York 1780-1800 Patchbox idea - soliciting feedback

[Cossack]

I am working with a builder on a York-inspired rifle and we're about at the point where we need to make decisions about the patchbox. I have mixed feelings about patchboxes - sometimes they just seem like they're gaudy and in the way of some pretty wood, but of course they are part of the tradition, and this might well be my only chance to have a skilled builder and engraver do one for me, so I decided I'm going for the brass. I think my budget dictates no piercings, but I get engraving.

For now I'm primarily focused on the basic outline. I've played around with engraving ideas in my sketches, but mostly to get an idea of how the engraving and basic overall shape will work together.

We're using the George Eister mountings set from Jim Kibler, so I'm not sure that I have the placement of the patchbox lid along the buttplate right (I'm planning on having a domed lid, so exact location will be determined by the buttplate casting) and I think the upper return of the buttplate is thicker and longer than in my sketch, if that makes a difference. The plate is slightly less curved than in my sketch: https://kiblerslongrifles.com/products/george-eister-style-butt-plate?variant=909473275

As noted on the images, I've more or less plagiarized the finial from a Martin Fry rifle and the side panels from a well-known rifle that is usually attributed to Isaac Berlin: https://www.aspenshadeltd.com/inventory_ib.html, but I went for a wider, more tapering overall look that was inspired by some George Schroyer rifles.

I'm looking for comments regarding:
-Is this a historically plausible design for 1775-1800 ish?
-Is this artistically pleasing and proportionate? I'm not an artist, and I've never tried this before, so any feedback and helpful comments are welcome.
-Are there any practical implications I should consider? I'm sure the builder will be able to call me on this, but I'm open to any considerations or feedback.

Click images to enlarge:

[Frozen Run]

Who is making this gun for you?

[Cossack]

Who is making this gun for you?

Steve Zihn

[alacran]

I do not mean to offend you Cossack.  If you trust someone to make a rifle, which you do not have the capacity to make, let him make it. Your involvement only hinders the builder's ability to express his talent.

[t.caster]

I agree with Alacran. That said, the lower drawing is more pleasing to my eyes

[Gaeckle]

I do not mean to offend you Cossack.  If you trust someone to make a rifle, which you do not have the capacity to make, let him make it. Your involvement only hinders the builder's ability to express his talent.

Exactly, trust the builder

[smart dog]

Hi Cossack,
I think you drew nice boxes, particularly the bottom one.  However, the area of brass is massive and given your ambivalence for brass patch boxes, I think the lid should not widen toward the butt plate, the side panels not span the entire rear of the stock, and it needs the appropriate piercings found on Fry, Altland, and Eister's rifles.  If your budget is tight, you could go with the piercings, which will show more wood, and skimp on the engraving.  More engraving can always happen later but you cannot swap out that big solid box you designed if you don't really like it.

dave   

[Cossack]

Good points all.

Steve asked me what I was thinking and basically said something to the effect of wanting to make sure he made the rifle the way I want and to let him know. That said, I know he's an able craftsman. Mostly I'm trying to pick some overall stylistic cues rather than giving him a drawing and saying "make this." Sketching helps me visualize it.

Smart Dog, I see what you're saying. However, in spite of my ambivalence towards patch boxes in general, the ones I like most tend to start really wide at the rear, like a lot of George Shroyer's - who often didn't use a lot of piercings, especially in his side plates. However, while I like the basic overall shape, I am not usually as fond of the finer details of Schroyer's patchboxes as those of some other makers, so I was looking at Berlin as inspiration for the finer points of the outline of the side plates and Fry for the finial.

That said, I suppose we could narrow it down in the rear.

So, probably as far as moving forward, I'll just mention a few of these guns to Steve as styling cues with a few notes.

I understand letting an artist and craftsman do his job. But I also can't expect him to know what I like unless I tell him. I am trying to avoid obnoxiously looking over his shoulder. Since there are plenty of craftsman on here, you can chime in (as some of you have) on what's useful input from a customer and what's obnoxious meddling.

[flinchrocket]

I have always liked the Berlin patchbox with the one piercing. It looks like the Lancaster  boxes and York county was taken from Lancaster County in 1749, so it may be a bit early for your hardware. However, I don’t think that one piercing in a patchbox would make much difference in the overall cost of a custom rifle.

