John Rupp - Sotheby's and Poulin's

[Eric Kettenburg]

Examination of two signed John Rupp rifles, including one or two attributed.  Perhaps more if others care to join in the conversation?  PLEASE DO SO!

I want to preface everything I offer hereafter with the caveat that (1) it is predominantly based upon my own opinion and study of Northampton County area rifles, and lifetime work as a gunsmith, as well as (2) it is all predicated upon the assumption (by me) that most people knowledgeable in both ‘kentuckies’ as well as possessive of a knowledge of gunstocking will agree with - or at least consider - my assertion that the (apparent) earliest of the John Rupp rifles (Sotheby’s) is a ‘parts rifle’ stocked largely around components taken from an earlier gun.  If you don’t agree with me, have at it!  I welcome all opinions and more commentary will surely render a better examination.

To take a deep dive right out of the gate, there has been some doubt expressed as to whether or not the Kindig/Collis/Sotheby’s John Rupp rifle was made by the same man that made the Poulin’s John Rupp rifle.  Some of this doubt is due to the smaller size and architecture of the Poulin’s rifle and some is due to the change in brass furniture.  Hopefully we can address and discuss this in depth, and I plan to offer an analysis of particular details which I hope will put any doubts to rest.

Initially I want to simply present the below photo as food for thought.

Much of the initial ‘wow!’ factor of this rifle (John Rupp - Sotheby’s) is due to the very dramatic nature of the step stock.  Yet, I would ask, “Is it in fact such a dramatic step?”  I would proffer that the striking nature of the step is largely appearance-only, this due to the use of an oversized and over-long trigger guard for the style of stock and region of manufacture.  By utilizing a guard clearly pulled from a larger, earlier rifle in conjunction with a much earlier lock of larger size that consequently mandated a trigger moved further toward the butt - and so likewise the trigger guard itself - the step falls under the grip rail rather than at the point where the return/finger loop reconnects with the stock as per virtually all other Lehigh-area rifles.  The aesthetic effect of this orientation is that the grip rail of the guard acts literally as a ‘picture frame’ for the step and creates the visual illusion of this step being much more prominent than others of the region.  It is not so, primarily when compared with the earliest of the signed "John Moll" rifles which likewise are shaped with a fairly stout, abrupt step.

I have adjusted this photo using Pixelmator software by removing the original (recycled to my mind) trigger guard, moving the trigger slightly forward (imagining a slightly smaller, later flintlock mechanism) and placing a guard cut from a signed John Moll rifle upon the John Rupp rifle to fit the trigger location as well as the step location.

NO ALTERATION was made at all to the step or overall stock of the rifle.

I suspect many will think this makes a world of difference in the overall appearance of the rifle; it very much does so in my opinion.  This photo is presented here solely to initiate some discussion.  Further examination will follow.

[WESTbury]

Well, I agree with you Eric, your "adjusted" rifle is far more pleasing to the eye because it is proportional, for want of a better word.

The foreshortened nature of the Sotheby's rifle triggerguard, really stands out to me if you compare the triggerguard view of the Sotheby's rifle on page 350 of the new Third Edition of Kindig's book with the Rupp rifle on page 19 of the 4th Edition of Pennsylvania Longrifles of Note. The difference is striking. Granted the Rupp rifle in the Pa Longrifles of note is described as being built by an earlier John Rupp, at least according to the book.

[heinz]

From a builder's perspective; the wrist architecture on the Southeby's example is just awkward.  You computer rendition is better, but still awkward. I wonder if it is not only a restock using older parts but also using an older, intact stock that the parts could be made to fit. 

[Eric Kettenburg]

Heinz, it's interesting that you mention that.  Now here again, I have to get into speculative territory although there does exist *some* scant evidence to a degree.  When it comes to stocking up a rifle, I think most of us here realize that there are differences between how we approach things today vs. how the trade was approached 200+ years ago.  I don't necessarily mean simple differences in tool technology used or differences in lighting etc.; I mean, for example, that today, a gunstocker might be approached to stock up a Lancaster style rifle by one customer, a Lehigh by another, a Hudson River gun at another point and on and on.  Conversely, one of the reasons we typically can recognize even unsigned work by a historic maker, or at the minimum pin an unsigned piece down to a relatively constrained region, is it appears that a maker developed a pattern for a rifle (using a rifle as example) and then stuck with it, with some allowance being made for adjustments and - if the gunstocker lived long enough - adjustments for stylistic changes.  John Phillip Beck is a great example, Herman Rupp is another (as noted above, two rifles 16 years apart that are almost identical), Dickert etc.  This makes sense, too:  with only one or two exceptions that come to mind (the Oerter rifle noted in a letter and being sent all the way to Lancaster being one), it would seem that a gunstocker dealt with a local customer pool and knew what the customers expected, and they knew what to expect of him.  We also have quite a number of surviving 'schimmels' as Chuck has called them, pieces which often appear somewhat oversized to an extent and also appear to have been stocked up to a point, but not finished further.  Were stockers working up partially-completed pieces to maintain an inventory of sorts?  Bob Lienemann has demonstrated the way it would appear that the CS shop was using a pattern and simply adjusting it up or down slightly for drop, and butt length to adjust lop, so there is this to consider also.  I have seen a couple of different antique stock blanks that have survived and they are not the blocky, oversized things we now cut or purchase.  They're much closer to the overall form of a rifle, apparently being roughed-out somewhat even while in blank form.  Wallace illustrated a great example in the old JHAT series.

