John Rupp - Sotheby's and Poulin's

[heinz]

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.

I believe this same logic should be applied to the French and Indian War (I know that is not the PC term but it is the one I grew up with). Many Virginiains and Carolinians came north or ventured further west than they would have.  They saw rifles in use on a frontier environment by both Indigenous peoples and immigrants.  And they saw free land where a rifle gun would be handy.  When we have so little physical evidence of what those rifles looked like but know of their use from period accounts, and the probably inflated claims of the "Suffering Traders"

[spgordon]

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.

Right, I get this! But other folks on this thread have suggested that such things did enter into a consumer's choice. (Or at least I thought that they were saying this: "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.")

There are hundreds and hundreds of descriptions of rifles in eighteenth-century letters, advertisements, novels, etc. I don't think any reference what is now called the "architecture" of the rifle in order to describe the object. They mention the presence of patchboxes, carving, type of wood, length of barrel, etc.--even, in that 1772 PA Gazette advertisement about a Newcomer rifle, a signature on the barrel and lock--but never the shape of the stock. To me this means this feature was largely invisible to them. That doesn't mean, of course, that if the difference were pointed out to somebody he wouldn't see it! Just that it didn't typically register.

There is an interesting description in Charles Brockden Brown's Edgar Huntly (1798) when the main character comes across a familiar musket: "Scarcely had I fixed my eyes upon the stock, when I perceived marks that were familiar to my apprehension. Shape, ornaments, and ciphers, were evidently the same with those of a piece which I had frequently handled. The marks were of a kind which could not be mistaken." I've often wondered if "shape" here pointed to the sort of regional shapes of the stock that we point out today.

[Buck]

Eric,

I'm entering into the conversation very late. You mentioned a signed Johannes Moll rifle has never surfaced - there was one displayed in a basement of a mutual friend that had the front end stretched. I didn't examine it too closely, but I know that you had studied it extensively in the past. Is the jury out on that one?

Buck.

[Eric Kettenburg]

There are a couple of rifles signed "John Moll" which could conceivably be Johannes/John Sr., however there's no way to say with certainty that they're the old man as opposed to his son; we can only speculate.  There are two restock pieces actually signed "Johannes Moll" in very large block letters filled with what appears to be an amalgam inlay - I mean BIG letters, taking up the majority of the space between breech and rear sight.  Alas, they are both restocks and so no way to determine how the original rifles may have appeared.  One uses what is clearly some of the furniture as well as liberty head inlay from the original rifle, and the furniture looks largely the same as what is used on our mutual friend's piece as well as the former Alex Chamberlain piece.  So, was the old man working practically right up until the end along with his son?  Do early rifles of John II look pretty much identical to the latest (late 1780s or first couple years 1790s) rifles of John Sr.?  Unfortunately not enough surviving material to say with any certainty.

[JHeath]

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.

Right, I get this! But other folks on this thread have suggested that such things did enter into a consumer's choice. (Or at least I thought that they were saying this: "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.")

There are hundreds and hundreds of descriptions of rifles in eighteenth-century letters, advertisements, novels, etc. I don't think any reference what is now called the "architecture" of the rifle in order to describe the object. They mention the presence of patchboxes, carving, type of wood, length of barrel, etc.--even, in that 1772 PA Gazette advertisement about a Newcomer rifle, a signature on the barrel and lock--but never the shape of the stock. To me this means this feature was largely invisible to them. That doesn't mean, of course, that if the difference were pointed out to somebody he wouldn't see it! Just that it didn't typically register.

There is an interesting description in Charles Brockden Brown's Edgar Huntly (1798) when the main character comes across a familiar musket: "Scarcely had I fixed my eyes upon the stock, when I perceived marks that were familiar to my apprehension. Shape, ornaments, and ciphers, were evidently the same with those of a piece which I had frequently handled. The marks were of a kind which could not be mistaken." I've often wondered if "shape" here pointed to the sort of regional shapes of the stock that we point out today.

I was throwing out there the "dashing young man" as an example of info that can be missing. Not necessarily asserting that demand drove changes in longrifles.

An example from another thread might be worth tracing for what it says about design by supply vs demand:

Classic J&S Hawken half-stocks share little with their father's Maryland longrifles. But I noticed a W&G Chance (Birmingham England) half-stock flintlock c. 1815 that bore a marked resemblance to the later Hawkens.

Turns out that W&G Chance of Birmingham produced guns and other items for the fur trade, was a vendor to the American Fur Company, maintained an NYC office, and forwarded goods to St. Louis. The Chance rifle I was looking a recently was auctioned in California.

