Johannes / John Rupp of Macungie

[Eric Kettenburg]

Eric,  Don't forget the "E. BLOOM"  Bucks Co. fowler that Tom Paulhamous  used to own.  That had the Liberty Cap figure in front of the side plate and lock plate panels very much like the Antes  double rifle.  I believe I shared some images years ago.    Ron

Not forgetting it, but I remember it as being deeply stamped "E B" on the barrel,not a full surname, which frankly could be anyone including the barrel maker.  Also it could be earlier, or later.  It's plain enough that it could have been made pretty much anywhere in NH or upper Bucks without really offering much in the way of more specific clues to origin or date.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I will be updating over the next week or so; I've got additional tax information and also have been working on revisions for Neiharts and Molls.  Mostly because they were all in a relatively confined area, so while searching for information on one man or family, it's almost impossible to avoid finding additional information on others nearby!  Also plan to dig further into church records once I exhaust the tax mining.  Anyway, just for the handful out there who may find this stuff a step or two above "dry and boring."   

[Eric Kettenburg]

Howdy again folks.  So here you will see the rifle is being auctioned next month:

https://www.sothebys.com/en/buy/auction/2022/the-william-k-du-pont-collection-important-americana-from-rocky-hill/extremely-rare-and-fine-carved-and-figured-maple

This description is absolutely the underlying motivation behind the article I wrote.  Many here are quite knowledgeable in German baptismal naming practice and the idea that a man baptised "Johan George Rupp" (and to date, I have yet to find any period documentation to indicate this was his name, although it was the name of one of his sons), a man who was never noted as anything other than either a "yeoman" or a "farmer" on a very large tract of land, a man who was referenced in EVERY period tax list, church record, land document etc. as "George Rupp," would sign a rifle "John Rupp" is simply sad.  The entire concept of attributing the rifle to Johannes / John Rupp's father is nothing more than blatantly wishful thinking and a psychological need to somehow - in any way - date the rifle prior to the War.  I suspect it's nothing more than a money play to gin up the price.

I challenge anyone, anywhere, to present a single piece of *period documentation* demonstrating that George Rupp Sr. utilized the name "John" at any point in his life.  If you have evidence, I would sincerely love to see it.  Meanwhile, I can provide ample documentation of the period that he was always referenced as "George."

[Dan Fruth]

It would seem then that the big Rupp gun was a product of the 1780s. It is always good to keep an open mind, especially with super sleuth Kettenburg in the picture!

[WESTbury]

  The entire concept of attributing the rifle to Johannes / John Rupp's father is nothing more than blatantly wishful thinking and a psychological need to somehow - in any way - date the rifle prior to the War.  I suspect it's nothing more than a money play to gin up the price.

BULLSEYE!

[JTR]

Simple solution; Don't bid on it...

[Eric Kettenburg]

I don't plan to do so.  What I do care about, however, is the dissemination of blatantly false and frankly misleading information which will then be perpetuated onward and onward by a new owner who will be convinced of the "pre-War" provenance of an otherwise chunky, early Federal period, standard "Lehigh" rifle.  I don't claim to know everything and constantly insert the caveat into my research that it is EVOLVING.  What I can claim with certainty, however, is that George Rupp Sr. did not make that rifle - clearly signed "John Rupp" - and to suggest he did is nothing more than deliberate gaslighting or lazy research.

[spgordon]

Simple solution; Don't bid on it...

What problem would that solve?

[Eric Kettenburg]

It sure doesn't solve the 'possession = knowledge' problem, that's for sure.

[JTR]

Yes, I realize it's a difficult concept.
From what I've read here, you don't have any Proof, you have your Opinion. As far as I know opinion doesn't equate to proof.
You might be right, I don't have a clue, but you need proof to be right.

[spgordon]

Yes, I realize it's a difficult concept.
From what I've read here, you don't have any Proof, you have your Opinion. As far as I know opinion doesn't equate to proof.
You might be right, I don't have a clue, but you need proof to be right.

It is so strange that you don't hold the auction house to the same standard! Their sloppy and inaccurate listings get a pass, but Eric's carefully documented claims get dismissed. This is the difficult thing to understand.

The situation here, that is, is not that the auction house has "proof" and Eric only "opinion." Eric has researched this carefully. The auction house is repeating ancient inaccuracies.

Eric has found lots of proof, just the sort that, I am sure, you would respect. Have you read his article? http://erickettenburg.com/johannes-rupp.html

I'm glad at least we've moved to the important question of proof. Since the discussion here was never "Should I bid on this?," the "Don't bid on it" response missed the point widely.

[Eric Kettenburg]

John McEnroe:  "You can not be serious!"

John and Paul:  "Her name was McGill, and she called herself Lil, but everyone knew her as Nancy."

I think JP Beck was signing his rifles JP Beck, but in reality his name was Melvin Belvin.  Or maybe his name was Jerry!  With a G.  And an I!   

[Dan Fruth]

"Don't bother me with your facts, I know what I believe!"

[JTR]

If you don't want to support the gun with its current history, then don't raise the price by bidding on it.

History is important, but difficult to pin down at this distance.
I remember a guy here stating that Allentown had never been called Allenstown. Until another guy posted a picture of a period map calling the place Allenstown.
Different names for the same is not unusual.

