Author Topic: Gideon Angstadt (Read 7061 times)

Eric Kettenburg · « **on:** July 11, 2020, 05:35:57 AM »

I would like to see a rifle *signed* by Gideon Angstadt, or an image of this signature. Not attributed, not 'characteristics of...,' but signed.

Buck · « **Reply #1 on:** July 11, 2020, 07:28:07 PM »

Eric,

I’ve never heard of a signed Gideon in existence. I had an attributed (that’s currently in the library) identical in architecture as the one pictured in Patrick Hornbergers book. I don’t think that piece is signed either.
Buck

Eric Kettenburg · « **Reply #2 on:** July 11, 2020, 08:24:15 PM »

Yes! You kind of just made the point I'm trying to make. I got to thinking about this because of the Peter Angstadt discussion. Both Peter and brother Joseph apparently had sons they named Gideon - apparently. It appears that the Gideon who died in the 1850s in Lewisburg, and was a gunsmith, was son of Joseph. According to some Angstadt geneologies, Peter also had a son Gideon and he appears to be the guy who died in the 1870s as a long time resident of Rockland twp. No evidence he was a gunsmith.

Also I've been revisiting auction listings, for sale listings, books, many photos etc and it appears that "attributed to Gideon Angstadt" is being used as somewhat of a catch-all for essentially anything funky-looking of the 1820s-1840s period, despite many (not all but many) of these attributions having virtually no similarities to each other. Just stirring the pot.

Buck · « **Reply #3 on:** July 11, 2020, 10:17:51 PM »

Eric,

The "Gideon Angstadt" rifle in "Berks County Longrifles and Gunmakers 1750-1900" isn't noted as signed or attributed. I used to communicate with Patrick from time to time, but it's been several years - not sure what his status is. Maybe he'll comment.

Buck

DaveM · « **Reply #4 on:** July 12, 2020, 01:57:39 AM »

Eric, below is a summary of ten (10) Angstadt's that I have found so far, that were somewhere actually referred to as a gunsmith in original records. I believe they are all descendents of Adam. This summary is not far off from what Ron Gabel wrote for the updated Kindig book (he showed a family tree with the gunsmiths labeled in bold letters); but with a couple of corrections.

1. Adam (abt 1740-abt 1812)
2. Peter (son of Adam; 1763 Berks Co.-1815 Berks Co.)
3. Jacob (son of Peter; 1783 Berks Co. – 1843 Berks Co.)
4. Joseph (son of Peter; 1794 Berks Co. – after 1870 Berks Co.)
5. Joseph (son of Joseph & grandson of Peter; 1817 Berks Co.- 1872 Berks Co.)
6. Joseph (son of Adam; 1765 Berks Co. -before 1850 Milton, Northumberland Co.)
7. Gideon (son of Joseph; 1800 Kutztown, PA -1854 Lewisburg, PA)
8. Abraham (son of Adam; 1783 Berks Co. -1867 Indiana)
9. Peter (son of Abraham; 1807 Berks Co. - ? Indiana)
10. Adam (son of Abraham; 1826 Schuylkill Co. - ? Indiana)

spgordon · « **Reply #5 on:** July 12, 2020, 02:53:36 PM »

Patrick H. posted back in May 2020 ... so he's still active on this site & maybe will see this & comment!

Buck · « **Reply #6 on:** July 12, 2020, 06:34:52 PM »

Dave,

You stirred my curiosity, I've had the "Thoughts" latest edition for a few years and have never spent anytime digging deep into it. That Family Tree / Timeline was published in an article by John P. Angstadt - "The Case for Abraham" in which Bruce Moyer and Joe Flemish assisted in research and the crafting of the article. Not sure why Ron Gabel is credited for the information.

Like Eric debating Gideon, I debate Adam 1 and the AA or A Andstadt attributions, likely Abraham and Adam the 2nd. AA and A Angstadt rifles are architecturally different from anything Adam 1 would have produced due to the area from which he originated.

There are a series of rifles, 2 of which are include in "Thoughts" on pages 178 & 179 and 2 others that I have seen / held in my hands that are believed to be Adams work and not that of the Moll Family. The research and architectural features of these rifles and others that trail in time that are signed by the Angstadts make for an interesting debate.

Buck

DaveM · « **Reply #7 on:** July 13, 2020, 12:20:54 AM »

Buck, I agree with everything you say, and I have been considering these same things. I have also held and studied the rifles you mention, and although it is speculative without a signed example, there are enough similarities of these to Joseph Angstadt's work that make me wonder if Adam Angstadt made them, since he and his son Joseph worked together apparently in one shop. In other words is there a possibility that the unsigned pieces you mention are Adam's (not the Abraham / Schuylkill County gunsmith but Adam born around 1740) or were made perhaps by both Adam, and his son Joseph, prior to Adam's death around 1812. From the records I have a sense that Joseph was much more reliant on working with his father Adam than other independent gunsmiths - although again speculative.

My own feeling as for the "A. Angstadt" guns is to agree with those who believe these were made by Abraham Angstadt, born in 1783. Based on the records, I found Abraham located up by Orwigsburg (Berks County until 1811 then became part of Schuylkill County) already by 1810. Maybe he spent part of his time training with a gunsmith in that area and decided to stay there.

Similar to Eric's post, has anyone ever actually seen a gun signed "Adam Angstadt" and not just "A. Angstadt"?

Eric Kettenburg · « **Reply #8 on:** July 13, 2020, 01:00:47 AM »

Dave - haven; thad a chance to get back to you directly but now it looks like you, Buck and me also all seem to think that those "early Molls" as Kindig originally called them are probably early-ish Angstadts, most likely Adam. There are more by the same guy, including the one posted here long ago by Earl Lanning that was somewhere down in NC and was being assigned some kind of weird Jacob Loesch attribution (not by Earl but by whomever was giving him the photos and info). Unfortunately someone subsequently did some pretty nasty stuff to that gun in a deceptive way.