A friend and I were discussing this exact approach in a conversation about this John Rupp rifle and the discussion pretty much encompassed exactly my soap box speech above    He had asked me *why* would Rupp have made use of a guard that was clearly too large and long for the rifle, and *why* maintain the clunky step?  I believe this was because these guys were stocking to a pattern, and it’s fairly apparent that everyone in that portion of NH Co. was working with a similar aesthetic.  A step-stock was expected.  They were maintaining a step stock into the 19th century, along with wood boxes, so the customer base and the stockers were clearly wedded to a particular style and expectation.  My speculation only, but Rupp probably had the stock roughed out with a rough barrel groove, and then just went at it with the parts he had on hand.  Frankly that’s what I would do if I needed to stock one up and get paid.  He may have had the parts on-hand, either loose or in the form of an 'old gun' (we can typically find examples in the estate inventories of deceased gunsmiths that 'old gun' was commonly noted, usually in multiples; Neihart in 1813 had "Sundry old guns and tools"), or possibly someone brought him a broken piece and wanted it restocked.  This is especially a strong possibility given that the components are clearly from an earlier and larger rifle, and might explain why this specific rifle displays a classic Allentown-area form and architecture clearly of the later 1780s or 1790s, yet is so large and bulky.

I too agree that the rifle here despite being attractive in many ways is definitely at the same time a bit awkward.  I would wager an awful lot that it was stocked very early in his career, and I make this opinionated observation not at all based upon the size of the gun but based upon the slightly awkward aspect.  Using even the signature as an example, which to my eye is clearly the same individual as likewise found upon the Poulin's rifle, the signature here appears a bit more awkward and less proficient, as does the box engraving.  The wrist and buttstock angles are somewhat askew and do not flow together quite in the same way that the (seemingly) later Poulin's rifle, as well as other contemporary rifles of the region (John Moll) do so.  This has nothing to do with the prominence of the step, as Moll utilized this form likewise.  You can somewhat see the manner in which this awkwardness played out as the rifle took shape, as it appears to me that he was forced to shave down the comb more than perhaps originally intended.  Simply some of my observations.

[Dan Fruth]

Good points Eric. I've always believed the regional characteristics of these different "schools" were tells of a proficient craftsman. Making one pattern with MINOR differences is the only way to be proficient and earn a living at such an arduous task. Ken Netting worked as a carpenter and was always employed because he was talented as well as proficient at his trade. His guns reflect this same proficiency and consistency. He carries certain characteristics into each gun he produces, because he is very familiar with those things and can be proficient at rendering them. IMHO

[smart dog]

Hi Eric,
This is fascinating.  So if gun makers in a local area produced similar and locally specific patterns and kept to them, it implies there was a considerable market for just those styled guns.  So a customer went to one of those makers and was informed "this is the style I make" or a customer sought out those makers because they wanted that style. I wish we knew more who the customers were. As a retired predator-prey research biologist I know that to understand the predator you need to understand the prey.

dave

[spgordon]

My two cents (worth no more than that, perhaps):

There is no evidence, not a single shred (that I'm aware of), that any eighteenth-century gun purchaser was aware of these regional styles that we have described as "schools." If there is any, it would be great to share it here.

So, sure, makers had styles and they were roughly regional. This might be expected given how people learned the trade, the (relative) lack of mobility at the time, etc., sort of like the way accents develop. But whether any of these things mattered or even signified to customer is (in my opinion) very unlikely.

Unless somebody can share an instance of an eighteenth-century individual seeking out a maker, or a region, because he preferred that style? It's hard enough to find evidence that an individual sought out a particular maker (Dickert, say)--let alone that the reason was something aesthetic rather than the quality of the maker's products....

[Eric Kettenburg]

Very scientific way to approach it!  I also wish I knew more about the customers in any given region, the expectations, the local interaction between the gunstocker and his customers.  I'm simply making an observation based upon surviving examples of a specific region - in this case, western NH Co., say from Bethlehem through Allentown over toward the Berks border.  Once more putting forth pure speculation, my suspicion is that by the late 1760s or early 1770s Oerter at CS was largely setting the benchmark, and anyone else in the region was probably copying what was going on at CS.  I think that if we finally ever get to see a signed Johannes Moll rifle that conceivably could date prior to the War, it's going to be very eye-opening.  Let's look at Neihardt's signed 1787 rifle; now maybe call me crazy, but I see an awful lot of CS influence in that rifle.  I have no doubt Neihardt was aware of what was going on at CS.  How could he not, given the proximity?  So if you are fishing in the same customer pool, it makes senses that you have to use the same bait.  I would also be extremely interested to see a signed Jacob Loesch or Joseph Levering rifle.  I think either would also be quite eye-opening and fill in a lot of missing jigsaw pieces.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Scott I agree with you, and maybe we are talking past each other.  I'm not saying that a customer in Macungie was aware of 'schools' and thought to himself, "Well, I live near Trexler's so I have to buy something that looks like it was made here!"  Not at all.  What I'm trying to say is that a customer living near what became Trexlertown, for example, would *probably* be a lot more familiar with what the Rupps were stocking, or what Moll was stocking, than they would be familiar with what Dickert or Hachen were stocking.  Pure proximity.  So if someone living in Macungie decides "hey, I need a rifle!" he's going to be much more familiar with a rifle architectural style that is being built in his immediate area as opposed to somewhere 30 miles away.  I'd say it makes sense that his expectations of what his new rifle would look like would be based more upon what he was seeing made in his immediate area as opposed to what was being made elsewhere, unless perhaps he was a recent arrival.  I can't conceive of any other reason that specific styles post-War developed in specific regions other than people locally seeing something, thinking 'I like that!' and buying it, and of course, what sells is what anyone with any business sense is going to make.  I see it as a symbiotic relationship between gunstocker and customer:  the stocker in a particular region stocks what people want, and people in a specific region want what they've been conditioned to expect.  Obviously, local residents could not immediately google images of what stockers in far-away communities were making. 