I know a guy with the given name of John, but his friends call him Gil. And his grandson calls him yet another name. He used to make custom knives. He sold some with the name John *** on it. He made one for a friend and signed it Gil ***. He made one for his Grandson and signed it with a third name. Three knives, three names depending on who he made it for, same guy. 

I'm not saying it's the same with this rifle, just saying stranger things have happened.

Find the proof Eric, then you'll have the truth.

[rich pierce]

It’s fun to imagine that things are what we wish they were. And then argue that stranger things have happened. It’s fun, but would get a person laughed out of a debate or logic class. There is clearly a desire here to believe one hypothesis (the gun is older than seems possible based on historical records) over the null hypothesis. That is wishful thinking, nothing more. The “stranger things have happened” is essentially an admission that one’s position on a subject is almost certainly wrong. Formally, maybe there’s a 1% chance they are right, and so will cling to that possibility as though it’s 65%.

[JTR]

Common logic says no one is going to pay that much money for a rusty old gun. 

[Karl Kunkel]

"I reject your reality, and substitute my own."

[JTR]

It’s fun to imagine that things are what we wish they were. And then argue that stranger things have happened. It’s fun, but would get a person laughed out of a debate or logic class.

Laugh all you want.

Prove me wrong.

[rich pierce]

It’s fun to imagine that things are what we wish they were. And then argue that stranger things have happened. It’s fun, but would get a person laughed out of a debate or logic class.

Laugh all you want.

Prove me wrong.

That’s not how it works. Go ahead and “prove” (provide strong convincing evidence) that you’re right. I’ve got over 90 peer reviewed publications. There is no “proving wrong”.  There is presentation of hard data that can be reproduced, cogent analysis of that data, and conclusions the data supports.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I did.  I provided ample period documentation of George Rupp being known as George Rupp.  There is not one single instance of George Rupp being referred to as "John."  His own son Herman signed on to estate papers referencing him as George Rupp.  In fact, there is not one single period document referring to him as "Johan George Rupp" or any variation of that name.  That name is a product of the 19th century 'county history' books.  It may be accurate, or it may not, but no serious researcher would reference one of those county history books as being product of fact.  Conversely, I also provided ample documentation of an individual named Johannes Rupp, a son of George Rupp and brother of Herman Rupp, who was referenced frequently in primary documents by the anglicized version of his name Johannes = John.  What is more of a stretch to believe? 

It's funny how we all love to speculate and debate until incoming fire hits either a wallet or a ridiculously far-fetched manufactured theory.  Suddenly, nothing short of a notarized statement of creation lodged in the box cavity will suffice.

The Sotheby's description - ESPECIALLY in light of the documentation regarding this family I've publicly provided - is nothing more than deliberate deception and reflects very poorly on both the auction house as well as the individual who authored the misleading description.  It matters far beyond the concept of "to bid or not to bid" because (1) the long standing of Sotheby's company carries weight within the art world, and the casual individual will accept an associated description as being a testament of fact, and (2) because of the nature of the internet, the associated description will continue as an albatross around the 'wrist' of this rifle for years to come and further cloud and confuse the subject matter. 

[Dan Fruth]

I like what a presenter at the recent KRA meeting where the focus was Moravian guns. She said..."This isn't brain surgery, and nobody will die if we are wrong"   Historic facts present a picture of reality, but it is still up to each person as to whether the facts are accepted or rejected.

[JTR]

It’s fun to imagine that things are what we wish they were. And then argue that stranger things have happened. It’s fun, but would get a person laughed out of a debate or logic class.

Laugh all you want.

Prove me wrong.

That’s not how it works.

 

[WESTbury]

I have to interject into this discussion my recent experience related to auction house descriptions.

I noticed that a few pieces from Moller's collection auction last September had some issues. I sent an e-mail to Seth Isaacson at RIA expressing my concerns. Seth passed them along to RIA's describers and the write-ups for each of the lots with which I had concerns were changed. They deserve credit in my opinion for their desire to have accurate descriptions in those cases.

Perhaps if Eric were to make a case to Sotheby's, they would change their write-up for the rifle based on Eric's concerns.

[spgordon]

They deserve credit in my opinion for their desire to have accurate descriptions in those cases.

It's certainly good that RIA responded to your concerns and adjusted their listings.

But, to amplify the points that Eric has been making in this thread (which were hijacked by non sequitors like "Then Don't Bid!" or "Prove Me Wrong!"), I don't think these auction houses "deserve credit ... for their desire to have accurate descriptions."

The constant and consistent mis-statements (corrected only when they're called out) don't show any such "desire to have accurate descriptions." If they wanted/desired this, they could very easily produce them. Google is not a high-level skill!

[WESTbury]

The constant and consistent mis-statements (corrected only when they're called out) don't show any such "desire to have accurate descriptions." If they wanted/desired this, they could very easily produce them. Google is not a high-level skill!

Agreed, 100%.

Seth stated in an e-mail to me that they "Describers" used Moller's descriptions from his books. If you compare Moller's book to what the RIA describers presented with each of George's "Documented" pieces, you will see that the descriptions are nearly verbatim from Moller's book. Moller had a reputation which they relied on as fact. A dangerous approach as Moller's books were published in 1993 and newer research has been published since by Peter A. Schmidt in 2007 and some fellow named Kent Johns in 2015.