They are still out there

[rlm]

Absolutely incredible that the former owners kept it all there. Congratulations again, a collector’s dream come true.

[120RIR]

Whoops...I almost forgot about this minor detail!

[rich pierce]

Thanks so much. Some early construction details on this one. Like the muzzle cap fastened by a screw to the barrel. The carving is superbly designed and executed.

[Robert Wolfe]

Wonderful, wonderful, wonderful. Thanks for posting.

[Robby]

Beautiful, great lines and masterful carvings!!!!! I hope the restoration includes returning it to flint, but either way it will be stunning.
Robby

[120RIR]

I'm reaching out to the notable restorers in this field...it may be a while though.  I'm sure they're in high demand!

I would be interested in opinions on the signature.  I don't think there's going to be any debate over the "J" and "Ferree" but what about the apparent "oel" in the middle?  I understand that full signed rifles (first and last names) are extraordinary if not downright non-existent.  One exception that I can think of would be, interestingly, that Jacob Ferree rifle where he stamped his full name in the sideplate.  To me the "oel" on this rifle appears to be roughly contemporaneous with the rest of the engraving and while clearly done by a practiced hand, it's lighter (or more heavily worn).

Thoughts on that?  Done by Joel Ferree himself to distinguish his work from later family members?  We'll never know for sure of course but it's an interesting feature nonetheless. 

[JamesT]

Very nice! Thank you for sharing it.
James

[JTR]

Well, you certainly got a deal on that one!
Beautiful rifle, and looks like most of the parts are there.
I wouldn't be surprised that this is the Find of the decade!

As for the name on the barrel. If, the signature was originally J Ferree, you might expect the two capital letters to be a bit closer together. As is, there is room for the full first name between the J and the F. Also, there is a tail coming off the bottom of the l in Joel, very similar to the tail coming off the e in the last name.

Also, if someone else added the oel, you'd have to ask yourself why? An original owner probably wouldn't see the need, as he knew who made the gun. If a more recent owner added it, it would had to have been a Kentucky rifle collector, as Joel and Jacob Ferree rifles are few and far between, and that owner would have known the gun was worth big bucks, and likely not left it in its two piece condition.

I wonder if there is any way to contact the consigner from the auction, to ask how he came to own the gun?

And lastly, I'll be looking forward to seeing this gun once it's fixed up a bit and put back together again!

Thanks for posting the pictures,
John

[Eric Kettenburg]

I'm going to urinate in the punch bowl here and state that - personally - I would leave this spectacular piece alone and instead create a quality display using the original rifle remnants along with a new-stocked "bench copy."  There is a LOT of missing wood and a LOT of damage, and there are so humpty dumptys already extant that have been 'restored' from this condition (or even worse) that they're probably in the majority and frankly have devalued the entire market.  Although on the other hand, they've really boosted the value of those pieces that have not been diddled.  Again, JMHO.

Also it's clearly signed "Joel" Ferree and just judging by the clear photo I'd see no reason to doubt the originality of this at all.  Sure, many used simply a first initial, but there are various men who signed their entire name also.  John Schreit.  John Moll.  Herman Rupp.  John Rupp.  Christian Oerter.  Peter Neihart. etc etc etc.

Sincerely, Moe.

[rlm]

Joel Ferree is absolutely correct. I haven’t done the research and I forget the relationship between Joel and Jacob . Joel may have been a generation older

[120RIR]

Eric - thanks for the input!  I can definitely see the point of leaving this one alone and while I am inclined towards restoration, I certainly haven't made a final decision. Either way, it does appear to be a great piece and I'm more than happy to share it with anyone who might like to see and play with it in its present state.  At least for me, a big part of the enjoyment I get out of this field is the research and sharing of knowledge, perspectives, and theories.  I will not, however, urinate in any punch bowls.  Pools, maybe.   

As for Joel vs. Jacob Ferree, I believe Joel was born in 1731 and Jacob was his nephew...born circa 1758.  Someone will correct me if I mis-remembered that little bit of genealogy. 

[WESTbury]

I think that the temptation to have this rifle restored may be overwhelming. From the photos it does look to have some significant damage but perhaps taking some more detailed photos of the damaged areas to get an evaluation from a good restorer would be appropriate.

At least this rifle probably has its original lock and sideplate in contrast to other celebrated rifles that have been restored.

However, I would also consider Eris's points as well.

It is going to be a tough decision, but I would get some more input.

[WESTbury]

I would like to add, that in some cases, rifles with rare signatures on the barrel has had a direct bearing on whether to restore a particular rifle. RCA No.46 is a prime example. I know that there are Ferree rifles signed in script "J FERREE" but how many exist with "JOEL FERREE" signed in script?

[JTR]

Just a thought regarding the damage, and amount of wood missing. From the pics, and having done a number of these, if you align the front half with the back half, I think you'll see that not much wood is actually missing. On the exterior, some on the lock side of the tang, yes. But that area is an easy area to replace wood unnoticeably while adding strength to the repair. On the interior area of the break in the lock mortice area, no doubt some will need to be replaced there, but new wood there will also add strength to the repair.