Am I making sense?

[spgordon]

by the late 1760s or early 1770s Oerter at CS was largely setting the benchmark, and anyone else in the region was probably copying what was going on at CS.  I think that if we finally ever get to see a signed Johannes Moll rifle that conceivably could date prior to the War, it's going to be very eye-opening.  Let's look at Neihardt's signed 1787 rifle; now maybe call me crazy, but I see an awful lot of CS influence in that rifle.  I have no doubt Neihardt was aware of what was going on at CS.  How could he not, given the proximity?  So if you are fishing in the same customer pool, it makes senses that you have to use the same bait.  I would also be extremely interested to see a signed Jacob Loesch or Joseph Levering rifle.  I think either would also be quite eye-opening and fill in a lot of missing jigsaw pieces.

I totally agree that seeing a signed Loesch or Levering or Weiss or William Henry Jr. rifle would be eye opening. I don't think we have even a vague idea what the work of others who worked at Christiansbrunn looked like. Nobody at Christiansbrunn may have been making rifles aspiring to Oerter's standard after 1775. It's not clear that Oerter made any high-end rifles after 1775: we wonder often why he started dating things in 1774 but an equally (more?) important question is why he stopped. I'd say because he was forced to make muskets in late 1775 and died before his commitment to deliver lots of muskets was complete. Did he ever make another high-end rifle after those dated "1775"?

So Oerter's work is surely a high standard--and if it circulated widely in Northampton County it would have impressed other makers. And I understand that folk have seen the influence of Christiansbrunn (i.e. Oerter) in subsequent work, so I guess it did circulate and did impress others.

But maybe that high standard hit its apex in Oerter in 1775 and disappeared as quickly as it emerged? We just don't have enough information to know....

[spgordon]

Scott I agree with you, and maybe we are talking past each other.  I'm not saying that a customer in Macungie was aware of 'schools' and thought to himself, "Well, I live near Trexler's so I have to buy something that looks like it was made here!"  Not at all.  What I'm trying to say is that a customer living near what became Trexlertown, for example, would *probably* be a lot more familiar with what the Rupps were stocking, or what Moll was stocking, than they would be familiar with what Dickert or Hachen were stocking.  Pure proximity.  So if someone living in Macungie decides "hey, I need a rifle!" he's going to be much more familiar with a rifle architectural style that is being built in his immediate area as opposed to somewhere 30 miles away.  I'd say it makes sense that his expectations of what his new rifle would look like would be based more upon what he was seeing made in his immediate area as opposed to what was being made elsewhere, unless perhaps he was a recent arrival.  I can't conceive of any other reason that specific styles post-War developed in specific regions other than people locally seeing something, thinking 'I like that!' and buying it, and of course, what sells is what anyone with any business sense is going to make.  I see it as a symbiotic relationship between gunstocker and customer:  the stocker in a particular region stocks what people want, and people in a specific region want what they've been conditioned to expect.  Obviously, local residents could not immediately google images of what stockers in far-away communities were making. 

Yes, that makes perfect sense--but other explanations make equally perfect sense. Maybe customer choice (of the sort that  Dave's post implied) isn't much involved at all, in which case styles develop because local makers are influencing one another. The product they make is purchased by customers because it is what is available; customer "choice" isn't a factor. Yet the styles still develop.

As you say, customers couldn't google alternate styles. Maybe most customer never even registered that different regions had different styles. Maybe they did--and preferred their own (as you noted). Or maybe they came to think another "look" was cool, in which case they certainly might come to prefer a style from another region. But I myself suspect that would have been very, very unlikely. And, as I've said, there's not a jot of evidence that any eighteenth-century customer cared about or noticed regional styles.

Again, like regional accents.

Here's a thought experiment. Most citizens of our fine republic would not--without some prodding, and teaching--even see the differences between different regional rifle styles. That doesn't mean that those difference aren't there: they are! It means that they aren't immediately recognizable. The ordinary person might see a difference in color, in weight, in a really blocky rifle and a thin/sleek rifle, with a patchbox and without, etc. But regional styles: I very much doubt it.

