Johannes / John Rupp of Macungie

[spgordon]

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.

Though--here I am flipping sides!--relying on Moller seems to me to be excusable, though relying on Schmidt and Johns would be better.

Some of the other auction descriptions discussed on this listserv over the last year or so are more egregious instances of laziness or deliberate dereliction of duty.

I suspect most of the gentlemen who contribute to this listserv have high standards for themselves and those with whom they work in their professional lives. I will never understand why they give these auction houses a pass when their listings are obviously mistaken and, at times, skate close to fraud.

And I do recognize that these writers-of-descriptions for auction houses have a lot of entries to write and only limited time.

[Eric Kettenburg]

In this particular case, the description is based upon... nothing.  No documentation of which I'm aware, no intelligent use of period documents, nothing.  It's entirely provided - as I understand it (and I perhaps may be corrected) - by someone involved somehow in the brokering of the collection that is/was relying largely on information plastered all over Ancestry by another individual who posted here a years ago and refused to debate when his assertions were challenged.  And the 'county histories.'  Let's not forget the county histories.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Oh dear lord.  but wait, there's more!

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

Now, in order to complete the twisting of reality whereupon an earlier rifle signed "John Rupp" can be attributed to a man named George, we next proceed to come up with a mutated description of a rifle clearly of the 19th century and attributed to John Rupp II, and attribute this rifle to John the elder because otherwise the desired narrative falls apart even further!  Nevermind John the elder did not die during their noted death date of 1836 (demonstrably proven false by the words of his own brother Herman), nor did John II work in Weisenberg township (he was in Macungie as I proved with census records) and in fact there was no John Rupp in Weisenberg until the taking of the 1850 census, at which point he was 8 years old and the son of Solomon Rupp.

Even more obscene is the absolute carelessness with which they use the alleged birth/death dates of John Rupp the elder, 1762-1836, and then in the next sentence describe him as "son of Andrew" who was the brother of that particular John Rupp.  A son and a brother all in one shot - what are they saying about this poor family? 

Regardless of what Sotheby's is doing with these insane descriptions, what is even more ridiculous is that they are apparently relying upon "experts" who are not undertaking original, documentable research, but rather are simply running right to the 'county histories' to rehash non-documented, garbled information and subsequently presenting it as fact.

What is most frustrating is that here I am, up on a mountain in the middle of the woods near the NY state line, dealing with internet that is not much faster than dial-up and looking at a 2+ hour drive one-way to visit any of the downstate historical societies or record repositories, and meanwhile, a number of these "experts" live IN THE FREAKING AREA and can't be bothered to do anything more than open a "county history" book.

I better go split some more firewood right now.
 

[spgordon]

What is most frustrating is that here I am, up on a mountain in the middle of the woods near the NY state line, dealing with internet that is not much faster than dial-up and looking at a 2+ hour drive one-way to visit any of the downstate historical societies or record repositories, and meanwhile, a number of these "experts" live IN THE FREAKING AREA and can't be bothered to do anything more than open a "county history" book.

Well you have to admit you have the advantage of higher ground (geographically).

[Eric Kettenburg]

My frustration is going to put me UNDER ground because the contrary arguments are so baseless and devoid of substance.  I'm all for a good debate, but bring something factual or otherwise documentable to the table.

[WESTbury]

I believe I told this story on the RIA some time ago but it may be worth repeating.

About ten years ago I was reviewing the website of a very well known (for many, many years) New England dealer. The dealer had an early Springfield musket for sale on his site that looked great but his description contained more than a few problems and mis-statements of facts. I called him up and we spoke at length about the musket and my concerns. To my surprise, he agreed with everything I said. "Kent, you are perfectly correct in all of your points, but I rely on my customers not reading the research."

How can you argue with that. "Caveat Emptor" as old Norm Flayderman used to say, in word and print

[spgordon]

How can you argue with that.

I wouldn't argue with it--but it is a classic description of a closed network, an "old boy" network in which everybody agrees not to call each other out to keep the game going. As long as these objects are traded among a like-minded fraternity who agree to these rules (nobody will call others out on the tall tales that effectively prop up value), the game continues.

If you're playing a different game--a historian's game rather than a collector's game--things look very different.

