Copy a historic engraving or improvise?

[smart dog]

Hi folks,
I am finishing up a gun with my blind friend Josh, that is styled as a Rev War period Lancaster rifle.  We borrowed heavily from Dickert but also Brong, Lauck, and Graef.  We did not copy any particular gun but did copy, very closely, the brass patch box shown below.  Our objective is to make a gun that is historically plausible but not a bench copy of any original.



It is a charming patch box and is all that is left of a gun attributed to Dickert.  I need to decide if I copy the engraving on the original or design my own interpretation. The finial is supposed to represent a tulip but Dickert, if he was the engraver, filled the object with what almost looks like snake or lizard scales.  It does not really look anything like the surface of a tulip flower but it certainly is rustic and folksy.  In addition, the tendrils and curled leaves on the lid and around the "tulip" are pretty crude and cartoonish. I could easily engrave a more refined version, but should I?  I could also engrave a tulip that is more realistic but again, should I?  I've not decided what to do and would appreciate your opinions.  I think these kinds of questions are pretty interesting.

dave

[ToddCook]

I certainly don't have the historical knowledge that some of you do about these guns, but the folksy art on them is attractive to me. For a Pennsylvania rifle of that era, to me simple is good.

[Robert Wolfe]

I think you should feel free to use this as a guide but give it your own twist. But, I don't think you should get too refined, keep it a little folky.

[smallpatch]

Dave,
I’d base it on how you finish the rest of the gun.  New and shiny...... engrave something fancy and pretty, like I know you can. Some nice patina on wood and metal, use that folksy theme of the original. A little less crowded maybe?
Either way, I know we’ll be in awe!

[rich pierce]

I’ve seen it hypothesized that the above patchbox is from a Fainot gun. It would require some mental gymnastics.

No, it’s not a Fainot-built, side-opening, surround-style box. But the engraving (to me and the forgotten creative thinker) much more closely resembles Fainot’s folksy style than signed Dickert work. Fainot was fond of arabesque forms and used stippled backgrounds sometimes.

Fainot’s sideplates sometimes show up on guns by other Lancaster makers. Perhaps there was a bit of parts swapping from time to time among Lancaster makers. Could Fainot have trotted down the street to Dickert’s shop and picked up a patchbox when he first pitched up in Lancaster? Wild speculation. But, for this project, it could be part of a yarn that leads to using a more Dickert-ish engraving style.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

My thoughts on the box:

The rectangle of the lid does not lend itself to using it's shape for the basis of your design.  It is simply filled with rococco scroll.  So any design that comes to your mind would be appropriate.  One could also include some border engraving along the sides of the rectangle.  This original box is a little busy, but still charming.  Perhaps some of your naval theme at each end...

[WKevinD]

Dave considering that this is for your friend I would aim at something that had tactile significance more than just visual appeal.
Is he a Braille reader?
Kevin

[Clint]

I won't question the origin of this patch box, but I really don't think that the engraving is from J Dickert. The engraving pattern is too overloaded with no white space and the pattern suggests a later period. I would do what Dickert did and use my experience to engrave the box.

[smart dog]

Hi,
Thanks folks.  Taylor, I flatter myself that you confused me with Dave Crisalli and his naval designs.  The question for me is do I design my own work or copy an original complete with what I might consider flaws in design and execution. My inclination is to refine the original a little and correct the key flaws that irritate my aesthetic and design senses but a close copy would probably be charming and attractive on the gun. 

dave       

[davec2]

Dave,

I say never build something that you don't like.  If the original has flaws that irritate your sense of aesthetics, don't copy the flaws.  You won't be any happier with the duplicate than you were with the original.  If you like the general design, then use that .....but correct any details (engraving, architecture, etc.) to please your own sense of what looks "right".  Personally, I have a hard enough time making / building something I like....I would really hate spending time making a copy of something I didn't like to start with....

[smart dog]

Hi Folks,
Thanks again.  I appreciate the comments, thoughts, and advice.  Dave, that is great wisdom and is exactly the reason I struggle making a bench copy of any gun.  Sometimes I set out to closely copy an original but always end up making changes that improve it in my eyes.  When I built my Star of Bethlehem rifle that was closely inspired by RCA 52, I got an e-mail from David Hansen urging me to consider copying the original as a tribute to the original maker. I just did not like the crude incised carving on the original so I created my own design that showed similar design elements, was consistent with the time and place but was my own.  Getting back to the patch box. My inclination is to modify and refine the engraving a bit.  By that I mean, I would redesign the lid engraving to be less busy and florid, smooth the curves, and add some shading.  Note that there is no shading at all in the engraving, just outlines. I would also consider redesigning the tulip.  Shading creates an issue, however, because unless I do it very sparingly and in the right way, I will alter the rustic character of the engraving completely.  The kind of cross-hatched shading you see in Schipper's book or on bank notes would not be appropriate.  I have never seen an 18th century long rifle with that kind of engraving style.  Shading was accomplished by deep, wide cuts rather than cross hatching.  Even high quality engraving on English guns at that time showed sparing use of any cross hatching for shading. When they wanted a deep shadow, like in the depth of the curl of a volute, they cut deep and sometimes converging straight lines into the dark spot.  Often so many lines that depth was actually cut in relief. Sometimes they simply cut deep with a round bottomed graver, which is also how I think J. P. Beck added depth to his lightly cut designs.  Anyway, I appreciate your thoughts and ideas. Again my objective is to engrave the patch box in a manner consistent with the time and place but not necessarily a copy.  Getting into the weeds like this is the reason I love building these guns. 

dave           

[WadePatton]

Exactly because you're not following one specific gun or builder, that I would do exactly as you are inclined, to tweak the design to how I might have done it back in the day. I would not straight copy that box.  I'm sure many of us will be thrilled with your version.