In turn, it appears that the Chance design was influenced by more-prestigious Manton.

Were J&S influenced by seeing a W&G Chance? Or did a customer request a similar rifle? What caused J&S to abandon tradition and adopt English influences?

And once they built a half-stock or two, did a stream of customers appear wanting the same rifle they'd seen?

In (much later) turn, Robert Redford made a movie and soon every male age 12 to 50 demanded half-stock muzzleloaders.

So we travel from Joseph Mantons built for snob aristocrats to deviated TCs built to emulate illiterate trappers, by a historical process of, alternately, supply and demand that is not all discernable or distinguishable in the record.

That is a macro-scale example. But the processes can play out in micro-scale within a PA county, abutting other counties, when a new immigrant arrives and a few hundred out of state soldiers travel through with rifles.

[Eric Kettenburg]

John Rupp w/ modified guard (for consistency)
John Moll (signed)
John Moll (signed)

Aside from the more evident awkwardness and large cheek (not visible here), the Rupp is really not much different.  Are the Molls pre-War also?

I should note that the guard I lifted for the photoshopped Rupp is the guard on the middle (Moll) rifle.  I did not modfiy or adjust the size of the guard at all - simple cut and paste, it works perfectly as-is.  I find this interesting.

[smart dog]

Hi,
JHeath, you bring up good points and suggest customer choice and demand was important in the gun trade in the early 19th century.  We know very well that customer choices had a major role in the gun trades in Britain as well as continental Europe during the 18th century.  Americans were different?  Let me make a point by switching gears and going much further back in time and focus on another trade and art form. In the late 1300s, Baldasarre Embriachi in Italy realized that carved cow bone would be a cheaper substitute for carved ivory, a trade monopolized by the French.  In fact, the cow bone was better because it did not yellow with age. He created a line of products that represented Chevy, Buick, and Cadillac grades of work with efficiently customizable features that accommodated choices by the consumers.  This in an environment where travel was hard and dangerous.  Moreover, he and his descendants created a complex network of trade among the major centers of population in 14th century Europe to market their wares. Here is an example:
 


So in 14th century Europe, this company reacted to customer demand to produce desirable products.  So are we to believe that no such forces existed in Colonial America and that the notion of the importance of customer demand is a modern bias? 

dave

[spgordon]

There’s enormous amounts of writing about the colonial American economy, changes over time (including when the “consumer revolution” occurred), how such phenomena were differentially disturbed (rural, urban, etc.), and differences between items (housewares, say, vs. lumber). No need to guess or speculate.

There aren’t studies of the rifle “industry” in early America, though, so we’re left to apply what historians have said generally or about other markets to the market for rifles.

My point hasn’t been that consumers of guns had no choice, and if I overstated the point at times I regret that. As I said, any rifle consumer would prefer reliable over unreliable or choose on the basis of cost.  My point (again) has been that they wouldn’t have been making choices based on the things that we see in these objects: the straight Lancaster profile v. the curved Lehigh profile. Yes, to imagine that eighteenth-century consumers of rifles registered such things is a modern bias, depositing the concerns of modern collectors into the heads of eighteenth-century consumers (as if they acted in the basis of of what we know).

[heinz]

I went back to Moravian Gunmakers II and looked at the requests from Casper Wistar for rifles he was importing into Philadelphia from Germany.  Wistar had specific requests about barrel length, set triggers and sights, and reliability. But, as spgordon suggested, there is no request on stock details or architecture noted.

[spgordon]

Wistar was a canny importer--and this is a great example of customer preferences determining what gets sold. Rosalind Beiler's Immigrant and Entrepreneur: The Atlantic World of Caspar Wistar, 1650-1750 [Penn State Press, 2008], which is where a decade ago Bob and I first learned about Wistar's importing of guns, has a lot more information about other stuff he imported and the markets for them. Another instance of would be how governments understood what sort of guns Indigenous people preferred and procuring those sorts to supply them with: so there, too, customer preferences were crucial. More generally, whenever one produces (or imports) any item, one assumes there is a market (customer demand) for them, so, sure, customer wants play a role in any transaction.

My deep skepticism centers on the sorts of customer demands that some seem to believe drove eighteenth-century consumers--which match our interests and obsessions and, in my opinion, distorts theirs.

