Johannes / John Rupp of Macungie

[spgordon]

... the finer points of a proper peer review process. 

The only important difference is that, ideally, peer review is blind (the authors don't know the identity of the reviewers, so the reviewers can be "honest"--can also license bad behavior) and sometimes double blind (the reviewers don't know who the author are, either). Here, people know who is saying what. Doesn't matter to me--but I know of people who are reluctant to speak "honestly" because of the way such honesty might be received and of its consequences (will I be permitted access to these objects if I don't tell their owners what they want to hear about them?).

[rich pierce]

Actual peer review is not ephemeral or easily dismissed. That which does not meet standards does not get published in real peer review. And all that does get published has references putting the work into context. And, subsequently, gets cited as new findings emerge.  An internet-based peer review of sorts is ephemeral and has no permanent teeth. Views can be debated and research and findings shared on forums, and that is helpful, but sadly, hard to track.

[WESTbury]

Well, back to the rifle.

Sotheby's write-up for this Rupp rifle Lot#498 references Kindig's book Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle. I have the 2017 Annotated Third Edition and the rifle appears on pages 175-176 with annotation by Ron Gabel.

The rifle is also featured on pages 350-351 in the new color photo section of the Third Edition. This rifle is dated at "circa 1800" on page 350. Certainly not Rev War by a longshot.

[smart dog]

Hi Rich,
And often those "facts" or "views" are difficult to verify and if you ask the poster for their sources of information they are sometimes insulted.  I think it is difficult for many people to understand that stories are not data.  They can be if verifiable and usefully quantified or qualified, but until then they are just stories.  Eric has done the heavy lifting to critically exam some stories attached to valuable objects and his results are instructive about being skeptical of cherished beliefs.  I think folks like old Mason Weems damaged many American's understanding of our own history.

Scott, I wasn't disagreeing with you about peer-review.  It is a critical process toward reliable knowledge, I just don't know how many participants would welcome the scrutiny of their ideas or points of view.

Kent, It is identified as circa 1800 in the color photo sectiion but called pre-Rev War in Kindig's write up on page 175 and Gabel's annotation seems to be the source of the auction write up claiming it was made by Johann George Rupp before the war.  So there is confusion even in the one book.

dave     

[spgordon]

And often those "facts" or "views" are difficult to verify and if you ask the poster for their sources of information they are sometimes insulted.  I think it is difficult for many people to understand that stories are not data.  They can be if verifiable and usefully quantified or qualified, but until then they are just stories.  Eric has done the heavy lifting to critically exam some stories attached to valuable objects and his results are instructive about being skeptical of cherished beliefs.  I think folks like old Mason Weems damaged many American's understanding of our own history.

Scott, I wasn't disagreeing with you about peer-review.  It is a critical process toward reliable knowledge, I just don't know how many participants would welcome the scrutiny of their ideas or points of view.

Yes, I understood! I think it's very evident from many exchanges on this list that many people post without expecting scrutiny and do not welcome that. My own feeling is that, whether here or on Facebook or in other forms of social media, when you post something publicly you should realize that you've given up control over how people respond. That's just the rules-of-the-game regarding social media and listservs are a form of that.

I do think it's a matter of habit. Some people aren't used to having their ideas questioned. For others it is a regular and routine part of their day job. So there can be a clash of cultures sort of thing.

[WESTbury]

Kent, It is identified as circa 1800 in the color photo sectiion but called pre-Rev War in Kindig's write up on page 175 and Gabel's annotation seems to be the source of the auction write up claiming it was made by Johann George Rupp before the war.  So there is confusion even in the one book.
dave   

You should see the confusion in my head.

Until Eric's latest research is widely published, this subject will remain controversial. And then, the information will remain definitive for only as long as it takes for newer data to be discovered and published.

[Eric Kettenburg]

And I am constantly working on more data and newer data.  To me it's like a live-action mystery and I find it both interesting and exciting.  I am currently waiting on some extremely expensive out-of-print books, largely because I'm too impatient to wait a month plus for ILL, and most libraries will not loan out books in 'special collections' anyway.  I figure I'll get what I need out of them, or find nothing, and then flip them.  I'll probably have to make a trip down to Harrisburg too so as to get some access to later records that I'd like to examine.  I view work like this as a constantly evolving thing, and this view is why I'd rather just plaster it up on my site so that I can edit it immediately as more information comes to light.