Maybe eighteenth-century customers were like that, too. It just didn't signify for them. They looked past it--much like you probably looked right past the fact that "rifle" is in two different fonts in the paragraph above. Yes, they are real differences. But we don't notice every real difference ...

[Eric Kettenburg]

I don't personally think Oerter's 1775 work hit an apex in the region.  It may have at CS - unfortunately no way to say without seeing later work that can be pinpointed to that shop.  But Neihardt's 1787 rifle is one $#*! of a rifle, to be blunt.  John Moll's rifle that was part of Alex Chamberlain's collection, which he believed was made for one of the Greenleafs, is probably (imho) the finest Lehigh-style ever made, or certainly one of the finest if we take into consideration some have surely perished.  The unanswered question, to me, is HOW strong was the CS influence ca. 1770-1775 on what else may have been made outside the Moravian community?  How did what was being sold there influence what someone outside of the Moravian community may have been stocking and selling?  I do not have answers to that.

Also I do agree that the possibility of makers influencing one another surely may have played a very primary role.  *IF* apprenticeships are part of the equation, that's almost self-explanatory.  But outside of the master/apprentice relationship, what else can create a cause/effect in terms of style and design?  I don't think the customer base were purely innocent bystanders.  Now that's speculation on my part, admittedly.  When you see a number of different gunstockers in  given region all working in somewhat of the same style, I don't personally think that any single reason leads to that similarity, and I am not willing to discount customer preference.  Especially post-War:  that surely had to be a great shuffling of the deck, and even an area that had previously been fairly insular such as Northampton Co. was thrown into the both shaken AND stirred category.  People there must have seen a huge variety of arms and I can't conceive that this sudden cannonball into the blender did not in some way affect things on both sides of the craftsman/customer equation.

"And, as I've said, there's not a jot of evidence that any eighteenth-century customer cared about or noticed regional styles."

Pre-War, I absolutely agree.  One probably decided 'I need a rifle' and went and bought a rifle without any though going into stock shaping or architecture.  A rifle was just... a rifle.  Post -War, I don't think much may have changed on the customer end, but gunstockers who had worked through the War years must have had a vastly increased exposure to differences to which they perhaps had not been exposed previously.  How did this affect their work?  How were any such changes in their work viewed by a local customer base?  I don't know.  Maybe their customer base didn't perceive or expect anything different.

This John Rupp rifle is a pretty classic case in point, though, as far as I'm concerned.  Prior to the War, attributed CS work and Oerter's signed work is fairly straightforward German step-stock, with Oerter by the mid 1770s playing down that step but still maintaining it to some extent and likewise working down the overall size of the stock.  Then suddenly, AFTER the War, by the late 1780s and early 1790s if our timelines are correct, now we see a noticeable step stock being maintained along with some fairly "Frenchy" curves introduced.  Not just a rifle here or there, pretty much all of them!  This didn't simply 'happen.'   Something initiated this change, and I don't personally think it had anything to do with some of these immigrants originating in the Alsace region.  If that were important, it logically should have happened with the first wave of immigrants, not their descendants, but there is no evidence that it did.  So what changed?  And what initiated this change not just within the work of a single maker, but most if not all of them?  Too many questions that as yet have no answers.

[heinz]

I think we need to keep two things in mind.  The lack of power tools means it was far more effective to cut green wood much closer to the finished shape than what we do today, and deal with any warping as necessary.  And, they literally relied on patterns for much of their work.  An apprentice would likely leave the master's shop with a set of gauges and patterns  that helped in the lock and trigger layout, making trigger guard castings and the like.  Schools were guided, not just by style ,but also by a tool and pattern set.

To go back to the original example, I can see no reason that step could not have been continued back to the traditional point, and I do not understand why the comb is so short of that trigger guard bow area where the comb, guard flange and step usually line up.  Maybe he was in a hurry. 

This is the line up in the Brass Barreled rifle

[spgordon]

Then suddenly, AFTER the War, by the late 1780s and early 1790s if our timelines are correct, now we see a noticeable step stock being maintained along with some fairly "Frenchy" curves introduced.  Not just a rifle here or there, pretty much all of them!  This didn't simply 'happen.'   Something initiated this change, and I don't personally think it had anything to do with some of these immigrants originating in the Alsace region.  If that were important, it logically should have happened with the first wave of immigrants, not their descendants, but there is no evidence that it did.  So what changed?  And what initiated this change not just within the work of a single maker, but most if not all of them?  Too many questions that as yet have no answers.

Just to make sure I understand: how would you (speculatively, I understand) explain this change? I think you're saying that it was likely consumer choice that led so many different makers to adjust their styles at the same time?

[JHeath]

I don't personally think Oerter's 1775 work hit an apex in the region.  It may have at CS - unfortunately no way to say without seeing later work that can be pinpointed to that shop.  But Neihardt's 1787 rifle is one $#*! of a rifle, to be blunt.  John Moll's rifle that was part of Alex Chamberlain's collection, which he believed was made for one of the Greenleafs, is probably (imho) the finest Lehigh-style ever made, or certainly one of the finest if we take into consideration some have surely perished.  The unanswered question, to me, is HOW strong was the CS influence ca. 1770-1775 on what else may have been made outside the Moravian community?  How did what was being sold there influence what someone outside of the Moravian community may have been stocking and selling?  I do not have answers to that.