[Jim Kibler]

When I see this original box I think it is far more successful than virtually all modern work intended to be more sophisticated or "clever".   

Jim
 

[galudwig]

I'll let Shane Emig's work on his Dickert rifle speak for itself. A different interpretation that in my mind, works. He used these photos as inspiration for our engraving class back in 2019.

[bama]

This is a simple but then again a tough decision for a builder that has the qualifications to do better work than was done by the original builder. The original is a simple yet lovely design that works well and looks good. If it did not then the question would never arise. Many times better is not best and this time better in my opinion to improve on this is not best. It is a simple box, let it stay simple, that is it's charm. It is hard sometimes hard not to do better work when creating early rifles when a builder has worked so hard to improve his skills. It can be done but it is a very difficult thing to blend the old designs with a more modern look. There have been a few that do this very well but many miss the mark. Keith Casteel is one that blends these two worlds together and makes it work. I personally feel that knew designs should be used on new rifles but I am an old builder and old feels comfortable. 

[smylee grouch]

I would say do your own thing but don't make it more sophisticated than the overall theme of the rifle.

[Kingsburyarms]

Dave - whatever you choose will be wonderful, but may I suggest that you engrave something with depth and texture? That way Josh can "feel" the patchbox and enjoy its beauty.

Jon

[Hungry Horse]

 Dickert is rather notorious for his engraving being marginal at best, so I would find it a bit unlikely that Dickert engraved this box with all the repetitive characters that so closely match. A pattern more organic with less repetition would seem more likely.

  Hungry Horse

[A.Merrill]

   Anybody can copy, make it your own.   Al

[Ed Wenger]

Dave, it sounds to me like you’ve answered your own question by leaning toward modifying and refining the engraving, which I think is an excellent approach.  Keep the basic elements of the design, but refine them to your liking.  I do this a lot, and think it’s very effective.  I totally agree with your sentiments regarding cross hatching, if you want to stay true to historical correctness.  I love this aspect of building, but it’s also a little daunting, as there are literally hundreds of options.  I like the approach of apprentice to master..., mimic what the master has done, but put your own “spin” on it.  Draw the heck out of it on paper, and I’m sure you’ll come up with something that hits on what you have envisioned.  Good luck, have fun, and I’m sure it’ll turn out great!  Best,

Ed

[Dphariss]

I did not read all the comments but here goes.
So long as the engraving, carving etc. adheres to the art of the time and to some greater or lessor extent the place, there is no real problem IMO. But in our mdern times we must be careful to keep modern elements at bay.
But then there is the "schools" thing and time frames. The engraving on some 1830s-40s J&S Hawken lock or tang is not going to look correct on a 1770 Lancaster. Same can be said of a N. Hawk or fine English scroll from 19th c.
The lock in the photo was done at the customers request. And Don King did such things from time to time. But for the most part he kept things pretty correct. But he did not recreate ugly guns either and I subscribe to the same idea and tell this to people I instruct.

[Dphariss]

Dickert is rather notorious for his engraving being marginal at best, so I would find it a bit unlikely that Dickert engraved this box with all the repetitive characters that so closely match. A pattern more organic with less repetition would seem more likely.

  Hungry Horse

As Lynton McKenzie stated in his video, even the nice English guns of much of the 19th c would not pass muster today, overruns and other mistakes, especially when customers go over the engraving with a magnifier. It was jsut a way to fill in the empty spaces on percussion locks especially. One the things that finally convinced me to start engraving on a rifle after lots of practice plates was looking at the marginal work on the patchbox of a Jacob Kuntz. My practive plates were better and I certainly am not a great engraver. LOTS of engraving of the time period we deal with it not all that great and is more like apprentice level. On of the things that probably discouraged me was living in Big Timber when Don King was active. Looking at his work was intimidating. But Don was trained as a photo engraver after the Korean War.




pic sharing app


Since the Marine Corps birthday and Veteran's Day is approaching. Don carried bullet fragments next to his spine to the grave..

[Daryl]

Dan, you are most fortunate to have known Don & have some of his work.

[mountainman]

This is something that I did last winter, and I decided to mix a combination of Dickert's engravings and shaping of the patchbox, and of course the german silver was clearly was not traditional, but it was what the customer had wanted.

[smart dog]

Hi Folks,
I want to thank all of you who responded.  I took it all in and also had a great e-mail exchange with Bob Lienemann.  First, I urge you to look at rifle #82 in RCA volume 1 and focus on the engraving in the center of the patch box lid. I think it is a pretty good bet that Fainot engraved the patch box I am using.  If it was made by Dickert, perhaps he had Fainot engrave it.  I decided on a plan that modifies the engraving a bit and takes many of your comments to heart.  Josh's rifle is partly a tribute to one of his teachers who helped him a lot growing up.  She died recently but her family is connected to this project.  Her name was Nancy, which I will  engrave on the side plate.  She loved flowers and tulips most of all.  I selected this patch box design because it was from the period Josh would like his rifle to represent and it was a tulip.  So my first step was to make it look a bit more like a tulip than the original engraving without losing its character and rustic charm.  My second step was to simplify the design on the lid by tracing it and then judiciously eliminating a few scrolls and volutes.  I also simplified the design at the bottom of the lid.  These arabesque-like designs are more difficult than they seem because the negative space plays a huge role in their effect.  That probably is why Fainot (?) stippled the background to create contrast and bring out that negative space as well as highlighting the floral design.  Part of the challenge is the two halves of the design need to be symmetrical or the negative space between will look uneven. I maintained the flat and unshaded character of all the engraving.  I'll post photos after I finish stipling a lot of background.  Again, I appreciate everyone's comments.  I did not settle on a plan and design until I'd read your responses and thought about them a lot.

dave