Morphy Auction Jan 16

[Shreckmeister]

The auction listed several fine longrifles.  They are still included in the auction description but not on the lots that you can
see descriptions of.  Anybody know what's up?

[WESTbury]

Try going on Morphy's site, click on the Jan 16 th auction, enter "flintlock" in the "SEARCH AUCTON"  area. They should appear.

[wabeek]

The "additional  photos" section is crucial to studying detail with good views.  The entire catalog, arms et al, is extraordinary.

[Jacob_S_P]

I don't suppose anyone saw Lot #72 or got pics of it?

[WESTbury]

Lot #1072, is three brass candle sticks, in Morphy's Jan 16th auction.

[Shreckmeister]

Thank you.  I went directly to the Morphys site and its all there to see.  Can't recall so many nice rifles in one auction other than Julia about a year ago.  Wish I could afford that Pennsylvania State Seal rifle.  I hope it goes to someone in Pennsylvania.

[spgordon]

Any thoughts on this rifle, "attributed to Oerter," or the catalog text:

https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/_A__PRE_REVOLUTIONARY_WAR_FLINTLOCK_KENTUCKY_RIFLE-LOT479305.aspx

The catalog says: "It is also pictured on page 23 of 'Moravian Gunmaking' published by the Kentucky Rifle Association and Robert Lienemann. It is attributed to Christian Oerter during his apprenticeship with Andreas Albrecht in Christian Springs."

Bob's book does not attribute this rifle to Oerter. In fact, it uses it as an example of inferior carving and speculates that it may have been by Joseph Haberland. It appears again in Moravian Gunmaking II for the same purpose: to demonstrate a pedestrian sort of carving (contrasted with Oerter) and associated only with Joseph Haberland.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I think it's a perfect example of a very 'hasty' rifle, possibly put together for war time use although it could be earlier, or later.

Bob would be the best one to chime in here, but I believe he compared several stock profiles and may have included it because it matches up fairly closely with the profile architecture of Oerter's rifles.  Maybe he included it for some other reason.  I remember briefly discussing this one, and RCA (?)52(?) with him also which is another piece that displays the same somewhat rapid or hasty work, and with similar architecture.

Trying to attribute this Morphy's rifle is somewhat of an exercise in futility to my way of thinking.  About all that can be said is that it somewhat resembles the stock profiling of what Oerter was doing in the mid 1770s.

[WESTbury]

Reading auction catalogs is very often like watching an episode of The Blacklist; nothing is quite as it seems.

Having a good research library is the best insurance.

[spgordon]

Bob would be the best one to chime in here, but I believe he compared several stock profiles and may have included it because it matches up fairly closely with the profile architecture of Oerter's rifles.  Maybe he included it for some other reason.  I remember briefly discussing this one, and RCA (?)52(?) with him also which is another piece that displays the same somewhat rapid or hasty work, and with similar architecture.

I doubt Bob will chime in. My only point was all that both Moravian Gunmaking books say about this rifle is that it may be by Haberland. The catalog uses Moravian Gunmaking as evidence that the rifle is by Oerter. Here's the page that the catalog cites:

[WESTbury]

I think it's a perfect example of a very 'hasty' rifle, possibly put together for war time use although it could be earlier, or later.

Devil's Advocate:
If one were trying to make rifles, for use in combat situations, as fast as possible, why would they even waste time incise carving a stock?

I would think that even in haste, a master builder, like Oerter, would have enough pride in his work to do a much better job.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Scott, I think it should be pretty obvious by now that the auction companies are taking HUGE liberties with their descriptions.  They're in business to make money and make the sale, period.  They're also careful with their wording, using innuendo which is far different than stating a fact which may create liability.

Ultimately I don't think they're orienting the catalog descriptions toward those who are researchers and/or experts in any particular field (whether monied or not), they're orienting the descriptions toward those who want to buy a piece of historical 'Americana' and the extent of the accompanying research will be the auction catalog itself.

I think Bob mentioned Haberland in relation to this rifle and the 'GS' rifle specifically to initiate dialogue and to broaden consideration; I think these pieces were included as examples of rifles that are not quite up to the level of professionalism seen in Oerter's work, for example; I don't think he was indicating in any way that he thought Haberland actually stocked this rifle (certainly to my mind too late to be 1756-ish) or the GS rifle.  Unfortunately auction houses for years to come are going to be picking out these speculative, ruminative comments primarily oriented (I think) toward people like me or others here, who will pick over every last bone and relish research hypothesizing with the accepted caveat that a hypothesis is a hypothesis, and incorporating these comments into the descriptions of various auction pieces with a vastly inflated air of certitude.