Also I do agree that the possibility of makers influencing one another surely may have played a very primary role.  *IF* apprenticeships are part of the equation, that's almost self-explanatory.  But outside of the master/apprentice relationship, what else can create a cause/effect in terms of style and design?  I don't think the customer base were purely innocent bystanders.  Now that's speculation on my part, admittedly.  When you see a number of different gunstockers in  given region all working in somewhat of the same style, I don't personally think that any single reason leads to that similarity, and I am not willing to discount customer preference.  Especially post-War:  that surely had to be a great shuffling of the deck, and even an area that had previously been fairly insular such as Northampton Co. was thrown into the both shaken AND stirred category.  People there must have seen a huge variety of arms and I can't conceive that this sudden cannonball into the blender did not in some way affect things on both sides of the craftsman/customer equation.

"And, as I've said, there's not a jot of evidence that any eighteenth-century customer cared about or noticed regional styles."

Pre-War, I absolutely agree.  One probably decided 'I need a rifle' and went and bought a rifle without any though going into stock shaping or architecture.  A rifle was just... a rifle.  Post -War, I don't think much may have changed on the customer end, but gunstockers who had worked through the War years must have had a vastly increased exposure to differences to which they perhaps had not been exposed previously.  How did this affect their work?  How were any such changes in their work viewed by a local customer base?  I don't know.  Maybe their customer base didn't perceive or expect anything different.

This John Rupp rifle is a pretty classic case in point, though, as far as I'm concerned.  Prior to the War, attributed CS work and Oerter's signed work is fairly straightforward German step-stock, with Oerter by the mid 1770s playing down that step but still maintaining it to some extent and likewise working down the overall size of the stock.  Then suddenly, AFTER the War, by the late 1780s and early 1790s if our timelines are correct, now we see a noticeable step stock being maintained along with some fairly "Frenchy" curves introduced.  Not just a rifle here or there, pretty much all of them!  This didn't simply 'happen.'   Something initiated this change, and I don't personally think it had anything to do with some of these immigrants originating in the Alsace region.  If that were important, it logically should have happened with the first wave of immigrants, not their descendants, but there is no evidence that it did.  So what changed?  And what initiated this change not just within the work of a single maker, but most if not all of them?  Too many questions that as yet have no answers.

Why study longrifles at all? What makes them special? They are American. They are ours. Rifles are cultural identity. That is why so much care went into how they are built and decorated.

We do not today have Mecklenburg county minivans, or Rowan county sneakers, or Wasco county rifles. It's a national market.

Prior to the Revolution, maybe your shoes probably reflected your county, your wagon reflected it, the tilt of your hat reflected it. Whether you intended or not. Maybe you were a proto-Yinser.

After the Revolution, a generation of men who might never have left their home counties had been marched up and down from Saratoga to South Carolina. Look at Morgan's riflemen. How many would have ever traveled beyond their home counties in VA but for the Revolution? Some even went to Montréal.

That possibly explains a stylistic boundary pre-war and post-war.

A lot of information will always be absent in the historical record. Dashing guy from the next county over wins the big shooting match with a step-stock rifle and gets all the hotties. Make me a rifle like that.

[jdm]

 The discussion on customer awareness of regional styles reminded me of the gunsmith  Peter White.  He started out in Maryland making Maryland style rifles. He moved to Bedford Co. Pa.  and changed to Bedford style. Then  moved to Uniontown  changed again. Maybe the locals weren't aware  of regional  characteristics but he was.  Business is business.

[blienemann]

Hi Eric, and thanks much for your studies and posts here. You and Scott play well together in comparing and reinforcing research, and I enjoy the responses from all. It is great to see photos of an old rifle or two with your research – it keeps us visual thinkers engaged through the study of primary records. The coordination between the guns and the records is what was often missing in prior works.

Regarding the appearance of this larger John Rupp rifle, adjusting the trigger and guard certainly change the appearance. Have you traced the outline of the stock profile from this rifle and the other John Rupp – or others for that matter by Herman Rupp, John Moll or Peter Neihardt? How close are they – are they identical, within the width of a chalk line? I somehow thought to ask for stock tracings of the various Oerter rifles and related arms, which really helped to understand (or guess) at how their shop worked with one stock pattern, and the same pattern or very similar was used for rifle # 43, with a bit more step. Comparison of stock patterns might connect some of these stockers.

If they were stocking custom rifles to fit a customer, then the customer may have had a role in style as well as fit. I had noticed from photos that many of these Oerter, later Lehigh and some Bucks Co rifles have a straight top to the wrist. Not something we would naturally shape – we would tend toward smooth curves from tang area into wrist and butt. But the tracings confirmed this – a slight curve in the top of wrist from breech to about the tang bolt, and then straight to the comb. Many contemporary builders miss this detail.

As you and others have mentioned, it seems the old builders had stock patterns hanging on the wall (two in the C’s Spring shop), and just as Wallace Gusler did in his movie, they would trace around the pattern, cut this out to the pattern line, and go to work. I learned longrifle stocking from Jack Brooks – who has patterns traced from many original rifles, and drawings of more. Jack taught me to cut the stock profile to its finished dimension – leaving no extra wood. This way we inlet only once, and don’t have extra wood in the way. On these slimmest rifles like the Hermann Rupp, the height of the wrist is only a good one inch! When you cut a wide stock blank to that finished profile one inch high in the wrist, it looks real scary!

