Rupp & Haga rifles @ Poulins

[RAT]

I wouldn't shoot it... but I would take it completely apart. Within safety limits, of course. If a screw was too messed up, I'd leave it be. But taking an original completely apart, and documenting/photographing every piece, is how I learn. This is a big no-no to hard core collectors and museum staff. Except aircraft, cars, and other motive items. Restoration is perfectly acceptable in that area.

A few years ago I had the opportunity to examine an original rifle in a museum. The trigger guard was fastened with 2 wood screws. One was missing, the other was clearly a modern replacement. I would have loved to take the guard off and take the triggers out to examine the inside of the set triggers.

There was an article in the April 1981 issue of Muzzle Blasts about the "Atchison" Hawken. There was a photo of the single set triggers removed from the rifle. This kind of documentation is extremely important. With the prices paid for that rifle in recent auctions, that kind of documentation will never happen again.

Regarding a signed Haga... has anyone ever tried to find a signed Haga from Switzerland? I remember when the signed Albrecht pistol was found in Germany. That was a ground-breaker because only 1 surviving Albrecht rifle was ever found in America. The pistol was from his early working life and the rifle from his later period in Lancaster. No existing signed rifle exists from his time in Christian's Spring, but... like Haga... a whole bunch are attributed.

[eastwind]

    Starting with Scott’s dating of the Rupp and Puleo’s comments we can all agree auction houses rarely get it right, but even more egregious is their attempt to sound “authoritative” by guessing or worst, quoting out of date (sometimes equally inaccurate) literature. Where Poulins says Kindig studied Haga more than anyone, they must not have studied recent scholarship.
Kindig’s, book – researched mostly by Henry Kauffman and Sam Dyke is one of the most important studies of the rifle – but it is not the end-all of information and is hardly up to speed with today’s research. Case in point; Kindig says Haga (if he even made rifles ) started in 1767, but he arrived in Reading in 1750- his well-recorded shop explosion was in 1752. So why did he not make any guns for almost twenty years? Kindig also says Haga’s son may be John Haga in Lancaster county—but Wolfgang and his wife Dorothea only had one Daughter – no sons. His burial headstone says his surname was Hagen, he certainly knew his name. Most of this was known when the book was published in the 1960s, albeit a bit harder to find.
    I’m not picking on Joe Kindig, Jr. here, I’m only pointing out the failures of much of the previous work (and that includes some of my writing) and the auction houses' continual reference to such past “celebrity” information to add some form of credibility.
By the way, Dillon with all his love of “Old Killdeer” never mentioned or suggested a gunsmith by the name of Wolfagng Haga existed, but he did hold a rifle in a photo, (not in his book) which he dates the “Killdeer” to 1754, on the back of the photo… that being 36 years before Kindig’s book.
    Admittedly, as Joe Puleo pointed out, auction houses handle enormous amounts of gun inventory of all kinds and it is unreasonable for us to expect them to be infallible judges on all types – but, they do have a penchant for using Colt/Winchester mindset to try to describe and justify values of early firearms as though some other authority will back them up. But most of us know, there are only a few solid verifiable facts when it comes to early firearms, those handmade before the manufacturing age of serial numbers, factories, etc. Another habit auction houses have is relying solely on the consignor’s information for the description, assuming the seller knows all since they don’t. Risky?
   They should simply give accurate honest condition reports, and provenance, and offer great photos, and let the intelligent buyer decide.
And maybe, read this forum.

Patrick Hornberger

[WESTbury]

Perhaps the Haga story is cut from a similar cloth as the Meylin Myth.

Shumway may have said it best on page 94 RCA Vol 1 when discussing RCA # 20 and Haga.

"He seems to have been very active as one of Reading"s principal gunsmiths for about 4o years, but no signed piece by his hand is known so attributions are not possible."

That was forty one years ago and no signed rifle by a person named Haga has surfaced in that period. Draw your own conclusions.

[BradBrownBess]

Sorry if I was communicating things unclear - I know early American Rifles are individual made guns, works of "art" if you will and have lived working lives for hundreds of years - with repairs, restores etc. They are Americana at its finest.

What I am trying to say is NEVER trust anyone on any gun period from pictures and a description. The study of American Long Rifles is somewhat "vague" at best with lots of "attributed to" etcs. due to lack of documentation. in descriptions and books. When these guns were 1500 - 5000 - there was not as much incentive to attempt to deceive. To me - taking a stock that looks "attributed to" an early maker then engraving a name on a barrel, artificially aging it more, adding brass parts to more "fit" the maker is deceit not restoration. Maybe not as much in Long rifles as in muskets there are 10 faked Brown Bess, Charleville, and committee of Safety muskets for every real one - regimental markings, bits and parts, patina added - etc everywhere. Last year I turned down bidding on 3 Long Land Pattern Muskets - 2 were finally pulled from auction - one from Poulins - bad guns too many questions.

Those are stunning guns at Rock Island, Morphy, and now Poulins - so there are plenty to bid on. I personally just would not trust any of them without a serious, serious close inspection. Even the one's that have been in collections - until you look it over top to bottom and make sure it is what it is - maybe it isn't. Its obvious the descriptions are quick and dirty unfortunately. Nothing hurts quite as bad as when you go to sell that 65K LongRifle and questions start coming up on "patch box not right, Moller was wrong back then, etc".

Like you said - if you need the Descriptions "Probably better not to bid" - though they can be helpful for bad repairs etc where pictures don't show good results.

I will be inspecting and bidding on a few at a couple of these auctions so I hope my perseverance and approach work! LOL! So far no burns in collecting - just a few earl scrapes.

****I do have a LOT to learn about the makers, styles, regions, historic guns etc - I am green no doubt!

[spgordon]

    I’m not picking on Joe Kindig, Jr. here, I’m only pointing out the failures of much of the previous work (and that includes some of my writing) and the auction houses' continual reference to such past “celebrity” information to add some form of credibility.
.....

   They should simply give accurate honest condition reports, and provenance, and offer great photos, and let the intelligent buyer decide.
And maybe, read this forum.

I agree with everything Patrick wrote wholeheartedly.

It's a good thing that we know more now than we did 60 years ago! Other fields would treat this as a given. Correcting information, or uncovering new information that places old stories in a new light, involves no disrespect to earlier authors.