Oerter's Signatures: Speculations

[spgordon]

A few weeks ago I gave a talk at a conference about Oerter's signatures--and the conference organizers asked us to submit videos in advance in case the technology failed during the conference itself. So I have this video of me awkwardly "delivering" my paper. But, given the discussion on another thread, I thought I would share it here. It is about 15 minutes long.

There are clumsy moments: I call John Antes Henry Antes, you'll hear the heating system in my office clunking behind me, and at the end I seem to be reading my own paper with (as somebody said of Eisenhower) a "sense of discovery." Hopefully I delivered it better live! In any case, it is what it is.

If anybody takes the time to watch it, I would be very grateful for reactions--especially ones that are skeptical or that would explain Oerter's signatures (or any barrel signatures) differently. I will probably publish this in an expanded form and so hearing from you about what parts of this seem convincing and what parts don't would be very helpful.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/w197p37f1mbx9ww/Gordon%20%7C%20Puzzle%20of%20Signatures.mp4?dl=0

[tallbear]

Very interesting and excellent presentation. A lot to think about and digest. Thanks for posting!!!!!!

Mitch

[spgordon]

Thanks, Mitch! I appreciate you taking the time to watch.

[WESTbury]

Outstanding presentation Scott. Thank-you for posting this. I've watched it once and will do so again later in the day.

[rich pierce]

Lots to think about!
Regarding the possibility that the signatures were instituted as a brand to distinguish the work at CS from imitations or to assure customers that they could return them for repairs: I find this intriguing. An underlying premise is that other guns were being made elsewhere and sold by other shops, possibly as though made by the CS shop. Another premise is that a significant number of guns were not being sold on site where an individual customer would obviously know and see who made the gun. This weakens the popular scenario of most business being compromised of customers visiting the shop and ordering a gun or picking a plain, unfinished gun to be completed with varying degrees of decoration. I can certainly see Dickert signing guns from his shop to assure customers they were getting quality guns as his production seems high.

Regarding numbering because of contracts, it seems odd that Oerter alone seems to have numbered some of his rifles. Dickert and other contemporaneous builders including the Molls, Niehardt, Rupps, and so on in the general area , who may also have had contracts from time to time, were not numbering their guns. I’d expect to see Lancaster guns numbered, and later contract rifles to be numbered if this was common practice. Of course, a practice does not need to be common to have occurred.

Another mystery is that Oerter was creative with his guns in using wire inlay, various patchbox configurations and so on. Superficially this does not mesh well with a traditional contract. For trade to tribes aligned with the British, Sir William Johnson was ordering a couple grades of trade guns which appear to have been made to patterns. One can imagine scenarios where a supplier of rifles (but who, and where?) would order 50 rifles from Oerter and 200 from Dickert  and 75 from Gonter and ask that they vary in decoration. This raises the questions of uniformity in pricing and why numbered and signed rifles do not appear such as “No. 236 Jacob Dickert Lancaster 1774.”

Altogether, at the moment, the idea that the CS leadership instituted it sits best with me primarily because it is unique and does not require evidence of a system outside the economy and supporting parallel examples such as No. 71 Peter Gonter 1772.

What then of rifles not signed but guessed to be made by the shop in the same timeframe? It’s possible that only scratch built guns would be numbered and signed and restocks or composite guns made from not-new parts would not be considered “in the brand.”  This might be convenient for us as we consider the Marshall and  Rochester rifles, for example.

[spgordon]

I really appreciate these thoughts. As you say, lots to think about!

It's worth pointing out, I think, that Oerter (and, earlier, Albrecht) was working in a system that was very different from the circumstances under which most (all?) other makers worked. It has nothing to do with communalism, though: the difference lies in the way the hatmaker's or cooper's or shoemaker's or gunsmith's work reflected on the reputation of the community as a whole. Moravian authorities were obsessed with this. My example of the hatmaker only hints at this. Moravian authorities composed elaborate regulations that policed quality and prices and manner of dealing with customers in order to preserve good relations with neighbors and others.

When John Newcomer made a rifle, its quality (or not) affected only Newcomer's own reputation. But Albrecht & Oerter understood that the reputation of the Moravian movement itself was put at stake by the products that they produced. Or at least this is what they, like others, were told by authorities.

I do think it is possible--but entirely speculation--that what happened with the hatmaker happened to the gunsmith: sub-par rifles were being associated (wrongly) with the Moravian shop and so authorities told Oerter to start marking his rifles so that couldn't happen anymore.

[Robert Wolfe]

Good stuff, thanks for posting this.

[spgordon]

Lots to think about!
Another premise is that a significant number of guns were not being sold on site where an individual customer would obviously know and see who made the gun. This weakens the popular scenario of most business being compromised of customers visiting the shop and ordering a gun or picking a plain, unfinished gun to be completed with varying degrees of decoration. I can certainly see Dickert signing guns from his shop to assure customers they were getting quality guns as his production seems high.

I wish we knew more about how rifles made at Christiansbrunn were sold (including where they were sold). I don't think we have any evidence that customers would visit Christiansbrunn itself to purchase a rifle, though they may have.

More typically, Moravians carefully controlled the presence of "strangers" (non-Moravians) in their communities. They assigned specific individuals the responsibility to tour strangers around communities (fremdendeiner); they did not wander freely. And the "Strangers' Store" (1753) was built in Bethlehem outside the main settlement (not at its center, where we think stores would go!) to encourage economic activity but to keep strangers at a distance. So the idea that strangers would arrive at Christiansbrunn and stroll over to the gunshop is counter to what we know about the Moravians' careful organization of their communities.