Sidebar - it is interesting how some of these patterns from different makers are either identical - Lancaster stockers for example - or very close, perhaps showing a slight evolution over time. Again might show connections between stockers and shops.

You mention several antique cut out stocks – and we illustrated one in Moravian Gunmaking II – similar to what we would call a precarved stock today, with a rough groove for the barrel and the stock roughly shaped. When the C’s Spring inventories list “cut out gunstocks”, are they talking about planks cut into square stocks following an outline as we would first do with a bandsaw, or do they mean preshaped to some degree?

If John Rupp cut this stock from a pattern, then added the larger lock and longer trigger guard to the already established stock profile, he would get the results this rifle shows. It would handle and feel just the same, even though it looks different. Whether the lock and guard were reused, or older, or just available, the outcome is the same. There are other classic and slim Lehigh rifles with large locks – Jack has taught classes around one original Lehigh with a small barrel and using the Davis large colonial lock to match the original. The combination yields an interesting rifle. I enjoyed Dan’s comment about Ken Netting’s approach, unique to him.

Andreas Albrecht visited Matthias Roesser in Lancaster in early 1763 IIRC, and they may have compared notes on rifle design, stock and carving patterns. It is possible this visit influenced Dickert and others there, until AA moved to nearby Lititz eight years later. Wm Henry traveled a good deal, as did pastors and teachers. The Moravians ran their Wachovia wagons in a loop through the major settlements and down to N Carolina, taking goods and components from Lancaster, and may have sent a finished rifle along. Mr Baer somehow knew to ask young Oerter to stock a rifle for him (of a different pattern and style), when so many talented gunstockers lived close by – including his fellow Mennonites the Newcomer brothers. I believe that many customers for a rifle or other arm cared a good deal about the rifles they admired, and those that they owned. Some Moravian men near Salem NC were very upset to have their rifles taken from them during the Rev War – some had brought these from the old country. There was a strong connection between some men and their arms. Oerter used the term “she” when describing the rifle for Baer – picking up on that connection in promoting his work (as I read it).

By the middle of the Rev War, after taking arms from the non-Associators, and the smiths and stockers working to repair and restock all sorts of gathered arms in the several armories you have written about, they certainly saw the variety of work going on in the colonies. As did the various military units or rifle companies others have mentioned. Christian Oerter became very sick and was not a force by late 1776. Wm Henry, Jr may have stocked a rifle or two, but he was very busy completing a musket contract with the Brethren and an even larger arms repair contract he had on the side. Jacob Loesch, Jr did complete a few rifles for sale with brass patchboxes ca 1780  – but were they a continuation of Oerter’s work? Quite possible since Loesch learned the trade from Oerter, but perhaps Wm Henry, Jr brought the Lancaster daisy box from Albrecht and Lititz?

It is great fun to read and follow your and Scott’s research, and to imagine how this worked from the few records we have. But you find more records all the time. Hope 2022 brings health, happiness and much more new information! Thanks, Bob

[spgordon]

Mr Baer somehow knew to ask young Oerter to stock a rifle for him (of a different pattern and style), when so many talented gunstockers lived close by – including his fellow Mennonites the Newcomer brothers. I believe that many customers for a rifle or other arm cared a good deal about the rifles they admired, and those that they owned. Some Moravian men near Salem NC were very upset to have their rifles taken from them during the Rev War – some had brought these from the old country. There was a strong connection between some men and their arms.

I agree with Bob that men who owned arms cared about their arms (and certainly cared when objects that they owned were taken from them). Certainly Baer understood that he was purchasing a very expensive rifle when there were cheaper rifles to be had.

This is a very different matter, though, than imagining that they cared about--or even noticed--the shape of the buttstock or a stepped wrist (or some other thing that, to us, indicates regional style), let alone that a consumer would factor such things into his decision about what rifle to purchase (even if, in a given place, such a consumer would have a "choice"). In my opinion, to imagine that they cared about such things--in the absence of any evidence whatsoever--is to deposit into their minds our modern sensibilities.

Thought Experiment: Have you ever noticed how many different shaped bottles orange juice comes in? It does. But I would doubt any of us are choosing our orange juice because of the bottle shape. Now imagine a historian or bottle collector in 2222 noticing these differences in bottle shape, spending considerable time & energy documenting the differences, coming to believe that these differences he's noticed must be significant, and proposing (despite having no evidence from consumers themselves) that in 2022 consumers were choosing which orange juice to purchase on the basis of the bottle shape. This is a classic instance of something that social scientists, including historians, study as part of their training: it is a mistake to think that the categories that we use are in the heads of the people we study. And both things can be true: yes, regional styles exist and, yes, consumers at the time did not particularly register these differences as significant.

