.  Then proceed to work from there...  tracing original work can help develop a feel for what worked for them years ago- even if not on the stock.   Get the feel and then make it your own design based on an original composition.  You can always erase and start over until you get the "feel".  Work from there and see if it helps.  Don't forget to follow a theme.

The behind the cheek design is pretty good, but not quite relaxed enough in my opinion.  The rest needs come careful study.

Hope this helps some,
Curtis

[Chowmi]

Norm, try this before you get too far ahead- make some copies or printouts of some original carvings you like, sized to fit your rifle.  Make a tracing of the original on your stock with carbon paper or something similar, just the basic design.  Then after much study and contemplation, make some simple modifications to have it reflect your own personality a bit.  Sit back and reflect on the resulting design.  Then proceed to work from there...  tracing original work can help develop a feel for what worked for them years ago- even if not on the stock.   

Hope this helps some,
Curtis

Curtis,
thanks, just about the time you were writing that response, I had come to the same conclusion.  I traced a pattern on paper last night for behind the cheekpiece and it looks much better.  I will continue.
I have been free-handing it because it seems that method is more likely to develop muscle memory and drawing skill over time.  The problem is that I wasn't seeing some of the ways my drawings were diverging from the originals.  The tracing helped with that, and helped me see the details better. 

I re-worked the RR entry pipe carving a bit on paper yesterday, and it is getting much better.  Just need more practice.  I'll do the tang as well.  I'm still playing around with ideas for the tang. 

As for a theme, I'm working on that as well.  I still need to do the carving design in front of the cheek rest.  I'll wait until I am happy with the behind the cheekrest and tie those two together. 

As for Rich's comment regarding a back story, I've thought about that a bit too. 

I'm thinking in about 1770, a recently graduated, fictional apprentice left Christian's Spring to strike out on his own, and get away from the strict regimen of the communal lifestyle.  He went to Lancaster and had to adapt his style to fit the tastes of the already established Lancaster market.  He drops many of the details of CS, such as the  stepped wrist, the thicker front edge of the comb, the tabbed toe plate, the trigger guard with the double bend on the back of the grip rail etc etc. 
His carving is much more Lancastrian, but there are small elements from his apprenticeship that he sneaks in. 

I've incorporated a personal element to the fella I'm building the rifle for.  He was hunting for meteorites and while walking back one evening across the desert, he saw a meteorite fall and thought he saw where it landed.  He went looking the next day, but never found it.  I have inlayed a toe plate with an engraved moon and stars design.  In front of the toe plate, I used wire inlay and pins to create a falling star.  I guess you could say that my fictional apprentice saw a falling star on his trip to Lancaster and saw it as a sign or some such. 

Thanks everyone for the comments, it's forcing me to pay more attention and to learn.  I appreciate it!

Cheers,
Norm

[rich pierce]

That story gives you some freedom within the general context of CS/traditional Lancaster. Fun project.

[Chowmi]

That story gives you some freedom within the general context of CS/traditional Lancaster. Fun project.

Beware a guy with the freedom to do what he wants, who lacks the drawing skill to make it happen!

You should have seen my drawings 6 months ago.  This is a jump of several light years from those old drawings. 

Cheers,
Norm

[Acer Saccharum]

Norm, I really like the direction you're taking. Thank you for sharing, for we all learn from this.

[M. E. Pering]

Chowmi, I think your level of artwork for woodworking is perfectly acceptable.  but as for the design, try rotating the main scroll behind the cheekpiece about 15-20 degrees clockwise, and I think you will be much more satisfied.  But overall, I think your designs look plausible and attractive for the 1770's, and that is important, at least to me in the way I work. 

When I was 15 or 16 in high school art class, I had an old Vietnam vet Marine for an art teacher.  And one day, he took us out in the school yard and told us to draw, not sketch, whatever we felt like drawing that we could see.  He told us not to erase anything, but start over if we were not happy with it.  The first few people he caught using their erasers, he went over, snatched the pencils from their hands, and snapped off the eraser.  We did this at every art class for 3 weeks, except for one day it was raining.  And I must confess, it did make me a better drawer.  I encourage you to give it a try for a bit if you want to be better at drawing too.  BTW, I always use an eraser these days. 

