Herman Rupp 1793

[Rocky29?]

Can anyone ID the maker?

[Tanselman]

Your rifle looks like a very fine copy of the original Rupp rifle dated 1793. If so, the modern gun builders may have a better knowledge of who built this rifle over on the "Contemporary Longrifle Collecting" board. 

Shelby Gallien

[Rocky29?]

more pics

[Mike Brooks]

My  first guess would be EK, but I don't think he forges signatures.

[Eric Kettenburg]

My  first guess would be EK, but I don't think he forges signatures.

 

Great rifle, but not me.  Someone did a fantastic job here.

[smart dog]

Wow, it sure looks like someone tried to make a fake.

dave

[Eric Kettenburg]

I don't know if I'd call it a fake; the signature isn't right and it doesn't look like it was 'aged' to the point of fakery, but someone did do a very good job in most other ways.  Great job with the lock, too, especially the angles of the pan shaping.  Much more realistic than a stock Siler.

I'd really like to know who made this.  I wonder if it's one of the 'older dudes' like Jerry Kirklin or Jack Brooks.  I don't think Jack would sign it in this way.  Someone sooner or later must recognize it, it's a very nice rifle. 

[J.M.Browning]

Very nice looks fantastic !
Fake ? Was this built & marketed as an original ? Edited

[Eric Kettenburg]

I think Dave was referring to the signature, not the aging of the rifle itself.  The adding of an old gunsmith's signature can be a hot topic.

[J.M.Browning]

I can understand the air of deception with a signature - yes this is something misleading if this is Daves point I agree .

The signature I overlooked , now pointed out this is not the thing to do when building a clone .

[Rocky29?]

AS I recall there was nothing in the description to make one conclude that this rifle was an original Rupp.

[Otto]

OK, I've looked at this about 10 times now and I'm still very intrigued. Some aging (and very well done too), some remarkably fresh looking features deliberately not aged and all very, very well done. I won't pitch in on the signature debate, but maybe more of a "tribute" signature than an attempted fake. I feel that someone with that skill set and eye could have "faked" it really well if they had wanted to.

[Daniel Coats]

It's very simply not a fake. Fake means that intent was to intentionally deceive usually for profit that this was an original antique. I don't see any indication here at all that this is a fake.

[Daniel Coats]

It's very simply not a fake. Fake means that intent was to intentionally deceive usually for profit that this was an original antique. I don't see any indication here at all that this is a fake.

It's a contemporary gun not a 50k original anyone with the britches to buy it in the first place will know that.

[smart dog]

Hi,
I was referring to the signature.  Why do that rather than sign your own?

dave

[Lucky R A]

         Much earlier in my gun building career, I built a very nice copy of a John Fleeger (western PA) gun.  I entered the gun at Dixons that year.  The gun was well received, but one Judge went apoplectic over the fact that I had put John Fleeger's very distinctive script signature on the gun.  I had also signed and dated the gun at the breech side flat opposite the lock.  I contended that the signature was part of the art of the gun.  Being signed with my name and dated there was no attempt to deceive anyone---that did not get me anywhere. In the case of this gun, a maker's signature would certainty help identify and give recognition to a very talented maker.   
Ron

[LynnC]

Rocky

I hope you are taking no offense from the discussion about this very well made contemporary longrifle and we appreciate you sharing the photos here. The only point of contention is that of an unknown modern maker engraving a Rupp signature on a copy of Rupp’s work. It has no reflection upon you what so ever. You have done nothing wrong. It seems you have acquired some interesting rifles and feel free to post more photos. I look forward to seeing more.

[smallpatch]

Whoever built this gun, is an incredibly talented builder.

[LynnC]

Perhaps the contemporary maker signed the underside of the barrel. Might be worth the time to carefully pull the barrel and have a look.

[Dphariss]

So let me digest this.
Its not faked enough to be a real fake? Is that how it works?
You do know that uninformed people buy these things and can’t even tell modern rifled barrels from something that would be on an original, right?
If people don’t think this could at some point be sold as a fake really have not been paying attention.
The original builders motives are irrelevant.
I built a rifle for a friend in 1968-69 that was years later sold as a fake. I don’t know by who. Even with my name cut in the top flat.
So don’t tell me it can’t happen. And the rifle as not antiqued but it was a SMR type and the riveted TG was left just as it came out of the forge. Stock was stained very dark.
A man who used to post here found one of his horns for sale at a show as a rev-war horn. When he told the guy it was not old he said, how do you know? Friend said. It has my touchmark.
There are other instances but not going to bother.
I know someone who put himself through college making antiqued tin wear then selling it to antique stores. So when Inam on some re-enactor site and someone is all ga-ga over some old corn cooker he found in antique store I just mentally roll my eyes.

[Eric Kettenburg]

As LynnC noted above, I would bet some $$$ that this rifle is marked *somewhere* by the actual maker.  Most likely under the barrel, but I'd also check under the sideplate or on the inside of the lock, or possibly under the buttplate although I'd be quite careful removing that on a Lehigh, especially if it's been on there a while.

[Rocky29?]

I don't have the necessary skills to go looking for a maker's mark. I don't think the lock has ever been cocked and released.
I never considered this rifle was a fake. I originally posted it in the wrong place. I had the moderator move it to contemporary rifle collecting, I thought, but it ended up in antique gun collecting. Then someone had it moved to contemporary rifle collecting.

Since the pics are out there, maybe someone will identify the maker.
 

[rich pierce]

I’ve seen the original, and this is a very fine copy. The engraving style and execution on the barrel give it away immediately to me. But that’s all.

[LynnC]

Someone knows who made this fine rifle.  Its obviously a top quality copy.  I am surprised there are no attributions. Whoever it was, they made a very fine rifle.

[Mike Lyons]

Maybe Eric von Aschwege.