Albright, Henry, Graeff, Dickert: rifles for William Irvine's battalion, 1776

[spgordon]

Folks, I came across a lot of material related to rifles during the American Revolution at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania yesterday. I'll dribble out the material in a few posts over the next week. 

Most of it has to do with William Irvine's 6th PA Battalion, which was created on 4 Jan 1776 (later than the other battalions) and had arrived in New York by 24 April. This battalion is not referred to as a rifle battalion or rifle regiment but Irvine's captains sure purchased a lot of rifles for their men in the weeks before deployment. It is clear from this materials that in a single company some men would carry rifles and others muskets:



Over a few days in April, Irvine's captains purchased at least 91 rifles from the merchant Samuel Postlethwait and at least 33 more rifles from the merchant Paul Zantzinger. Also, lots of muskets from both. That is a lot of rifles for these merchants to have on hand or at least available for these captains.

But here is the image I wanted to share: 16 rifles bought by William Rippey for his company. Rippey was from Cumberland County, as was Irvine and the other captains (except one), but the rifles were purchased from the Lancaster merchant Zantzinger:



The receipt is, I think, in Zantzinger's handwriting. Notice that most of the rifles are identified by gunsmith (Albright, Graeff, Wither, John Henry, etc.). I strongly believe this means that their names or marks that identified them were on the rifles.

But four of the rifles are just identified as "Reading." Do you think that this means that they were marked as this rifle is (photograph from Patrick Hornberger's recent book on Wolfgang Haga):

[Otto]

Very , very interesting find. I'm surprised that any vendor could come up with 91 rifles in one order, especially in light of probable other orders as well. Looking forward to your other posts

[spgordon]

Located in Carlisle by the Revolution, Postlethwaite was a prominent merchant and patriot. Long article on him here:

http://gardnerlibrary.org/sites/default/files/vol31n1.pdf

Here's one bit of it relevant to this thread, which suggests that the rifles that he supplied to these companies had been collected from citizens (perhaps non-associators) rather than purchased "new." Apparently Postlethwaite's ledger is also at Historical Society of PA, though I haven't looked at it (yet).

[DaveM]

One differentiation is that the gunsmiths listed by name would have been known personally by Zantzinger as they were from Lancaster. The Reading rifle pictured looks much later to me.  It looks like some r all did have brass boxes, though, as the first line appears to name a fellow who was a brass box fitter?

[DaveM]

Also, it appears that several of the rifles are noted as “new” as a description.  Maybe the others were collected / purchased used rifles?

[spgordon]

The first name is "Fetter"--gunsmith Jacob Fetter of Lancaster. All the names are gunsmiths, I think--except "Reading"--but all the names function to identify a particular rifle with a particular source.

The designation "new" (3 rifles) is puzzling. Always more mysteries than solutions with new documents! If it means that these were purchased new and the others collected from individuals (rather than gunsmiths)--Zantzinger would know the makers only if the rifles  were marked with the makers name. (And, if so, does this mean that Andreas Albrecht marked his rifles "Albright"?)

I can't make out the letters next to the second and third "new" rifles (sixth and seventh in the list).

[spgordon]

The Reading rifle pictured looks much later to me.

Yeah, I agree. But if this column of makers is to note something on the rifle so everybody would know, later, who got which rifle (soldiers were required to return these arms), what use would it be to put "Reading" there if it didn't say "Reading" on the rifle? 

It could indicate that Zantzinger knew that he got the rifle from Reading, without knowing the makers name, but I don't see how that information would be useful on a document such as this ...

[smart dog]

Hi Scott,
Any rifles supplied to Magaw's unit were probably captured at Fort Washington during fall 1776 and some might have been taken back to Great Britain.

dave

[spgordon]

Dave -- Interesting you should mention that. Check out #9 on this list: "for a gun taken by the enemy at Fort Washington in 1776."

Hard to read, but the funds for that gun were due to Thomas Murray, who was a Lieutenant Colonel in a Lancaster County battalion.

We believe that one of Oerter's rifles was "taken by the enemy," too, and brought to England.

[Eric Kettenburg]

A couple of thoughts.

The first rifle is specifically noted with "Brass Box," by Fetter.  This would *seem* to imply that the remainder of them were all wood box or sans box rifles, otherwise why specifically note the brass box?

There's really only three ways to view the "Reading" notation:  The rifles were marked "Reading" per the town of Reading, which seems somewhat implausible to me; the rifles were marked by a maker and noted as the other potentially signed rifles, and that maker just happened to have the surname "Reading" (implausible?  maybe, but we certainly do not know every maker that was working); or, the rifles were of a type or style which was apparently immediately recognizable as being made in Reading.  This last concept seems most likely to me for a couple of reasons.  First, there are a LOT of surviving rifles which we now attribute to Reading, and many if not most of them do seem to follow something of a pattern which evolved over time - this high survival rate might indicate that they were being cranked out in very large numbers.  Second, simply looking at the few early, surely pre-War rifles which Shumway pictured in RCA 1 as being of Reading origin, it can be seen even by the casual observer (at least I think so) that those rifles are fairly distinctive and really do not look like anything else.  And there are more of them that Shumway did not publish at the time, so to revisit the first point, someone there was cranking those things out.  Coincidentally, perhaps, they do seem to have a somewhat martial or military feel.  Don't really know if this means anything but I'm not the only one that thinks that way.