This is why, to most people's annoyance, I've been saying for many years that any field in which the collectors are the researchers--whether art in the nineteenth century or longrifles in the twentieth--finds it difficult to generate what typically qualifies as "research" (for a good definition, see Rich Pierce's account above).

That isn't to say that these collectors don't discover and publish facts and valid interpretations. They do. But many approaches or investigations will be off-limits, or never thought of, because the needs of collectors typically win out. Nobody wants to discover that their rifle attributed to Andreas Albrecht wasn't made by him at all. Research often stops when you confirm what you want to believe. But no researcher should want to believe anything.

It's a simple fact: the people who write about Rembrandt are not (any more) people who own Rembrandts.

[WESTbury]

I wouldn't argue with it--but it is a classic description of a closed network, an "old boy" network in which everybody agrees not to call each other out to keep the game going. As long as these objects are traded among a like-minded fraternity who agree to these rules (nobody will call others out on the tall tales that effectively prop up value), the game continues.
It's a simple fact: the people who write about Rembrandt are not (any more) people who own Rembrandts.

I learned all of this during my first gunshows back in the mid '70s. I used to watch the old-time big shot dealers running around with their buddies then huddling and whispering etc. like old wet hens. Most of those guys are gone now but I'm quite sure that they have been replaced by their apprentices.

We are getting pretty far afield from the Rupp topic.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Frankly, I think the description of the later attributed John II rifle is raising my blood pressure even more than the earlier Johannes rifle.  Why?  Because the description of the later piece is a steaming, disjointed pile of BS that was clearly written specifically to fit and reinforce the BS narrative that they already have attached to the earlier rifle, and someone had to apparently drop a few doses thus entering an alternative reality in order to accomplish it.

How is this not outright deception or fraud?

I don't collect Rembrandts.

[Eric Kettenburg]

And also, yes - I have politely contacted multiple individuals at Sotheby's NY involved in this auction.  I doubt any of them care outside of $$$.

Leaving it described as "ca. 1775" will bring more $$$ than "ca. 1785-1790."

[spgordon]

Saw this on Facebook this morning. Seemed relevant.



Moderators cannot restore this one

[WESTbury]

Saw this on Facebook this morning. Seemed relevant.

I believe that the blue column applies to Oak Island and the causes of climate change.

[Eric Kettenburg]

[rich pierce]

I’m not sure many students of Pennsylvania longrifles would look at that profile and think Revolutionary War period, even without seeing signatures and sound research. Thanks for the picture. From here it looks like a fine and rare signed longrifle that should not need boosting. It would be a star in most any collection.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Saw this on Facebook this morning. Seemed relevant.

The first two pseudoscience points have for many years now been the "classic," standard approach to study of these arms by many involved.  Not everyone of course - I don't want to paint with a broad brush all over everyone, or even most - but the first two points are EXACTLY what is going on here at the moment in regard to this particular rifle.

Something I hope the individual(s) involved in these auction descriptions take into account:

As time passes, more and more period documentation and information that traditionally has only been available via time-consuming research at historical societies, historical repositories (such as HSP), county courthouses etc. is going to be easily available and searchable online.  The transition is already occurring.  The old reliance upon work of previous authors who laboriously undertook such research, or cherry-picked research to suit an end,  is going to give way to anyone and everyone being able to directly access information online.

Do you really want to be "that guy" who, in the future, is viewed as either a liar, a cherry-picker, closed-minded or otherwise just plain dishonest?  Something to think about.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I’m not sure many students of Pennsylvania longrifles would look at that profile and think Revolutionary War period, even without seeing signatures and sound research.

Indeed.  But the gentleman/gentlemen pushing this narrative and supplying the descriptive information to Sotheby's are long-time KRA members.  What does this say?

[rich pierce]

I’m not sure many students of Pennsylvania longrifles would look at that profile and think Revolutionary War period, even without seeing signatures and sound research.

Indeed.  But the gentleman/gentlemen pushing this narrative and supplying the descriptive information to Sotheby's are long-time KRA members.  What does this say?

Many possibilities. Not open to new findings. Not aware of or discussing new data (bubble thinking). Conscious or subconscious attachment to whatever position is most favorable to self or friends. The idea of victim-less “white lies”. Under existential monetary pressure. Unsubstantiated belief that the other “tribe” is always wrong or need to be opposed because they pose an existential threat. These are common reasons why people are unaware or unaccepting of new data. 