I think Kindig, when he first published in the 60s, believed that it could be a pre-War gun.  Of course, our knowledge of these old guns has evolved a lot since the 1960s, and I'm happy to see some of the 'classic' books updated with new additions.  Ron is a very nice and helpful guy but I'm not sure if he is actually involved in these auction descriptions, or if they are simply pointing to some of his previous work and using portions of it to shore up these silly descriptions.  I do believe that he also relied heavily upon the old county histories and possibly some of Sam Dyke's work as well, and unfortunately over the years I have also found portions of Dyke's work that contrasts very dramatically with period documentation.

Am I the only one that thinks that the lock, sideplate and guard at least are clearly much earlier than the stocking of the rifle and probably came from an earlier Berks piece?  Possibly the barrel as well, as the rear sight is atypical.  The guard in particular - to my eye - looks as though he tried to shorten it as much as he could as it was obviously too long and large for the gun, but he gave it a go anyway.  Meanwhile, he was likely stocking up the piece to a 'standard' pattern or something typical for how he was stocking/shaping at the time, and so the break at the lower wrist fell under the grip rail of the over-long guard.  Of course this is just speculative but this is how I view it.  I think that it is primarily these earlier components being recycled, and the gun being a thick chick, that is creating the impression of it being earlier than it really is.

[spgordon]

Until Eric's latest research is widely published, this subject will remain controversial. And then, the information will remain definitive for only as long as it takes for newer data to be discovered and published.

Eric published his research on the web, so it could not be distributed any more widely. The phenomenon that we're observing is not an instance of competition of ideas in a free marketplace. Other factors are involved, most notably, as others have said, the interests of various parties--but not only that.

In my opinion this subject is certainly confusing but I myself wouldn't call it controversial, since only one side has offered facts and arguments based in evidence. The other side has basically, without saying so, simply asserted its right to believe whatever it wants to believe. 

[Eric Kettenburg]

Additionally, in regard to the concept that somehow "Johan George Rupp" (and to date, I have yet to find any period documentation indicating that his baptismal name was indeed 'Johan'), a man always known as "George Rupp," was somehow using the his 'saints name' John, here is an online article that will pretty quickly explain German naming customs of the period.  There is also a very good article in the Berks County Genealogical Society journal, 1995 Volume 16 Number 1, by Elaine Schwar, which clearly explains the difference between the vornamen and the rufnamen.

http://www.kerchner.com/germname.htm

If indeed "Johan George Rupp" was christened with the vornamen 'Johan,' it makes no difference at all to this discussion since his name as he was known for the remainder of his life was 'George,' and every single document of the period backs this up.

BTW my great grandfather was named Johann August Kettenburg.  Everyone in the family called him 'Gus.' 

[Eric Kettenburg]

Exactly.  Yet the distinguished gentleman who supplied the info to Sotheby's decided to insist the rifle is attributable to Johan George Rupp because... well, that's the only way to make it work as a pre-War rifle.

I'm here all week folks.  Try the Kool Aid.

[spgordon]

the man baptized-as Johann Andreas Albrecht = Andreas Albrecht
the man baptized-as Johann Christian Oerter = Christian Oerter

etc.
etc.

Also: In Lancaster, Johannes Graeff had lots of boys:

Johannes Graeff (b. 1751)
Johann Jacob Graeff (b. 1753)
Johann Georg Graeff (b. 1756)
Petrus Graeff (b. 1758)

They were known as John Graeff, Jacob Graeff, Georg Graef, and Peter Graeff. If anybody ever dreamed that a son would use his baptismal name (Johan) as John later in life, the parents would not have named their sons, in effect, John Graeff, John Jacob Graeff, and John Georg Graeff. (Unless they were eighteenth century versions of George Forman.)


Moderators cannot retrieve this photo

[Eric Kettenburg]

Interjection:

Is that Johan "Moll" or Johan "Noll" for 1749?