Maybe it is easier to imagine (as JHeath said) that after the war, thanks to all the movement (and lots of men with different rifles thrown together in battle), men had a newly-formed awareness of difference among rifles and so we could reasonably see some of them making what we would recognize as consumer choices. It is still worth keeping in mind, though, the impediments to such choices in early America, how difficult it would be from anybody not in an urban area with multiple gunsmiths, a farmer in Hempfield Township, Lancaster County, say, to have much "choice" at all--without costly and laborious travel to another region to buy something he could much more easily buy next door.

Benjamin Baer was the wealthiest farmer in his township and it is possible he ordered a gun from Oerter because he had connections with Moravians. He was, in any case, no ordinary consumer when he ordered something from 75 miles away that he could have bought next door. Imagining that such an action was representative or ordinary, because it is ordinary for us, again confuses the things we take for granted in the present with the possibilities available to people in the past.

Finally, let me agree with Bob, too, about this: I also hope 2022 brings health, happiness, and much more new information!

[smart dog]

Hi Scott,
Probably no one cares how a container of orange juice fits in the hand but shooters do care how their guns fit.  Moreover, if I remember correctly from one of Bob's books, Samuel Coykendahl owned an Oerter rifle and he lived about 50 miles away from Nazareth in Libertyville, New Jersey.   How did he know about Oerter and his work at Christian's Spring and he was not a Moravian?  I am very skeptical of the idea that choice did not matter.  If you were not a man of means but could scrape together enough to buy a rifle, perhaps you went to the closest maker or purveyor and bought whatever you could.  However, if you had the means perhaps you could cast your net further and have greater knowledge of who worked where and what they made.

dave 

[spgordon]

Moreover, if I remember correctly from one of Bob's books, Samuel Coykendahl owned an Oerter rifle and he lived about 50 miles away from Nazareth in Libertyville, New Jersey.   How did he know about Oerter and his work at Christian's Spring and he was not a Moravian? 

Lots of people knew about Moravian products. I've posted before about authorities at Bethlehem concerned to put labels in items (hats) because people were passing off low-quality hats as Bethlehem-made hats. This shows that Bethlehem had a reputation for good quality and was concerned to preserve it.

Did Coykendahl set out to purchase an Oerter rifle? The point is: we don't know--and employing our 20th or 21st century assumptions is too easy. Sure, Coykendahl may have sought out an Oerter rifle. Baer in Hempfield Township, Lancaster County, did, so certainly possible. But there are many other ways that it could have ended up in his hands. I suggested once that it would be interesting to research the records from the Moravian community in Hope, New Jersey, much closer to Coykendahl, to help understand whether locals were going to Hope for products. Or maybe a Coykendahl passed through Bethlehem on his way to Reading and needed a rifle? Or maybe he traded for it from a neighbor who was a Moravian? Or maybe it was distributed to him as part of his military service. We just don't know. My only point is that there is no evidence from the time at all (that I know of) that supports the image of an eighteenth-century rifle consumer (a) aware of different choices among rifles that we identify or (b) making choices on the basis of those differences. 

Of course consumers would have been aware of differences such as "high-end" vs. "plain" rifles. (This, I think, explains Baer's purchase: he was purchasing an heirloom.) And they would have cared a lot about whether they were purchasing an item that would be reliable or not. So, sure, these broad differences would have shaped their choices (as much as was possible for the ordinary consumer). But aware of the straight lines of a Lancaster-made rifle vs. the curved shape of a Lehigh County rifle? And making choices of a rifle on the basis of those aesthetic differences? To me, very unlikely.

[spgordon]

if you had the means perhaps you could cast your net further and have greater knowledge of who worked where and what they made.

It is a good exercise to play this suggestion out a bit. How would a person in early America not in an urban setting (where he could easily visit different shops) learn or gain knowledge about the different shaped rifles being produced in different areas? As Eric said above: no google available.

This is why I thought that JHeath's point was so interesting: service in the war, which might have involved both travel and an experience of seeing other men's rifles, could have provided "greater knowledge of who worked where and what they made."

It's very hard, for me, to imagine other mechanisms for ordinary eighteenth-century American, living in rural settings, to gain a "greater knowledge of who worked where and what they made." If they even cared to.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Then suddenly, AFTER the War, by the late 1780s and early 1790s if our timelines are correct, now we see a noticeable step stock being maintained along with some fairly "Frenchy" curves introduced.  Not just a rifle here or there, pretty much all of them!  This didn't simply 'happen.'   Something initiated this change, and I don't personally think it had anything to do with some of these immigrants originating in the Alsace region.  If that were important, it logically should have happened with the first wave of immigrants, not their descendants, but there is no evidence that it did.  So what changed?  And what initiated this change not just within the work of a single maker, but most if not all of them?  Too many questions that as yet have no answers.

Just to make sure I understand: how would you (speculatively, I understand) explain this change? I think you're saying that it was likely consumer choice that led so many different makers to adjust their styles at the same time?

I think the primary driver of change was anyone with even a modicum of ability to work on arms or stock arms, found employ in the War effort and saw more firearms in a few years than would have been seen over the course of a lifetime.  And, a variety of arms of all kinds.  Like visiting the Met for the first time:  it's overwhelming.  Exposure, in other words, I believe played a very large role.  Customer expectation may have changed also; unfortunately I agree with you that there is no evidence of this, but as I noted above, I can;t bring myself to completely discount the customer side of the equation.  Why even decorate a rifle at all if nobody is noticing?