Buck · « **Reply #9 on:** July 13, 2020, 02:18:08 AM »

Eric / Dave,

I have photos of one of these rifles. I’ll see if the owner will permit me to post them . It’s a long shot but I’m going to give it a shot. Stay tuned!

Buck

Eric Kettenburg · « **Reply #10 on:** July 13, 2020, 02:30:33 AM »

Different box design but I believe this is the same guy we're discussing.

DaveM · « **Reply #11 on:** July 13, 2020, 02:35:04 AM »

Buck sounds good hope you get the OK!

Eric - thanks for the new photos - very interesting! And to your previous statement - yes, I agree - and makes sense, since Adam would likely have at least a few surviving rifles around. We always like to attribute rifles to a single gunsmith - but sometimes that is just not the case - and here again my speculation is that unlike Peter Angstadt, who seemed to work on his own, Adam (the father) and Joseph made their guns together with very similar carving style and that any surviving pieces made after maybe 1783 or so (Joseph born in 1765) probably represent their combined effort, unless signed by one or other. So that for example an early gun pre-1812 rifle attributed to Joseph - but unsigned, was probably made by father / son together. - like referring to the gun you just posted as an "Adam & Joseph Angstadt" rifle that in the say 1783-1812 period maybe they just used varying patchbox styles. In other words - the "early Moll" Kindig guns are likely in Adam's earlier style, but that Adam's guns and Joseph's guns represent more of an evolution of the both of them working together, and not that Adam used a radically different style than Joseph - if that makes sense. Again just going back to how they always lived and worked together and advertised together as father and son. All fun speculation!

Eric Kettenburg · « **Reply #12 on:** July 13, 2020, 02:46:32 AM »

I absolutely agree - if they were working in the same shop, it is highly unlikely that they were somehow "separating" work. Much more likely products of either were to some/varying extent products of both.

Buck · « **Reply #13 on:** July 13, 2020, 03:18:54 AM »

Dave / Eric,

I concur, the 3 photos Eric posted explain it all - it's indisputable in my opinion. Eric, do you have a shot of the carving above the wrist behind the tang? That was the one detail that was matched between the 3 rifles our friend has and the 2 Kindig rifles.

Buck

Eric Kettenburg · « **Reply #14 on:** July 13, 2020, 04:57:32 AM »

Unfortunately the barrel tang had been extended during an old repair, but some of it is still visible. I think there is enough visible to get a pretty good idea of what was there, sans the details.

Buck · « **Reply #15 on:** July 13, 2020, 09:28:16 AM »

Eric,

That’s it - the tang surround is a little different, but just below it is what I was hoping to see.

Buck

Eric Kettenburg · « **Reply #16 on:** July 13, 2020, 12:23:09 PM »

After the "restoration."

Buck · « **Reply #17 on:** July 13, 2020, 12:41:45 PM »

Eric - excellent work

Buck

Eric Kettenburg · « **Reply #18 on:** July 13, 2020, 01:38:58 PM »

I'll take that as a compliment of my photo-posting abilities!! because I sure didn't do the abortive 'restoration' to this rifle. Back when there was lots of discussion of rifle #42, someone decided to make up a story about this rifle involving Jacob Loesch and it was butchered. The side plate was COMPLETELY replaced with a hideous hunk of brass that was supposed to look like the #42 side plate and I would say the gun was irreparably damaged. The toe plate was changed out too, for some reason, with a ridiculously thick piece of brass.

DaveM · « **Reply #19 on:** July 13, 2020, 05:58:33 PM »

Interesting! Does anyone have photos of the tang carvings, or rear pipe carvings, of the kindig guns? Or the rear pipe carving of this gun?

Eric Kettenburg · « **Reply #20 on:** July 13, 2020, 07:48:45 PM »

I believe the forestock is original, or largely original, although I can not say for sure as I have not seen it first-hand. I also do believe that box is original, as there is no evidence that I can see for replacement and Earl did tell me that he thought that it was original (he did actually handle it). The engraving is interesting.

Eric Kettenburg · « **Reply #21 on:** July 13, 2020, 07:53:04 PM »

BTW, just to stay on track somewhat now and then: still would like to see a signed or stamped or otherwise marked Gideon Angstadt rifle!!!!!!!!!!!

I forget which book, but one of the old compendium of American makers (one of the old ones from maybe the 50s or 60s) listed Gideon Angstadt, and briefly described a rifle. This would lead me to believe that there should be at least ONE marked piece out there, otherwise where did all of these Gideon Angstadt attributions originate?

Come on, there has to be ONE?

??

DaveM · « **Reply #22 on:** July 14, 2020, 12:48:31 AM »

This one was from an old man at arms magazine. Looks like the same very unique vine and leaf engraving design - would love to see more photos of this rifle.

Eric Kettenburg · « **Reply #23 on:** July 14, 2020, 01:40:24 AM »

Isn't that a Beck rifle? I'll have to go dig through some books - I think that one might be in RCA somewhere, or one of the other books. Box is quite possibly a later add-on or replacement, so who made the box? Who knows.

Buck · « **Reply #24 on:** July 14, 2020, 03:20:56 AM »

That is a Beck rifle. I think that was discussed here some years back, originally a wooden patch box modified in period? I think it’s in a Whiskers book - one of “Behold the Longrifles” publications?

Buck

News:

Author Topic: Gideon Angstadt (Read 7061 times)