[JTR]

I would think by far the easiest way for both he and you is for you to pick one from the books, and tell him 'I like this one'.
I Wouldn't worry about the date of the gun in the book, as most of the nicer patchboxes were used for a good long time.

[BillF/TRF]

Good points all.

Steve asked me what I was thinking and basically said something to the effect of wanting to make sure he made the rifle the way I want and to let him know. That said, I know he's an able craftsman. Mostly I'm trying to pick some overall stylistic cues rather than giving him a drawing and saying "make this." Sketching helps me visualize it.

Smart Dog, I see what you're saying. However, in spite of my ambivalence towards patch boxes in general, the ones I like most tend to start really wide at the rear, like a lot of George Shroyer's - who often didn't use a lot of piercings, especially in his side plates. However, while I like the basic overall shape, I am not usually as fond of the finer details of Schroyer's patchboxes as those of some other makers, so I was looking at Berlin as inspiration for the finer points of the outline of the side plates and Fry for the finial.

That said, I suppose we could narrow it down in the rear.

So, probably as far as moving forward, I'll just mention a few of these guns to Steve as styling cues with a few notes.

I understand letting an artist and craftsman do his job. But I also can't expect him to know what I like unless I tell him. I am trying to avoid obnoxiously looking over his shoulder. Since there are plenty of craftsman on here, you can chime in (as some of you have) on what's useful input from a customer and what's obnoxious meddling.

Cossack,  Here is a pic of a patchbox I purchased from MLBS and engraved it myself.  the rifle is a Jim Chambers York Co. and you can see how much room it takes on the stock.   Bill

[HighUintas]

Hi Cossack, I am not a fan of most brass patchboxes and I also prefer patchboxes that have a wider butt end. I urge you to take a look at the William Clark rifle made by Philip Creamer. It is steel, but beautiful. My favorite patchbox I've seen. Louie Parker made a spectacular recreation of it, shown here : https://contemporarymakers.blogspot.com/2018/06/copy-of-phillip-creamer-rifle-made-for.html?m=1

There are also very good pictures of the original on the web that use to be in a thread on this forum. The thread is still here, but the pictures no longer show. You may be able to find the pictures on the web by searching "Philip Creamer rifle" and looking at the search engines images tab. I use duckduckgo to see them. For some reason, they aren't found when using Google images search, at least for me.

[Cossack]

I would think by far the easiest way for both he and you is for you to pick one from the books, and tell him 'I like this one'.
I Wouldn't worry about the date of the gun in the book, as most of the nicer patchboxes were used for a good long time.

Well, basically that's what I ended up doing, except that I've pointed to several different patchboxes from different makers to point out features that I like.

Cossack,  Here is a pic of a patchbox I purchased from MLBS and engraved it myself.  the rifle is a Jim Chambers York Co. and you can see how much room it takes on the stock.   Bill

I like that, Bill. Thanks for sharing. Every picture helps. Nice work on your engraving.
On a side note, I'm slowly destroying a chambers York kit myself. I only hope it turns out as nice as yours. I think I'm going with the wood patch box on it, but you give me a nice visual there.

Hi Cossack, I am not a fan of most brass patchboxes and I also prefer patchboxes that have a wider butt end. I urge you to take a look at the William Clark rifle made by Philip Creamer. It is steel, but beautiful. My favorite patchbox I've seen. Louie Parker made a spectacular recreation of it, shown here : https://contemporarymakers.blogspot.com/2018/06/copy-of-phillip-creamer-rifle-made-for.html?m=1

There are also very good pictures of the original on the web that use to be in a thread on this forum. The thread is still here, but the pictures no longer show. You may be able to find the pictures on the web by searching "Philip Creamer rifle" and looking at the search engines images tab. I use duckduckgo to see them. For some reason, they aren't found when using Google images search, at least for me.

Thanks. I was actually thinking of that rifle and trying to remember what it was. I really like the overall effect of that patch box. It's clearly a little later. Do we know when the original was made?

Thanks for posting that. I'll go digging for more on that one, if for no other reason than that I like it.

[HighUintas]

Sometime between 1807 - 1838. Missouri Historical Society has a date of ca1809 on it on a picture they have on Flickr. It was originally flint , so maybe earlier in that range? Although, I wonder how early the English scroll guard would have been put into use on rifles in the StL/Illinois area, so who knows?