I want to add too that the things I've said (too often in this thread, to be sure) about the limitations on or lack of customer choice (how would customers know about different style, how would they go about purchasing different styles if they actually noticed them or cared about them, etc.) applies to the period of 1750-1780. To explore these matters in 1820 is totally different. For starters, the population had grown from a bit over 2 million to nearly 10 million. The fifty years between 1770 and 1820 produce an entirely different world and one much closer to our consumer society.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Below are detailed cheek photo carving of three rifles which I am convinced were all built by the same “John Rupp,” this being Johannes Rupp brother of Herman and son of George. 

The first photo is the Kindig/Collis/Sotheby’s rifle which we have been primarily discussing.  This rifle is signed “John Rupp.”  It is rifle number 13 on the KRA 2010 ‘Lehigh’ CD available through the KRF.

The second photo is the rifle sold last autumn (2021) through Poulin’s.  It too is signed “John Rupp” and the signature appears to be by the same man who signed the aforementioned piece.

The third photo is the well-known “side opening box” rifle that was part of the Morphy’s September, 2021 auction and is unsigned.  I strongly believe this rifle is also a product of Johannes / John Rupp, the same man who signed the two rifles I’ve noted above.  This rifle is also pictured on the KRA 2010 ‘Lehigh’ CD available for purchase through the KRF.  It is rifle number 7 on the disc, “Attributed John Rupp.”

I’m going to begin with an examination of the cheek carving on all three rifles.

The area in each that I have circled in red appears to be a decorative methodology unique to this man.  Often we can find small groupings of 3 or 4 tiny gouge cuts all over the carving on most NH Co. / Lehigh rifles.  However, here we see a very lengthy string of them used essentially as ‘filler.’  I have not seen these tiny cuts used in this manner on any other rifle not attributed or signed by this man.

The areas I have circled in purple are small, simple ‘tendrils’ as they might be interpreted.  These also are somewhat common in the region, however the cuts on these three rifles are unique in one way:  following the larger ramping gouge cut, and prior to the three tiny perpendicular gouge cuts, there is a clear ‘dot’ at the end of each larger cut that was not utilized by the Molls or brother Herman (those makers going directly to the small perpendicular gouge cuts and eliminating the ‘dot.’)

The yellow points I have inserted are marking the visible locations of simple short line cuts also used as ‘filler,’ typically in the bottom of the lengthy hollows of the main branches of the carving.  Other makers, including brother Herman, used these as well, but not quite as extensively and definitey not in conjunction with the other two unique details noted above.

As always, all comments welcome.  Further detailed examinations will follow.

Kindig/Collis/Sotheby's:




Poulin's:




Unsigned 'side opener:'

[blienemann]

Heinz and all - in addition to barrel length and construction details, Wistar strongly preferred rifles from Johann Adolf Doll, the I A D of Rothenburg. He or his customers may have preferred the stock pattern, style and details of Doll's rifles. I don't know what Doll's style was, but Shumway's Jaeger Rifles has examples from Bavaria and Suhl, and several by Michael Wagner that might be similar to what Doll was sending to the colonies.

Eric - thanks for the photos and study of carving details. It appears from your other photos that this stock pattern was very consistent in profile across those rifles. A stock pattern only establishes the side view profile, while the barrel breech, buttplate and a few other components determine the thickness and feel of the rifle.

thanks all, Bob

[Eric Kettenburg]

Here are areas forward of the cheek and also along the box on two of the three rifles.  Once more, one can clearly see the use of sinuous gouge cuts with a clear ‘dot’ terminating the cut.  This seems to be identical to the methodology used by Herman Rupp in brass wire, inlaying ribbon in the alternately sinuous gouge cuts and terminating each cut with a brass stud or tack creating the ‘dot.’  Here, however, it is executed solely with gouges and an indeterminate tool to create the dot.  The Kindig/Sotheby’s rifle and the unsigned ‘side-opener’ display this identical method of forward tendril work emerging from the junction of the carving forward of the cheek.  The Poulin’s rifle does display a forward tendril here, but it is executed in a more simplistic manner; nevertheless, the remainder of the carving on the Poulin rifle is virtually identical to the other two rifles including the simple incised line framing the forward portion of the comb and acting as a link to the box side of each rifle.

Upon the side-opener and the Poulin’s rifles, box side, once more we can see the gouge/dot approach to carving, and the Poulin’s rifle also displays a very long string of tiny gouge cuts as framing on either side of the box.  This seems to mimic the long strings of tiny gouge cuts integrated into the cheek carving upon all three rifles.  I strongly feel this 'gouge string' approach is somewhat of a John Rupp signature along with the use of dots to terminate the alternating tendril gouge cuts.

