Why Age Contemporary Pieces?

[galudwig]

I don't think anyone commenting on this thread (including me) said that they do not like or are against the technique of artificially aging guns. I haven't built many guns, but I have learned and utilized techniques to artificially age wood and metal. On the other hand, there have been plenty of comments suggesting that "as new" guns have no soul. I think when you immediately look away from an "as new" build, what you are missing is the the heart and soul of the builder. I guess that's easy to do when you categorize the worth of a build based solely on looks.

My very first longrifle build was a kit rifle purchased from Homer Dangler back in 1999. I had no prior gun building experience, so I bought and studied books and tapes that would help me through it. I spent many hours putting what I learned into actually building the rifle. I finished the rifle out in an "as new"condition. My son and I have killed quite a few squirrels with it over the years. It has many dents, nicks, and scratches on it from days in the field. Explain to me how this gun has no soul? Explain to me how the "character" acquired through nearly 20 years of actual use does not compare to a new gun aged to look 20 years old? 

Being nothing but a gun builder suits me just fine. I also agree with Mike when he says "figure out what you like and go with it." I think that's what most average gun builders do.

[rich pierce]

I’m not sure why this topic, which comes up from time to time, turns into a “I’m right, you’re wrong” or “agers vs. as news” type of debate. I guess part of the reason is that we do pour a lot of our passion into our work. And for some it’s also a livelihood.

i think the topic is already too far gone for rescue

Although some data on who prefers what (a poll) would be interesting, some could view the results as justification or condemnation depending on how it turns out. Worse yet, an obscure poll on a given day on a topic many have missed, on a forum many don’t even know about, would become “fact” in some minds and carry forward for 20 years.

Please keep in mind that your preferences are your preferences. Many responsss above affirm that. Others are quick to take or give offense and things go downhill and here we are again.

How silly is it that the moderators have a list of topics they know will go badly and have to consider banning certain topics because adults cannot discuss them in a civil manner? [\b]

[Pukka Bundook]

Smokey,

I'm not going to clutter this thread with more quotes, but in the above I said,  "Each to his own, and all that".

That means you are free to like whatever you like, and so am I.   

Mike pretty well said it for me though.

[Mike Brooks]

I guess that's easy to do when you categorize the worth of a build based solely on looks.

I'll confess I'm guilty of that. What else is there to judge art by besides how it looks?


Just take a look at the top professional gunbuilders of today. The House Bros., C. Edwards, E. Kettenburg, A.Martin, I. Pratt, K. Gahagan, etc. They all have one thing in common and I'll let you fellows  figure out what makes all these people's work so successful.  Gunbuilding is all about art. It's mainly sculpture. After that you have a canvas to add color and sometimes texture. Everybody has different tastes in art and what they like to look at.

[Smokey Plainsman]

I guess that's easy to do when you categorize the worth of a build based solely on looks.

I'll confess I'm guilty of that. What else is there to judge art by besides how it looks?


Just take a look at the top professional gunbuilders of today. The House Bros., C. Edwards, E. Kettenburg, A.Martin, I. Pratt, K. Gahagan, etc. They all have one thing in common and I'll let you fellows  figure out what makes all these people's work so successful.  Gunbuilding is all about art. It's mainly sculpture. After that you have a canvas to add color and sometimes texture. Everybody has different tastes in art and what they like to look at.

I believe a J. Kibler should be added to the list, as well as an M. Brooks, but agree with you. 

[WadePatton]

We judge, accept, reject guns on their looks every day.  We see far more guns/gun images than we get to: handle, shoot, examine, tear apart, or otherwise develop information from which to make a full and more accurate opinion. We must assume basic functionality, sound assembly, and reasonable accuracy of any contemporary piece because that's what we've come to know is likely and expected. 

Some marksman said, "Only accurate guns are interesting" and I quite agree, but also assume some level of decent accuracy is inherent in a well-executed contemporary representation of an antique gun.

So looks is basically all we have left to differentiate one gun from the other.

Perspective has the power to change everything without touching anything. 
So like what you like now, and later on you might like less
or more, but not Lester Moore. 

(He had a that terrible fate with a 44) 

[JEH]

For me its pretty simple. I just like em all!

[bob in the woods]

In order to address the original question posted ie "why age contemporary pieces", there is really only one answer, that being " because some folks like them aged "     Done 

[Craig Wilcox]

I have yet to see on this forum, a rifle or smoothbore that I do not like.  Some look different from others, just like I look different from other folks.  But I like looking at them all.

[Smokey Plainsman]

Guys at day’s end, I think really it all boils down to individual likes and tastes.

[Marcruger]

"My new  standard answer for the age old question. WHY NOT? It's a free world after all."

I agree with Mike.  Why not?

You are free to order a brand new looking rifle. 

In the historically period correct world, I would argue that a brand new looking rifle did not stay brand new looking long when living in the woods with its owner. 

I like the rifles that look well cared for, but used.  Like the owner has used it for ten years, but was meticulous in its care.  I for one do not care for metal pitting or chunks of wood missing on a contemporary rifle, but I do like a worn-in look. 