[spgordon]

Scott, I think it should be pretty obvious by now that the auction companies are taking HUGE liberties with their descriptions.  They're in business to make money and make the sale, period.  They're also careful with their wording, using innuendo which is far different than stating a fact which may create liability.

Obvious, yes. Why people find this tolerable, I don't know. Well, I think I do know.

Is it tolerated in other fields--auctions for paintings or textiles or pottery? I honestly don't know.

Yes, the rifle is included in Bob's book as an example of rifles that aren't up to Oerter's standard (as I said, "inferior carving"). So to cite that book in order to attribute it to Oerter is ... well, what would you call it?

[WESTbury]

Perhaps we should thank them for giving us something entertaining to write about on a very late December day.

[blienemann]

Scott and Eric, you are precisely correct with your comments.  I generally stay clear of debating a rifle that is up for sale, or making comments that affect value or sale.  But in this case and since you raised the issue here, I will chime in.  The description refers to George's and our two books, and in very next sentence says the rifle is attributed to Oerter during his apprenticeship to Albrecht at C's Spring.  Neither George nor I attributed anything close to this, and I doubt that Albrecht or any master would let a rifle like this out of their shop.

I called the auction house, spoke to a person in detail, explained that I was the author mentioned and that I find the description very misleading at best, and she was going to relay my concerns to their "out of house" expert who provides such descriptions.  I have not heard from anyone yet, but if I do, we'll have a courteous discussion.

Your comments about how auctions work, who the descriptions are geared towards, etc appear to be accurate.  The tremendous prices some arms have garnered at this auction house recently may have them shooting for the stars when possible.  Bob

[Eric Kettenburg]

Scott I think Bob just summed it up perfectly.  As to your question re: why is this found to be tolerable?  I don't have an answer for that.  All I know is that the "attribution game" has been played for a lot longer than I've been alive, and it's surely not solely confined to the realm of flintlock rifles.

Westbury:  I don't have a factual answer to your question either.  However, if *I* may play devil's advocate as well, I would ask:  what was the point of the raised-carved moldings seen on pretty much every European musket throughout the 18th century, regardless of country?  There is no doubt as the martial purpose of such arms, so why was time wasted carving lock and/or tang moldings?  German military rifles - also raised carved moldings.  What purpose?

Perhaps it's somewhat akin to asking what is the point of chrome trim on a modern car, or a molded bead etc on a stair railing; it's there, just because it is!

I do think this Morphy's rifle is a pretty darn good "type" for what I would consider to be a piece made for War service at one of the PA arsenals, or perhaps elsewhere.  There's really not much regional about it, other than the stepped guard finials and the profile architecture vaguely reminiscent of Oerter's work.  It sure does show a lot of signs of rapid construction.

[Seth Isaacson]

Westbury:  I don't have a factual answer to your question either.  However, if *I* may play devil's advocate as well, I would ask:  what was the point of the raised-carved moldings seen on pretty much every European musket throughout the 18th century, regardless of country?  There is no doubt as the martial purpose of such arms, so why was time wasted carving lock and/or tang moldings?  German military rifles - also raised carved moldings.  What purpose?

The purpose in my opinion is the same as why professional European armies wore fancy hats, uniforms, etc. and kept their arms constantly polished: to instill and project a sense of pride and professionalism. After all, a professional soldier is a representative of his king and country.

[rich pierce]

I’m guessing that many auction houses and many authors of books on original longrifles often have to collaborate with owners/sellers of unsigned guns in regards to attribution (all attributions are hypotheses). The owners/sellers, being human, are tempted to settle in their own minds on the most favorable attribution or dating of their guns.  The auction house or author clearly want access to the guns, to have a great catalogue and sale, or a more complete book. And so the dance begins.   

The attribution dance is probably more taxing on authors than auction houses. An author will be more knowledgeable because of their focus. When an author is the owner of a gun being featured in a book, there will be inherent bias toward the most exciting attribution possible. Bias is a human trait, not a character flaw.  Ignoring or denying bias, however, is naive at best and self-serving at worst. I’m more strict than most and make a bigger deal of this, having authored and reviewed scores of peer-reviewed scientific publications and grant proposals. .