Kindig/Collis/Sotheby's:




Poulin's:






Side-opener:

[JHeath]

Wistar was a canny importer--and this is a great example of customer preferences determining what gets sold. Rosalind Beiler's Immigrant and Entrepreneur: The Atlantic World of Caspar Wistar, 1650-1750 [Penn State Press, 2008], which is where a decade ago Bob and I first learned about Wistar's importing of guns, has a lot more information about other stuff he imported and the markets for them. Another instance of would be how governments understood what sort of guns Indigenous people preferred and procuring those sorts to supply them with: so there, too, customer preferences were crucial. More generally, whenever one produces (or imports) any item, one assumes there is a market (customer demand) for them, so, sure, customer wants play a role in any transaction.

My deep skepticism centers on the sorts of customer demands that some seem to believe drove eighteenth-century consumers--which match our interests and obsessions and, in my opinion, distorts theirs.

I want to add too that the things I've said (too often in this thread, to be sure) about the limitations on or lack of customer choice (how would customers know about different style, how would they go about purchasing different styles if they actually noticed them or cared about them, etc.) applies to the period of 1750-1780. To explore these matters in 1820 is totally different. For starters, the population had grown from a bit over 2 million to nearly 10 million. The fifty years between 1770 and 1820 produce an entirely different world and one much closer to our consumer society.

Your observation is undoubtedly valid and sets up the subject for serious history. Explaining the length of a trigger guard by e.g. discovering a previously-unidentified Alsatian immigrant can be outstanding detective work and important ID work. But demontrating how the development of rifle builder traditions and user tastes fits the large-scale social transition from individual artisans to more market-based production is historical work on a deep level.

Rupp's products, and other rifle makers', are now viewed as works by an individual 18th Cent. artisan making his own choices. We put a microscope on his carving details, as though trying to explain subtle Flemish influences in the background of a Leonardo. Yet (to give a contrasting example) for some reason peculiar to our times, we view J&S Hawken more as a brand, when in fact they were two brothers operating not much differently than 18th Cent longrifle builders. We view them through a modern lens and for that reason don't much explore why their trigger guards and two-wedge foreends look like 1790 Manton, instead of their father's.

What happened to the role of artisanship in those decades that was genuinely transformative, and/or what happened that causes us to retroactively view it as transformative?

Bruce Laurie wrote a book called _Artisans into Workers_ that discusses this in a later context.

Modern law distinguishes between artistry that represents personal expression, vs economic craft-on-demand. I can't insist that Ian Pratt build me a gay-themed SMR, because his work is considered an expression of his own values. But I can demand a gay-themed wedding cake from the local bakery because the courts decided a cake is just a product, not an individual expression that reflects on the baker. That is a modern distinction.

It seems impossible now to untangle across multiple regions and immigrations, the cause-and-effect dynamics of 18th century traditions, evolving tastes, market demands, innovations, non-local examples, and the rifle builder's willingness to produce changes that might or might not have reflected on him in the community.

[spgordon]

Rupp's products, and other rifle makers', are now viewed as works by an individual 18th Cent. artisan making his own choices. We put a microscope on his carving details, as though trying to explain subtle Flemish influences in the background of a Leonardo.

Yes, this is very interesting. I know this isn't quite what you were saying--but it suggests a number of things. Eric can decode very subtle stylistic "clues" to link an unsigned rifle with a signed one, just as technical art historians can date an Old Master's paintings by brush strokes or by pigment. Those analyses, by Eric and the art historians, are brilliant and definitive. The mistake (IMHO) is to imagine that original viewers of those paintings noticed (or cared about) such things. Brush strokes and pigments are clues for the historian; they aren't indicators of what viewers of those painting noticed. Same, I think, holds for stock architecture: it helps collectors pinpoint the origin point for a rifle and perhaps who made it. The mistake is to imagine that eighteenth-century consumers cared about the thing that the historian does.

I think the hardest question to answer is the other that you mentioned: how should we "place" gunstocking or gunsmithing in the field of early American trades? Did people consider their rifles largely as practical objects--more like a blacksmith's hinge or a papermaker's ream of paper--or did they consider them more as (in part) artistic objects. The categories certainly existed in early America (the painter John Singleton Copley complained that in early America painters were considered no different than shoemakers, so he thought painters should be "high" art but weren't considered as such by Americans)--the challenge is to figure out where gunsmithing was on the spectrum. Certainly there were high-art guns produced in Europe before the eighteenth century. And, as Bob L. has often stressed, the differential prices of rifles at Christiansbrunn shows that some consumers were willing to purchase a rifle whose price meant that they weren't purchasing just a practical object.