As I am trying to point out with my edited image of the John Rupp piece in question, while the rifle as it stands is "jarring" in an aesthetic sense, particularly in the dramatic nature of the step and location of the step, this is largely due to either poor or necessitated triggerguard choice applied to a rifle style with no adjustment made for that guard choice.  When viewed with a more typical guard of the region, it's an entirely different rifle.  While I'm on the subject of that step, I want to make clear that it's really not out-of-place for the time (late 1780s or early 1790s, imho) nor the region as one of the John Molls (either Jr. or Sr., or both) was likewise utilizing an equally noticeable step stock design as well as one or two other makers apparently though currently unknown (unsigned).  Comparing this rifle with brother Herman's rifles, which do not make use of such a dramatic step, might mistakenly lead one to believe that this rifle is somehow much 'earlier' (and perhaps it is earlier, but it's certainly not pre-War) but doing so based simply upon the larger or more abrupt architeucture is to discount what was going on currently in Moll's shop and possibly others.  It's clear the two brothers were working in the same style and region, with similar design methodology, but they're obviously not identical in approach.  Maybe Herman was a little guy and John was a six footer.  For all we know, something so mundane may have colored one's approach to riflemaking.  I don't know!

The underlying question which I do not believe can currently be answered is WHAT caused these guys, in this specific region, to create such a unique architectural design at the time that they did?  It really is a merging of the earlier German step stock form as Heinz noted above, and the curvy nature of mid-century French arms.  It was not present prior to the War, certainly not to this degree.  Oerter's rifles give us one snapshot in the region ca. 1774 and 1775, immediately prior to the War, but while they are 'regional' relative to Allentown and Macungie in one sense, Oerter is still only one gunstocker in one shop.  The earliest documentable piece of which I'm aware following the War is Neihart's 1787 rifle.  I feel that it's something of a CS clone, or a clone as Neihart interpreted it.  That rifle is once again quite regional to Allentown and Macungie, but does not manifest the wacky step or curves of the Rupps and Molls.  We can see in a couple of later rifles attributed to Neihart fairly strongly that he was moving in that direction, but he never adopted the 'wackiness' to the same degree.  Jacob Kuntz, also initially regional, tore off one or two that were close, but once again not to the same extent of curvature or step abruptness.

[Eric Kettenburg]

if you had the means perhaps you could cast your net further and have greater knowledge of who worked where and what they made.

It is a good exercise to play this suggestion out a bit. How would a person in early America not in an urban setting (where he could easily visit different shops) learn or gain knowledge about the different shaped rifles being produced in different areas? As Eric said above: no google available.

This is why I thought that JHeath's point was so interesting: service in the war, which might have involved both travel and an experience of seeing other men's rifles, could have provided "greater knowledge of who worked where and what they made."

It's very hard, for me, to imagine other mechanisms for ordinary eighteenth-century American, living in rural settings, to gain a "greater knowledge of who worked where and what they made." If they even cared to.

Yes, this is likewise what I think was the 'main event' in regard to what initiated such changes after the War.  And in the region under discussion, once more I have to "circle back"  to what had been going on in Allentown and NH Co. in general ca. 1777-1779.  I can't imagine a more sudden disruption to daily life.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Bob - you said, "If John Rupp cut this stock from a pattern, then added the larger lock and longer trigger guard to the already established stock profile, he would get the results this rifle shows. It would handle and feel just the same, even though it looks different. Whether the lock and guard were reused, or older, or just available, the outcome is the same."

I agree entirely!  This is why I opted to edit the photo so as to show how different a simple change in furnishing on an otherwise identical stock can change perception so noticeably. 

This approach may also explain why the sideplate, which I believe was also originally part of the same earlier rifle, is so large as to practically be running off the side flat.  Stock to a pattern, no adjustment made for the use of contrary components as long as they do the job.

[Eric Kettenburg]

But aware of the straight lines of a Lancaster-made rifle vs. the curved shape of a Lehigh County rifle? And making choices of a rifle on the basis of those aesthetic differences? To me, very unlikely.

I hope I'm not creating the impression that this is what I'm saying.  I may not be explaining my thoughts clearly.  I don't think a resident of Allentown or nearby Macungie or Whitehall would think to himself, "I want a curvy stock, not a straight stock like a Lancaster smith would make."  This implies a conscious decision or consciousness of different styles in different regions and I agree with you, I don't buy that.  What I'm trying to say is that the straw man resident would certainly have seen rifles of the Rupp or Moll style, and when purchasing a rifle, the stock style we're discussing would likely have been the customer's expectation because that what he would be seeing regularly (we assume).  I don't think it was a conscious expectation.  Kind of like someone born and raised in PA when imagining a tree *most likely* is going to imagine some type of deciduous tree.  Someone born and raised in south Florida is *most likely* going to envision a palm.  Both trees, just different.

I'm not trying to say that the local customer base was the driving force behind the style evolution of this funky stock style, but something was, or a combination of somethings were.  Customer's had to have been aware of style change, especially considering that in the grand scheme of things, it happened relatively quickly pre-War vs. post-War.  So I think we do agree on that point, that the War itself and the turmoil it created did a lot of shaking of the yoo hoo.