The annual inventories that, by the 1770s, list several "new rifles" in the shop do not mean that these items were for sale there, any more than all the other items in the inventory were for sale there. These inventories were taken annually to count up the assets of the Moravian church as a whole and the gunshop and all its "stuff" were assets of the church. So these inventories tell us only that the shop had, say, five "new rifles" on its premises when the inventory was taken.

[rich pierce]

In addition to appreciating the content of your presentation, I thought the delivery was excellent. From what I hear, some folks can be self-conscious, but the presentation was very good in my view. I appreciate it when the content is the focus and ideas are proposed for consideration rather than as sound and final conclusions.

[Tim Crosby]

 Well done, lot to think about. No doubt it will be re-watched many times.

   Thanks, Tim C.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Love it!  I have to go through it another time just to be able to form some germane commentary  but I very much enjoyed it and it does initiate some 'deep thoughts' regardless of Jack Handy's presence or not!

I do have one nitpicky note:  you mention there being no period mention of a signature upon a rifle or arm in Colonial America.  I present:

November 25, 1772

The Pennsylvania Gazette

FOUR DOLLARS Reward.

LOST, or taken out of a waggon loaded with hops, betwixt the river Sasquehanna and Philadelphia, upon the 5th, 6th, or 7th day of this present month November, a strong board CASE, without mark or direction, inclosing a very neat new FOWLING PIECE, 4 feet 2 inches in the barrel, 5 feet 5 inches the whole length of the gun, with a curled walnut stock, sliding loops, mounted with brass, the foresight and thumbpiece silver, the makername John Newcomer, engraven upon the hind part of the barrel, near the figure of a manhead, and J. Newcomer engraven on the lock. Whoever has found the same, is desired to deliver it to Joseph Vandegrist, at the sign of the Cross keys, in Chestnut street, Philadelphia; to Caleb Way, at the sign of the Waggon, on the Philadelphia road; to Matthias Slough, at the sign of the Swan, in Lancaster; or to James Wright, in Hempfield, near Susquehanna, and they shall receive FOUR DOLLARS reward. JAMES WRIGHT.

[spgordon]

the makername John Newcomer, engraven upon the hind part of the barrel, near the figure of a manhead, and J. Newcomer engraven on the lock.

You're right, of course! Thanks, Eric. I've used this quotation before (is the "manhead" the "Lehigh county" Indian, in Lancaster County?) but it entirely slipped my mind when I was getting this paper together.

I wonder if there are other contemporary references to makers' names on barrels?

[lexington1]

That's a great presentation! I've watched it twice now.

[spgordon]

That's a great presentation! I've watched it twice now.

Maybe one too many ... 

[Eric Kettenburg]

I wonder if there are other contemporary references to makers' names on barrels?

That's the only reference of the period that I've ever seen.  Sounds like it was one heck of a piece, too!

[backsplash75]

Awesome presentation! Thanks for sharing! 

[ScottNE]

Very well-done and extremely interesting!

[Craig Wilcox]

Scott, I enjoyed that presentation very much!  I used to make presentations similar to this for the Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection, and others to educate young school kids about sea turtles and such.

Yours is VERY well done, clear, and lucid.  And you educate us all as to how and why signatures were done.  I doubt much that I will ever have a signed rifle from the period, and will appreciate more the ones that are presented here.

Keep up your snooping and peeping through those dusty tomes.  It is something that I admire, though I would not want to do it myself.

[spgordon]

Thanks, Craig--and all the others who've taken time to watch this!

[DaveM]

Scott, thanks for sharing your presentation, nice work!  You seem to cover all of the possible theories.  Theonly thought I have - perhaps the rifles were part of a contract to the british?  Say perhaps a contract with the british to have Christians Spring furnish rifles directly to indians on behalf of the british government?  To me a straight military contract seems possible but unlikely given the decorative nature of the guns.  But an indian contract may have warranted rifles with more decoration?    I would be curious if there were british sympathies or other business connections by Christians Springs?  Anyway, just thinking out loud!

[spgordon]

perhaps the rifles were part of a contract to the british?  Say perhaps a contract with the british to have Christians Spring furnish rifles directly to indians on behalf of the british government?  To me a straight military contract seems possible but unlikely given the decorative nature of the guns.  But an indian contract may have warranted rifles with more decoration? I would be curious if there were british sympathies or other business connections by Christians Springs?

Hmmm, very interesting. Certainly in 1774 and even 1775 the Moravians thought of themselves as loyal to their rulers--the British. (Oerter would form a contract by 1776, though, to provide muskets to Pennsylvania's patriots.)

But, so far, no business connections between any of the Christiansbrunn trades--or any Moravian trades in these years--with the British military have been discovered that I can think of.

[utseabee]

That was a great presentation and topic. I certainly would buy into it. Thank You for sharing with us.

[bama]

Scott thank you for a very well thought out and well presented piece. I appreciate your efforts and I am glad you chose to share your thoughts with us. I do not pretend to have any thoughts as to the why he signed these rifles, I am just glad he did.

As a rifle builder and collector I have always wondered why so many fine rifles were not signed and dated, then there are a good number that were signed and a few that are both signed and dated. Why? I think about contemporary builders, some sign their work and some don't. Why? I am sure there are many reasons. I can only speak for myself. Early on in my building career I did not have the skills to engrave my name on a barrel. As time went on I eventually developed the skill to crudely sign my work. Today my engraving skills have improved enough that you can even read my signature  .  I did not really start signing my work in earnest until I became a full time builder. It was then that I started making sure that every gun that I built and went out of my shop was signed and dated.

I doubt that my experience has anything to bear on your study, I just thought I would share it with you. Again thank you

Jim

[J. Talbert]

Thanks for sharing your presentation with us here.
Very interesting and informative.

Jeff

[spgordon]

Dave, Jim, utseabee, Jeff, others--Thanks very much for taking the time to watch this & for your thoughtful comments! I appreciate it. - Scott