But, as with items in our consumer society today, these attitudes were distributed unevenly in early America: many (I'd say most) people bought rifles as purely practical objects, thinking no differently about them than they would in buying a hinge or buying paper; and then some thought of them differently. As I've said before, it is very difficult to find contemporary evidence from early America that anybody thought much about their gun purchases (except for the willingness of a few to spend more than usual on a purchase).

[JHeath]

Rupp's products, and other rifle makers', are now viewed as works by an individual 18th Cent. artisan making his own choices. We put a microscope on his carving details, as though trying to explain subtle Flemish influences in the background of a Leonardo.

Yes, this is very interesting. I know this isn't quite what you were saying--but it suggests a number of things. Eric can decode very subtle stylistic "clues" to link an unsigned rifle with a signed one, just as technical art historians can date an Old Master's paintings by brush strokes or by pigment. Those analyses, by Eric and the art historians, are brilliant and definitive. The mistake (IMHO) is to imagine that original viewers of those paintings noticed (or cared about) such things. Brush strokes and pigments are clues for the historian; they aren't indicators of what viewers of those painting noticed. Same, I think, holds for stock architecture: it helps collectors pinpoint the origin point for a rifle and perhaps who made it. The mistake is to imagine that eighteenth-century consumers cared about the thing that the historian does.

I think the hardest question to answer is the other that you mentioned: how should we "place" gunstocking or gunsmithing in the field of early American trades? Did people consider their rifles largely as practical objects--more like a blacksmith's hinge or a papermaker's ream of paper--or did they consider them more as (in part) artistic objects. Maybe this is in part a modern distinction. But it's also that different sorts of rifles were produced. Certainly there were high-art guns produced in Europe before the eighteenth century. And, as Bob L. has often stressed, the differential prices of rifles at Christiansbrunn shows that some consumers were willing to purchase a rifle whose price meant that they weren't purchasing just a practical object.

But, as with items in our consumer society today, these attitudes were distributed unevenly in early America: many (I'd say most) people bought rifles as purely practical objects, thinking no differently about them than they would in buying a hinge or buying paper; and then some thought of them differently. As I've said before, it is very difficult to find contemporary evidence from early America that anybody thought much about their gun purchases (except for the willingness of a few to spend more than usual on a purchase).

First: Eric, this is a parallel, overarching conversation that I hope does not feel like thread hijacking. Please indulge.

Scott, yes absolutely. An example might be the Paris Salon reactions to the Impressionists or Van Gogh, or the changed perceptions of George Ohr. Contemporaries disliked it for what they saw missing. We do not notice anything missing at all and are amused by their inability to see what is present.

So much unnecessary care and expense went into rifle crafting that the object must have carried more meaning than a hay fork or butter churn.

Wire inlay etc is obvious embellishment. But as you suggest, much "architecture" as we discuss it might have been invisible to them. Just like it was invisible to them that these were muzzleloading flintlocks, using black powder. To them, "muzzle", "flint", and "black" in that sentence would likely be meaningless.

Pretty much everything about an object is information, thus has "meaning." But detectives often find meaning in what participants did not recognize as meaningful.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I'm a very indulgent kind of guy!  I still have leftover Malört.   

Below is a study of the liberty heads carved upon both the Kindig/Sotheby’s John Rupp rifle and the Poulin’s John Rupp rifle.  I have not included the attributed ‘side-opener’ because the stock was broken-through forward of the guard and a large piece of wood in that location, including the liberty head, is a replacement.

Initially I would ask that the two heads be compared in every other aspect aside from the mouth, which is the only portion of the head which is different upon these two rifles.  All other aspects of the carved design are practically identical, not merely in the shaping of the ‘hat’ or headdress but in the decorative fill cuts as well.

I have pointed out one aspect which appears unique to John Rupp, this being the circular stamp or otherwise cut designs placed both above and below the shoulders.  These are present upon both rifles, and to the best of my knowledge, I do not believe they are incorporated into liberty heads carved by any other regional maker, certainly not in this consistent patterning.

The Poulin’s rifle still displays 3 of the 4 circular stamps, and I assume a 4th was present but there is too much damage in the area of the potential 4th to point out it’s location (which I *think* I see) without delving into speculation.