Bottom line is there is often less personal cost to the researcher accepting that new data leads to new conclusions, but there can be great cost to someone with much material, reputational, and financial investment.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Many possibilities. Not open to new findings. Not aware of or discussing new data (bubble thinking). Conscious or subconscious attachment to whatever position is most favorable to self or friends. The idea of victim-less “white lies”. Under existential monetary pressure. Unsubstantiated belief that the other “tribe” is always wrong or need to be opposed because they pose an existential threat. These are common reasons why people are unaware or unaccepting of new data. 

Bottom line is there is often less personal cost to the researcher accepting that new data leads to new conclusions, but there can be great cost to someone with much material, reputational, and financial investment.

Absolutely.  But anyone following this tack loses all credibility as a scholar, researcher or studious individual.  Apparently money trumps all.

BTW, I can't see any reputational cost to remaining open to new information.  I see that as a plus.

Quoting Earl again:  "There's nothing wrong with saying 'I don't know'"

[WESTbury]

Indeed.  But the gentleman/gentlemen pushing this narrative and supplying the descriptive information to Sotheby's are long-time KRA members.  What does this say?

If they in fact actually know that the info they are sharing is incorrect, that is disappointing. I'd like to think that perhaps they are not aware of your research Eric.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I know for a fact one individual at least has been made very aware of it.  A response was along the lines of (paraphrase) insisting that tax records, church records and census records don't tell the whole story.  And I agree - these records do not tell the whole story singularly.  But they say an awful lot more than simply insisting that a farmer named George was signing rifles as John, with NO evidence whatsoever, solely because it's the only way to render a desired outcome in the bizarro world.

[spgordon]

IThe “stranger things have happened” is essentially an admission that one’s position on a subject is almost certainly wrong.

As is its cousin, "Well, anything is possible ..." I used to hear that a lot, too. Usually signaled that the person I was talking to didn't want to think (or learn) any more about his long-held beliefs.

The peer review process ensures that researchers have their ideas challenged regularly. It's humbling. It becomes habitual to assume that there's something about a topic, no matter how informed you are, that you haven't seen or considered--and to expect that your understanding will change on the basis of these other perspectives.

A forum like this could work like peer review, if folks were open to constructive criticism. "Anything is possible."

[smart dog]

Hi Scott,
Having published and still publishing peer-reviewed scientific papers and book chapters, I think a lot of folks would not be comfortable with peer review. They would get mad, take it personally, respond with ad hominem attacks or walk away. 

The old saw "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"  is quoted all too often and is a logical fallacy.  Absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence just not absolute evidence.  If you haven't already, I urge you to read Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow".

dave

[spgordon]

If you haven't already, I urge you to read Daniel Kahneman's "Thinking Fast and Slow".

Yes, I bought it after you last mentioned it & read it. I didn't know that book, but I teach those concepts all the time in my undergraduate and graduate classes. One of my earlier books, when I still thought about myself as a literature professor, was about Don Quixote--which is a story about processing evidence, misinterpretations, the resilience of the "lenses" through which we see the world (they don't just disappear when somebody offers counter-evidence). People use phrases like "Anything is possible" or "Stranger things have happened" to protect or prop up their own beliefs and to avoid thinking about others' perspective.

Nobody ever said peer review was comfortable! It's not and it's not meant to be. But it does produce better science or history or whatever. 

[Eric Kettenburg]

I've always thought of this forum as something of a wild and wooly peer review forum.  I'm pretty sure others do as well.  It's one of the reasons I post research projects I might be working on and then hopefully initiate some debate.  If I can be proven incorrect or lacking on a particular point, I'd rather find out about it sooner rather than later.  I have no scientific background nor a background in academia however, so I don't claim to understand all of the finer points of a proper peer review process. 

I'm still wondering when two spaces following a period became one.  I didn't get the memo but I don't like it.  Now my kids laugh at me.

[spgordon]

I'm still wondering when two spaces following a period became one.  I didn't get the memo but I don't like it.  Now my kids laugh at me.

When typewriters went away? Well, really, when everybody started using word processors or were creating "published" documents on their own (on the web, say).

Using two spaces can introduce major gaps in lines in any text that is full justified--such as webpages. (Printed books with full justification never used two spaces, even if writers submitted their manuscripts that way.)