I agree what the others have said, but I like your basic designs.

M. E. Pering

[Jim Kibler]

My advice is to start with the basic backbones of your design.  Get these placed right, make them have a good shape, make them look good individually and together.  After this, details can be added.  Remember when adding details they generally diverge from a common growth point.  I know this probably doesn't make too much sense.  Something hard to describe, but super important.  Just trying to draw a design from one side to the other doesn't usually work too well.  I talk a bit about this stuff in the instructional carving booklet I put together.

Jim

[Chowmi]

Tom,
Thank you, the ideas, and the direction of this project would never have developed this way without the knowledge I’ve gained on this forum, and from classes at WKU along with some personal study.
It’s far from perfect, but the learning is the journey. And I have a long journey ahead, ha! 
Nice to see you on the forum again, if I might say so.   I hope that this is a sign that you are on the mend. Looking forward to an engraving class when you are able.
I’m happy to post my learning for all to see, even the ugly parts. I think that so often there is more to learn from the progression from sloppy to good, than there is from good to really good (if that makes sense).

M E Pering,
I would have burned through the entire school’s supply of paper if he were my teacher, and still ended up with Stik Men as my triumphal accomplishment! 

Jim,
What you said makes perfect sense, and is the direction in which I have been moving since posting the original pictures. I’ve somewhat gone back to the drawing board to focus on two things:
Overall design flow
Detail of leaves and tendrils
The idea being I need to have a better understanding of both.

I have your carving book, just simply forgot to use it as a reference! 

I’m away from home now for about two weeks, so I’ll concentrate on paper drawing when I can,  and maybe post pics of paper ideas.

The feedback here has forced me to look closer, which is awesome. Thank you.

Norm.

[Chowmi]

I’ve done some more work on my carving design and thought I would see what you guys think.
It’s loosely based on Dickert’s RCA #70.
I made some changes to the slope at the rear of the cheek piece and did the drawing again based on inputs here and from my mentor.
I’ve learned a lot, but I know there is a long way to go in my drawing skills.

Here is the butt carving design. The major C-scroll will be scooped, or modeled on the interior of the upper arch. I just didn’t draw that modeling.

I get the feeling that the spirals are too small, leaving too much empty space between them.



Here is the design in front of the cheekiest. I’m less happy with this. I wonder if the c-scroll is too small, cramped, and the tendril and leaves are a bit fat or stubby.







Comments welcome,

Norm

[Mr. Bubbles]

What style of rifle is this?  A Bucks?  If so, you ought to rotate your cheek carving some to make the line coming off the cheek rest a little "swoopier".  Move the front lower swirl back some too.  One suggestion is to print out your pictures, white out the drawn in lines, and draw again on the actual printed pictures.  That will give you a little better sense of the 3-D nature of what you're drawing on--better than pure profile pictures on white paper does.

 Also, just work on 1 of them at a time.  Your mind is getting confused by jumping around from area to area.  On my last gun it took me a week of drawing and erasing each one of them before I got the chisels out.

[Jim Kibler]

I think you are making progress.  A few things to consider...  Do you think the design behind the cheek piece would look better if it were a little lower on the stock?  Also, to my eye the upper c-scroll is a bit large in comparison to the lower scroll.  Just some thoughts... 

Your flow and drawing layout is better.  Keep up the good work!

Jim

[blienemann]

Hi Norm,

You draw well.  I agree with your own critique and with Jim's comments.  Lower on stock, scrolls more proportional to the size of major C scroll.  I think of the major C scroll as a plant opening or unfurling from the cheekpiece, so it and ending scroll become larger to the rear.  Here's a version of Shumway # 70 that Jack had us carve on a practice stock years ago.  Also a simple version by Jud Brennan on the "3 day rifle" he stocked a while back - his upper scroll is large.  Your rifle is going to be sweet.  Drawing a good design is more important than the carving technique in delivering a believable rifle.

PS - # 70 could just as well be Albrecht from 12 miles away at Lititz, as it would be hard to draw or carve this design any better.