I'm looking at other names that I believe are N letters, and others that seem to be M letters, and they look almost identical.

Whose pastoral record is this?

[spgordon]

It's Lancaster Moravian--a 1760 catalog.

I'm pretty sure it's "Moll": he appears in catalogs from 1758, 1759, 1760, 1762 (pictured here), 1764, and 1765, and I've included for comparison the entry for Nixdorf [FYI: the entry under Nixdorf--"Russmeyer"--is the person who is writing the catalog.]





Here's the very weird thing, though. None of the catalog has any parents named Moll (or Noll) or any other children listed by that name. It is very strange that there would be children without parents, unless perhaps the child was in a local school (I don't think Lancaster had a boarding school) or was living with a family with another last name.

He does not seem to appear in the 1755 or 1756 catalogs or in any after 1765 (the next one is 1768 & he's not in that).

I'll keep looking.

[spgordon]

OK, more info. It seems that this John Moll showed up in Lancaster around 1757 (he would have been seven or eight) in the household of Christoph Heyne, who was a master pewterer (see link below). I guess it's not certain when Heyne arrived in Lancaster, but the article suggests 1757, so probably he brought this boy John Moll with him. Some suggest he was there earlier (1752) ... but, still, the boy John Moll was living at his home when he (the boy) was seven or eight.

Here's the 1757 catalog in which Moll (barely!--the very last item in the whole catalog!) appears--"at Heyne's."



Here's lots of info on Heyne:

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1180494.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A7d1ff51554e0683cef1b8bfa82209f2c

[WESTbury]

Until Eric's latest research is widely published, this subject will remain controversial. And then, the information will remain definitive for only as long as it takes for newer data to be discovered and published.

Eric published his research on the web, so it could not be distributed any more widely.

I would imagine that the majority of potential consumers of Eric's immensely informative and research will only look for it on the Web if they have an interest in longrifles. Casual collectors of original longrifles, and contemporary longrifles, may be completely unaware of Eric and his considerable accomplishments.

My approach to the dissemination of knowledge is that the more venues, the better. A publication with a national and international readership may be one, and just one, of the tools available to "get the word out".

[Eric Kettenburg]

Ah ha!  That John Moll.  I tried to track him down years ago when I found a reference somewhere - and I no longer remember where - that Heyne had an apprentice named Johannes Moll.  Seemed like a potential candidate (this was when I was still trying to figure out where Johannes Moll the gunsmith had originated prior to Allentown) but I do remember eliminating Heyne's apprentice for reasons I now forget.  Had no idea that he was involved with the Moravians though.  Well, not the 'same' Johannes Moll but nevertheless, very interesting.  You constantly are digging up really good information!!

[Eric Kettenburg]

Kent, part of the problem (to my way of thinking) with magazine publishing is the copyright issue.  I'm too attached to my site and I like to get information out NOW - BANG!  Magazine publishing is a much slower process, and typically the magazine will own the copyright for a specified period of time so I would then be prohibited from concurrently posting my own work on my site.  I used to send articles to Muzzle Blasts fairly often, but the time lag between writing and publishing was usually half a year at least and they maintained a copyright for one year from date of publication.  Of course it was nice to get paid, but oh well.

Also, once it's in print, I can't change it.  Online, I can make changes minute by minute if necessary.

I do realize I probably just painted myself as a "control freak."   

[spgordon]

Ah ha!  That John Moll.  I tried to track him down years ago when I found a reference somewhere - and I no longer remember where - that Heyne had an apprentice named Johannes Moll.  Seemed like a potential candidate (this was when I was still trying to figure out where Johannes Moll the gunsmith had originated prior to Allentown) but I do remember eliminating Heyne's apprentice for reasons I now forget.  Had no idea that he was involved with the Moravians though.  Well, not the 'same' Johannes Moll but nevertheless, very interesting.  You constantly are digging up really good information!!

I wonder what it was you found that eliminated him? I've seen "1746" as a birthdate for the gunsmith John Moll I: I wonder where that date comes from, given the lack of information about him.

Probably this should be on a new thread...