On the auction side, it seems that once an unsigned gun is sold as a Schroyer or an Oerter or a Johannes Moll or whatever, it’s identity is about sealed. The new owner can state that the venerable and trusted auction house identified it as “X” and so going forward, it is self-fulfilling in regards to the increased collector value.

“Attributed to Wolfgang Haga”. Need I say more?

 

[WESTbury]

Another influence on the European gunsmith's may have been the moldings and carvings used by the cabinet makers. The stockers wanted to emulate those very fine furniture pieces to attract customers. When they emigrated to North America, they brought that tradition and carried it on here.

Very obviously, that tradition died out here in the 19th century, perhaps as those European trained gunsmiths disappeared and very decorated furniture lost favor in this country.

The French armories never seemed to have carried the civilian cabinet makers tradition into martial arms. As the American military arms were copied from the French, specifically the "Charleville Pattern", from the outset of musket production.

[blienemann]

I received a phone call from the auction house's expert. 

He explained that the attribution came to him from a prior owner and the current owner - who may have relied upon the prior owner.  They apparently provided some argument in written notes, the details of which I have not seen, to support their case.  At least one of these gentlemen is a long time KRA member and collector, has written some, and so his thoughts would seemingly carry some weight.

I explained that I strongly disagreed with the attribution, explained the context in which the rifle was presented in our books, and he listened.  The auction books have already been printed, so cannot be changed - that makes it difficult for anyone to argue with a catalog.  I asked if he and auction house could print something online that the attribution was not from George and I, but rather from several recent or current owners, and he said they might be able to do something.

This is the process as I see it, for this particular rifle and for others sold at auction.  Sometimes makes you feel bad about writing a book!  We used to rely upon special dealers to put buyers and rifles together, and this process also had some problems, but was one on one and the buyer could ask questions if he/she knew enough to ask.  That's the update for now.  Bob

[spgordon]

It is one thing to attribute the rifle to Oerter (let's call that: nonsense).

It is quite another thing to state that a respected authority such as Moravian Gunmaking attributes the rifle to Oerter (let's call that, out of politeness and restraint: deliberately misleading).

Auction houses and collectors (i.e., buyers and sellers) clearly have an interest in keeping the "dance" going. Others, too, for various reasons (access). Beyond that ... ? If these rifles ever end up more in museums than in private collections (it seems to me that, now, 80% or more of collectable longrifles remain in private collections), the dance will end. Until then, everybody just keeps dancing.

[WESTbury]

I asked if he and auction house could print something online that the attribution was not from George and I, but rather from several recent or current owners, and he said they might be able to do something.

They have plenty of time to print an addendum and change the online catalog. Jim Julia did it frequently. But, they have to want to do it.

[blienemann]

A short correction has been added to the end of the description for the rifle.  While not grammatically correct, it was an effort to share our concern.  Will be interesting to see what this rifle sells for - if it sells.  Bob

[spgordon]

Hah, well, interesting.

It would be more honest to admit who has attributed the rifle to Oerter--to say, for instance, "a previous owner and the current owner attribute the rifle to Oerter." But of course that would expose that the attribution-makers are rather interested parties. 

[vanu]

A couple of observations to add to the discussion:

Back in the mid-1980's I owned a rifle that shared a lot of the characteristics (ex: buttplate, sideplate, triggerguard and rear sight) of the rifle coming up for ale at Morphy's. Ultimately it showed up in Muzzle Blasts (November 1993) in one of George Shumway's "Longrifles of Note" articles with an acknowledgment of a Pennsylvania origin (as opposed to Southern as noted in RCA Vol II). Anyway, while both rifles shared traits that reflect Christian Springs rifles, Oerter to be specific; both my rifle and this example are clearly not of that shop (good architecture but rather rough shaping of the stock, rasp marks etc.). I believe that these represent expediency of production for possible Revolutionary War issuance. I do believe that they are of Pennsylvania origin (Berks County?) but as to which specific County etc. I'd defer to Eric and other experts in the regional variations of these early SE Pennsylvania longrifles.

While not a Christians Spring product it still is a wonderful example of a Revolutionary War era longrifle and would be a great addition to any advanced collection.

Bruce