I’ve only photoshopped in some arrows to point out the circular markings because I consider them yet another signature of this gun stocker.  The remainder of the headdress design and decorative cuts are so very much alike in both liberty heads that a comparison is fairly self-evident and I don’t want to cover the images in needless clutter!

Kindig/Collis/Sotheby's:




Poulin's:

[T.C.Albert]

Eric, might this imply that the work was circumscribed with various gouges allowing the carving to be repeated as long as the same tools were used in the same repetitive way? That may imply the tool kit was as much a part of what we are seeing as the man using it? Just my own wonderings.
Tim A

[Eric Kettenburg]

It does appear that most of the liberty heads were predominantly stamped in - not just by John Rupp as illustrated here - even upon rifles which clearly also show plenty of evidence of the use of a parting tool in other areas of the carving, primarily for longer sweeps.  The carved heads are so small that stamping with small gouges is really the most sensical way to go about it. 

It's of course tough to make definitive judgements based upon only two original examples as illustrated here, but at least in regard to these two particular heads, it sure does appear that a fairly small number of gouges was repetitively used in a "formulaic" manner.

I can't tell if the small circles I've pointed out were stamped with a single circular punch or other tool, or if they were cut with a small gouge rocked around in a circle.

[Eric Kettenburg]

So by now we’re all aware that I am repeatedly going on and on about this specific John Rupp rifle being composed at least partially of recycled components taken from an earlier rifle.  My humble opinion:  lock, barrel, guard and sideplate for certain.  Pipes?  I can’t say.  Buttplate?  I strongly suspect the buttplate was created/cut down out of a larger plate, but again, can’t say for certain.  I can easily envision how it could be accomplished, however.

Is there an extant representation of the original rifle that I think may have acted as organ donor?  Why yes, I think there is!

I will preface this by stating that after years of studying and searching old Northampton Co. into eastern Berks, I still do not know who 'that guy' might have been, the stocker who created the rifle type which I am convinced is the donor rifle for this specific [Sotheby’s] John Rupp rifle ca. late 1780s or early 1790s.  The original donor may have been a pre-War piece, likely sometime of the mid-1770s but I don’t personally think much earlier than that.  It’s my belief, along with Kindig and Shumway who expressed the same general belief, that this unknown gunsmith was working somewhere in eastern Berks Co. or otherwise somewhere along the Berks/Northampton border, and quite possibly somewhat near to the Macungie area.

There have been two of these earlier rifles published and one more is extant as a relic but unpublished; unfortunately none are signed.  Whoever this stocker was, he was fairly consistent among the three total surviving pieces.  One piece carries a wood box and was described by George Shumway in Muzzle Blasts magazine as “A Smooth-Rifle from Somewhere East of Reading, Pennsylvania,” pg. 40-41 of the June, 1993 issue.  The second published piece was illustrated in Kindig’s Thoughts on the Kentucky Rifle… as rifle number 11, and subsequently has been photographed in high resolution and published again on the KRA 2010 ‘Lehigh’ CD that is available through the Kentucky Rifle Foundation.  The unpublished piece is another wooden box rifle and is entirely consistent with the first two rifles despite damage.

Below, a couple of fairly evident comparisons between the John Rupp and Kindig’s #11, as well as a brief refresher of the MB 1993 rifle.  All commentary is welcomed!

[Robert Wolfe]

Thanks to Eric and all who are contributing to this post. Fascinating stuff.

[WESTbury]

Eric has very admirably made his point with the particular rifle at Sotheby's.

I would imagine that using components from an earlier rifle to create a new rifle was more common than not. Theirs was not the "throwaway society" we have. One of the areas of the Sotheby's rifle that is very telling, to me, is the rather large sideplate relative to what I call the offlock stock flat. It appears to me that Rupp did his best to alter the sideplate to fit that area of the stock but there appears to have been only so much he could do. I think this speaks to a couple of points addressed earlier in this thread that Rupp may have used a roughed-out stock on hand to build this rifle and adapted the components to fit.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I think this speaks to a couple of points addressed earlier in this thread that Rupp may have used a roughed-out stock on hand to build this rifle and adapted the components to fit.

Thats the way I see it as well, and it would explain the horrendously awkward guard location as well as the oversized lock, oversized sideplate, and frankly oversized rifle.

[Eric Kettenburg]

This thread needs more Malört.

[JHeath]

This thread needs more Malört.

I had to look that up. Among side effects does it cause thread drift?

The Poulin seems to have had a mainspring blow downward through the wood, and it sounds like the attributed side opener did, too.