[Eric Kettenburg]

I don't remember what it initially was, but then Dave Madary found the 1763 indenture for "Johannes Moll... Gunsmith" selling his land in Rockland (Berks) the year before he shows up in Allentown.  Meanwhile, years earlier when Bob Angstadt had been researching the Angstadts, he had found a warrant map from the early 1750s which showed a "Johannes Moll" practically right on top of the Angstadt farm and myself and some others had been wondering 'could this be the guy?'  The 1763 indenture kind of clinched it, at least for me.  I suppose it would be considered circumstantial evidence, but it's circumstantial with a bright neon arrow.  I'm working on some additional information which seems to place him in Lancaster prior to that (before Berks was taken from Lanc. Co) but that's slower going.

[spgordon]

Until Eric's latest research is widely published, this subject will remain controversial. And then, the information will remain definitive for only as long as it takes for newer data to be discovered and published.

Eric published his research on the web, so it could not be distributed any more widely.

I would imagine that the majority of potential consumers of Eric's immensely informative and research will only look for it on the Web if they have an interest in longrifles. Casual collectors of original longrifles, and contemporary longrifles, may be completely unaware of Eric and his considerable accomplishments.

I'm all for publishing things in books myself. But misinformation on the web trumps stuff in books nearly all the time--except, perhaps, in the field we are discussing. I suspect this is a generational thing, which in this case is keeping misinformation in books circulating rather than information on the web.

[spgordon]

I don't remember what it initially was, but then Dave Madary found the 1763 indenture for "Johannes Moll... Gunsmith" selling his land in Rockland (Berks) the same year he shows up in Allentown.

Yes, that would clinch it: if Johannes Moll (Gunsmith) is selling land in Berks County in 1763 he can't be the 14 year old boy living with Heyne (as the Johan. Moll enrolled in Lancaster's Moravian congregation was in 1763). Case closed, I think!

[Eric Kettenburg]

Also in 1764, in Allentown, he's not listed with the single men so the assumption there is that he's married, which ties in with where my research is leading back to Lancaster.

[spgordon]

Also in 1764, in Allentown, he's not listed with the single men so the assumption there is that he's married, which ties in with where my research is leading back to Lancaster.

Yeah, I didn't realize he seems to have been married in 1764. That alone would rule out the J. Moll born in 1749 in the Lancaster Moravian catalog.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Looks like Sotheby's added a catalogue note that opens with, "There are few records that detail the elder John George Rupp’s (1721-1807) trade as a gunsmith..."

Another swing and a miss.  No, there are NO records that document George Rupp as a gunsmith, and there are currently NO records of which I'm aware that document his vornamen as being Johan or Johann.  It probably was, but thus far nothing has turned up to prove this.  It furthermore remains almost laughable to believe that George Rupp would sign a rifle "John."

A fluffy newspaper article concerning a Rupp reunion in 1931 does not constitute documentation of George Rupp being a gunsmith.  Because he wasn't.

Perhaps the writer of the Sotheby's catalog note would like to provide it?  We're all waiting.  I'll be happy to be proven incorrect.

If anyone has a copy of Mr. Kolar's 2017 Muzzle Blasts article that Sotheby's is relying so heavily upon, I'd love to get a look at it.  I'm sure all of the period documentation I'm missing will lie therein.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Just found John Rupp II's estate paperwork, death in 1848.  Confirms what I initially stated, township of Upper Macungie (original Macungie had split by that point).

This is what I'm talking about!  Every published text keeps stating he was in Weisenberg township.  Why?  Because the 'county histories' mention it and they mention he was a son of Andrew (which I still have not verified - he could have been George Jr.'s son also).  Since Andrew ended up in Weisenberg twp, well by golly his son must have been there too.  This John Rupp, Gunsmith, clearly was not; he was in Macungie his entire life because he's there on the census records too.

At this point, I think a huge volume of what has been published since the 1960s needs to be intensely reexamined with a focus on first hand documents! 

I'm merely focusing upon one small region and primarily a handful of gunsmiths/families.  I wonder what else could be found if others chose to studiously look for real documentation rather than simply rely on county histories and previously-published work?  I too have been guilty of this in the past, but I've seen the light!

The truth is out there...