That said, to each his own.  Enjoy what you like, use it, and pass our hobby along to kids. 

God Bless,   Marc

[B.Barker]

The rifles of olden times if used everyday were used up in less than a life time in many cases. The old Seth Kenman rifle is ruff looking in old photo's of him from the 1860's. At that time it was on it's second stock and second or third lock. If some one is portraying a hunter or even a person living on the frontier your rifle would age really quick. I don't know any one today that spend six months living outdoors in every kind of weather and then when they go to a house it's about like a modern barn. We don't leave our rifles loaded all the time and clean them infrequent. If we seen how the old timers used and abused their rifle we would cringe. Today most folks have multiple rifles and smooth guns and use them less than once a month and then shoots them a few times and takes them into a climate controlled house and clean, oil and leave it unloaded till the next time they take it out. A rifle like that used for twenty years will not pick up the patina that Simon Kenton or Boones rifle would get in a year. However I will build a rifle to a customers preference aged or new. But don't fool yourself thinking you will use your rifle like some old mountaineer would use his. I have a couple of modern .22 rifles that I use the most. They have spent many hours on the back of a four wheeler and in my Jeep rattling around. They look a bit rough but they still don't get used like an old trapper would have used it. How many people do you know today that have been in any fire fights with their rifle or crawled into a cave after a bear.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Mr. Barker:  your summation is precisely to the point, and I concur.  I've built well over one hundred rifles and guns, but have never given one of my creations an aged or worn look.  I've never tried, and it is mostly for lack of courage.  With that said, I admire the work done by a skilled gunmaker who puts patina on a rifle.  For examples of that done to perfection in my opinion, I look to work by the House bros, Ian Pratt, Jim Kibler and Eric Kettenberg, not necessarily in that order.  I really like the way these builders add darkness to low wear areas and rub out high wear areas, and Kibler has it down pat, to my eye.  But the pieces they have created start with excellent architecture and that alone carries the rifle.
Perhaps some day I'll make an effort to emulate their approach.  In the meantime, I love to see that kind of work....inspirational.

[Phil Neal]

I appreciate new and "aged" and really old.  That being said I am most interested in how they shoot.

[ron w]

as an example of an individual's taste, I prefer to see a gun that is aged by it's architecture and exhibits a build method that follows the gun's intended age, but looks brand new and crisp, as if it was just finished by a g'smith in the gun's appropriate era. adding age to a gun cosmetically does nothing for it's worth, in my opinion, it only eliminates the hard work that it takes to make a gun without destroying details. we all know it is hard work to keep corners sharp and wood edges from being sanded down as we build a gun. ageing them just seems to me, to be a invitation to allow yourself to get sloppy about the very finshing detail that sets the gun it it's appropriate niche and gives it a good portion of it's value.

[Mike Brooks]

as an example of an individual's taste, I prefer to see a gun that is aged by it's architecture and exhibits a build method that follows the gun's intended age, but looks brand new and crisp, as if it was just finished by a g'smith in the gun's appropriate era. adding age to a gun cosmetically does nothing for it's worth, in my opinion, it only eliminates the hard work that it takes to make a gun without destroying details. we all know it is hard work to keep corners sharp and wood edges from being sanded down as we build a gun. ageing them just seems to me, to be a invitation to allow yourself to get sloppy about the very finshing detail that sets the gun it it's appropriate niche and gives it a good portion of it's value.

Quite the contrary actually. A convincing ageing job is far more labor intensive than a as new finish.

[Mick C]

as an example of an individual's taste, I prefer to see a gun that is aged by it's architecture and exhibits a build method that follows the gun's intended age, but looks brand new and crisp, as if it was just finished by a g'smith in the gun's appropriate era. adding age to a gun cosmetically does nothing for it's worth, in my opinion, it only eliminates the hard work that it takes to make a gun without destroying details. we all know it is hard work to keep corners sharp and wood edges from being sanded down as we build a gun. ageing them just seems to me, to be a invitation to allow yourself to get sloppy about the very finshing detail that sets the gun it it's appropriate niche and gives it a good portion of it's value.

What does "aged by it's architecture" mean exactly?

[WadePatton]

as an example of an individual's taste, I prefer to see a gun that is aged by it's architecture and exhibits a build method that follows the gun's intended age, but looks brand new and crisp, as if it was just finished by a g'smith in the gun's appropriate era. adding age to a gun cosmetically does nothing for it's worth, in my opinion, it only eliminates the hard work that it takes to make a gun without destroying details. we all know it is hard work to keep corners sharp and wood edges from being sanded down as we build a gun. ageing them just seems to me, to be a invitation to allow yourself to get sloppy about the very finshing detail that sets the gun it it's appropriate niche and gives it a good portion of it's value.

What does "aged by it's architecture" mean exactly?

Methinks "dated" would be a more accurate verb there.  The architecture of the gun dates the piece by showing from what school or maker it is fashioned after. This is why we see "Early" and "Late" variations on the same maker/schools in many cases.