You don't show the barrel, but from your measurements, and being percussion now, it makes me think some has been looped off from at least the breech. Have you looked for extra dovetail locations on the bottom of the barrel, or extra pin hole locations on the forearm which will show how much the barrel has been set back?

Just me being curious, John

[120RIR]

How about a middle-of-the-road option?  Just enough "restoration" could be done to re-attach the buttstock, perhaps put in a rear lock bolt to anchor the end of the side plate and solidify the wrist area, and put in a new pin to re-attach the barrel to the remaining forestock?  That way it could be examined whole but still pretty much remain in its as-found state?  It would kinda' be a "stabilized ruin" like Fort Crown Point on Lake Champlain or the ghost town of Bodie in southern California.  Just a thought.

As for the possibility the barrel was shortened, there are no extra dovetails on the bottom of the barrel and the only remaining lug corresponds with the fitted location in the stock.  However, looking at the breech, I suspect someone did indeed try to get the plug out at one point or another - maybe with the intent to shorten the barrel?  You can see the tang is all buggered up top and bottom and clearly someone was banging on a corner or two of the breech opposite the lock side.

[rich pierce]

Likely unbreeched when converted to percussion, and possibly to have the rifling freshed. If there are no extra dovetails on the underside then it’s not been shortened at the breech.

[JTR]

A middle-of-the-road restoration; Sure, why not. You could have the gun put back together into one piece, replace the missing wood around the lock/tang to strengthen the area, and leave it as a percussion. Just my opinion, but a couple reasons to do at least that is to keep it from deteriorating even more if left in pieces, As one piece, it'll look better, and yes, be worth more. What it's worth is important. You saw the $50/$150 estimate at the auction, and if you and whomever else hadn't bid on it, it might well have sold for around the price. And then what might its fate be? But if you get a bit of work done on it, and get the value up to 15/20K, it'll for sure be around for many long years to come. Just my .02 here, and I'm sure not everyone will agree.   

From a couple pics, it looks like the forward part of the forearm is missing. Could you post a couple pictures of what's left of the forearm, with the barrel in it. I'm curious as to where the rear sight and the Ferree name are, in relation to their position in the forearm.
Also, is the 13/16" measurement you posted for the breech measurement correct, or a typo?

Congratulations again on a great buy!
John

 

[120RIR]

I'll try to get some better photos but if you want to see the position of the signature, take a look at the first couple sets of photos at the very beginning of this discussion.  The J in "Joel" is right at the forward most point of the lock plate, behind the rear sight.  As for that barrel dimension at the breech, that's no typo although now that I look further, it varies.  Depending on exactly where you measure, it ranges from 13/16 to just shy of an inch.  The bottom-most flat flares slightly making that measurement at the very edge of the breech more like an inch but just forward of that it's 13/16 across but just over 3/4 "top" to "bottom".  In other words, it's very inconsistent even within a very short distance forward of the breech.

[DaveM]

Congratulations on a great find!  The 1-3/4 butt plate width goes to show that all rev war era rifles are not 2-inches wide at the butt.

[Mule Brain]

An antique dealer I was talking to in Ocala Florida, mentioned a broken in half gun that brought that price.

Well, here it is!  I am glad I can see pictures of it.  Would like to see it back in one piece

Thanks for sharing it!   What about the bore?   

[120RIR]

I think a lot of people were surprised with this one.  I have been in touch with the original owner who had a clue based on past conversations with dealers so he wasn't quite so shocked but still pleasantly surprised.  The rifle had been in his wife's family since the turn-ish of the last century.  Her grandparents (Ukrainian Immigrants) bought a house and contents in the town of Correy and one of those contents was apparently this piece.  It's about 61 cal. and appears to be a smooth rifle.  However, I haven't dropped a bore light down there yet so perhaps that will show some rifling.  More to come as research progresses.

[JTR]

120RIR, Drop a rod down that barrel, measure the depth of the rod against the length of the barrel, to be sure it's not still loaded!

[120RIR]

A rod drops all the way down to the level of the percussion drum...not loaded!

[Rajin cajun]

120rir, congratulations Mister. That’s one heck of an artifact. Most collectors only dream of finding one as untouched as that one. Get professional photos of it in its as found condition, and quality photos of the restoration as it progresses. Keep those with the restored rifle, and there should never be a question about the piece. Also if you can get a letter from the previous owner, and a copy of the auction catalog. That would be great to past that on with the rifle.
Again Congratulations, great find...!
Bob

[Curt Lyles]

In Gunsmiths of York county by James Whisker there is a rifle on page 46 that is a attributed to Isaac Berlin .The buttstock looks very similar to this rifle here .The carving is nearly the same. What are your thoughts gentleman.Curt