Also someone above indicated that sloppy work would be no problem on a "aged" piece.  I submit that making a realistic rendition of aging is not that simple. As the originals showing wear, slight or extreme, do not necessarily show sloppy workmanship before they got old.  Some may show neglect, others may show hard use, but they generally started out fresh and well-fitted.  This is another fine point that separates the experts/artists from the not such.

[Herb]

Here is the Jim Bridger Hawken as photographed by my friend Dave Boender at the Green River Rifle Works in 1975.  I built a copy of this rifle from this photo and the detailed drawing Greg Roberts made of it then, which I made a copy of for me.

Here is the rifle at the museum in Helena, MT.

This is my early copy of it, before I wore the finish off the lock.

To show that I can make them as new, here is a .58 flint fullstock, a .54 Don Stith, a .54 engraved Hawken, and a .54, don't remember what that was.  (I've built 25 or 30, kinda lose track).

I built these.  The top two are very close copies of the Kit Carson, both .54, the next is my .54 Bridger and the bottom is a .58 flint halfstock "Hawken" I built.  I have hunted deer, elk and antelope with three of these and fired the Bridger 1500 to 2000 rounds.  I "aged" it because I know what it looks like now, and I like that look.  I would not want it to look like it did when it left Sam's shop in St. Louis- varnished black-brown, new, shiny and no character.  I age some because I like the look, they kinda match me.  Ain't much new shine left on me, either.

[Pete G.]

Why??? Because nobody wants to look like a greenhorn.

[ron w]

yes...... "dated"...... would be a better word !.  having a new gun doesn't necessarily mean "greenhorn". if I buy a brand new lamborghini, does that mean I never drove before ?. my son and I raced gokarts when he was in his teens. I built all of them in my garage and they were new every year and for 5 years in a row he won the championship in his division with his new kart,...while other drivers with older karts were not competitive. sometimes new is good !. all those old aged guns started out new at some point in time and i'm quite sure the owners of them weren't the least bit embarrassed by having a new Hawken.

[Eric Kettenburg]

The "aging" thing has absolutely no connection whatsoever to historical accuracy.  Comments regarding 'how it would have looked new' or 'how it left the shop' really are missing the point.  I don't see how this application has anything to do with that viewpoint.  Far be it from me to sound like an art snob, but in this very particular case, the only way I can possibly explain it to those who don't understand the appeal is to say that it is indeed art.  It's imaginative.  It's adding a story to an otherwise unstoried item.  It's partially an expression of the person executing the aging and it's partly an expression of an imagined back-story, or I should say, that's how I see a very well-done aging job.  A good aging job should in some way beg to tell a story in the same way that a genuine antique begs to tell a story.  I understand, there must be somewhat of a suspension of disbelief on the part of the viewer who is in on the game, but to my way of seeing it, if executed properly a good aging job should evoke imaginings on the part of the viewer before he is let in on the con.  This philosophy should be applicable to any degree of aging, whether the goal is to emulate a few months of use or a few centuries of use.

I know I constantly have tried to explain this to folks and never seem to be able to do so in a way that satisfies either myself or others.  Sorry.  I guess you either like it or you don't!

[vanu]

For what it's worth, I really like Eric's reply...properly aged arms are works of art. 

Frankly, we are all into 200-250 year old technology so new (non-aged) could seem a bit off as well... Depends on ones perspective I guess. I had a Jack Brooks rifle that looked like it fell out of RCA Vol I, A Wallace Gusler rifle, who refuses to age his work and a Kibler that is "toned" per our collaboration, all are wonderful expressions of the contemporary gunmakers art, and each a different expression of the maker and wonderful as adjuncts to the originals that share the same space...makes for a wonderful collection, the fact that several can be shot has added appeal!

Bruce

[ron w]

don't get me wrong,....I will certainly agree that it is indeed an art,....I don't mean to discount those that can do it.....the work I see on this site is simply amazing !. it is a considerable talent upon itself!.  the aging thing is just not my preference.
    In my 35+ years of woodworking I have made several attempts to age some of my Early American pieces and have never really been satisfied with the outcome......sometimes almost scoulding myself for just about ruining a nice piece of furniture !   granted,.... I also will never consider myself an "artist" and admittedly should probably never attempt to go down that road !

[Mike Brooks]

don't get me wrong,....I will certainly agree that it is indeed an art,....I don't mean to discount those that can do it.....the work I see on this site is simply amazing !. it is a considerable talent upon itself!.  the aging thing is just not my preference.
    In my 35+ years of woodworking I have made several attempts to age some of my Early American pieces and have never really been satisfied with the outcome......sometimes almost scoulding myself for just about ruining a nice piece of furniture !   granted,.... I also will never consider myself an "artist" and admittedly should probably never attempt to go down that road !

The lack of satisfaction on my part of every gun I do is what keeps me building more guns, always omething that didn't turn out as I planned or something new I want to try.  It is all about the art whether the gun is new or antiqued it's all art. It's more sculpture than anything else, then throw in the carving and  engraving arts. Then you can go that one step farther and go into the art of ageing the gun. The artistic possibilities are near endless. I have to keep it all interesting other wise I'd just go off fishing and live off my wife....that wouldn't last long....