[spgordon]

There's really only three ways to view the "Reading" notation:  The rifles were marked "Reading" per the town of Reading, which seems somewhat implausible to me; the rifles were marked by a maker and noted as the other potentially signed rifles, and that maker just happened to have the surname "Reading" (implausible?  maybe, but we certainly do not know every maker that was working); or, the rifles were of a type or style which was apparently immediately recognizable as being made in Reading.  This last concept seems most likely to me for a couple of reasons.  First, there are a LOT of surviving rifles which we now attribute to Reading, and many if not most of them do seem to follow something of a pattern which evolved over time - this high survival rate might indicate that they were being cranked out in very large numbers.  Second, simply looking at the few early, surely pre-War rifles which Shumway pictured in RCA 1 as being of Reading origin, it can be seen even by the casual observer (at least I think so) that those rifles are fairly distinctive and really do not look like anything else.  And there are more of them that Shumway did not publish at the time, so to revisit the first point, someone there was cranking those things out.  Coincidentally, perhaps, they do seem to have a somewhat martial or military feel.  Don't really know if this means anything but I'm not the only one that thinks that way.

My first thought was your option 3: that this note provides evidence that people did recognize a regional style in 1776. Zantzinger had a bunch of rifles, presumably from different makers, and identified them all as "Reading." But, to be honest, this seems to me unlikely, especially since as an explanation it doesn't really "fit" the purpose of this document (as I understand it). So I think your first option is more plausible: these rifles were marked "Reading."

Patrick Hornberger says that several surviving unsigned rifles have "Reading" on the patchbox. I don't know anything about these. Do they all look later, as the one pictured? [Apparently these rifles with "Reading" on the patchbox are all later, somebody generously wrote me via email.]

I've managed to find--stumble upon, really--additional evidence that rifles and muskets produced in 1775 and 1776 or taken from non-associators and used by soldiers were marked, either as they were produced or when they entered a military company. I will post another instance or two next week. I am now very convinced that the numbering, at least, on two of Oerter's rifles is there because they were used in a military company. (The numbers aren't production numbers, which makes no sense when you actually think about it.) When in 1775 George Washington ordered 40 muskets from the Philadelphia gunmaker Thomas Palmer, he stated: “I should think it would be an advantage to have them numbered.” In other instances, captains of companies added numbers to help track the arms, which is what I believe happened with Oerter's rifles.

I don't think it is so implausible that, for tracking purposes, rifles made in Reading were marked as such. We have no documentary evidence that this practice was followed, but it isn't implausible, I don't think.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I've certainly never seen one marked "Reading" that I would consider an earlier or pre-War gun.  Not to say there weren't - maybe none have survived - but I don't know of any.

This would then beg the follow-up question:  why Reading?  I'm not aware of any references to rifles marked "Lancaster" or "York" etc.  Was this unique to Reading?  If so, why?  Was this a wartime development or contract with a specific maker in Reading?

[spgordon]

Analysis of any document needs to start with the purpose of the document itself. If the purpose of this document were just to record the sale/transfer of sixteen rifles, it would just do that--as hundreds of other receipts do. ("I owe PZ for 16 rifles obtained for my company.")

So: why would this document link the name of a soldier to a particular rifle? I think this practice is to track the rifle, so the captain can ensure that each is returned or somebody can be compensated for its loss. There are others instances of this practice that are more explicit.

It is extremely unlikely that Zantzinger could tell a Albrecht from a Graeff from a Dickert from a Wither rifle. So the only way this document makes sense is if something is on the rifle itself that enables Zantzinger, or anybody, to identify a specific rifle so somebody can track whether it's been returned, etc. I can't imagine another reason why this document would specify each maker's name. Another system to accomplish the same things would have been to number the rifles. I can document several instances of that. [Many documents to list rifles obtained from named makers, but these are to document money disbursed to these makers. This document isn't involved with that.]

So, yes, my guess is that, the five rifles identified as "Reading" here had that word written somewhere on them, either by a maker or makers or by Zantzinger after he got them. I understand there are other possibilities!

As far as none surviving ... that doesn't bother me as far as whether the explanation is persuasive or not. After all, Wolfgang Haga supplied rifles at the same time with his initials on them--and none of those have turned up. [Consider that a teaser.]

 

[WESTbury]

Scott, many thanks for posting all of this information, it is greatly appreciated.

Relative to your remarks below, I sense a "surprise" coming our way.

As far as none surviving ... that doesn't bother me as far as whether the explanation is persuasive or not. After all, Wolfgang Haga supplied rifles at the same time with his initials on them--and none of those have turned up. [Consider that a teaser.]

Kent

[Eric Kettenburg]

It is extremely unlikely that Zantzinger could tell a Albrecht from a Graeff from a Dickert from a Wither rifle. So the only way this document makes sense is if something is on the rifle itself that enables Zantzinger, or anybody, to identify a specific rifle so somebody can track whether it's been returned, etc. I can't imagine another reason why this document would specify each maker's name.

Definitely agree with you there.

What doesn't quite make sense to me is why any maker would mark a rifle "Reading" unless asked to do so, *if* the piece were otherwise unsigned.  There were multiple makers in the Reading area.  Without a signature or even initials (as you've teased!), how would anyone know which maker in Reading made the rifle?

Also, back to the brass box notation.  Could we assume these other rifles did not have a brass box?  Dangerous to assume, I know, but it does explain the sole 'brass box' notation.  So if the Reading rifles were wood box or no box rifles, where would the "Reading" marking be?  On the barrel?  On the lock?  Stamped on the stock?

Maybe they were part of some contract that pre-dated the War? 

Many questions - this is a bit of a mystery.  What is the word immediately preceding "Reading" for Ensign Wm. L**** (can't quite make out that name at the moment - Lusk?  Lark?)? 

[WESTbury]

Perhaps the rifles accredited to specific makers was because Zantzinger was aware of the origin of specific rifles but only had knowledge that four of the rifles came from the Reading area. A simple theory, but sometimes simple is best.

And then again, who knows. It is fun to speculate though.

[spgordon]

Many questions - this is a bit of a mystery.  What is the word immediately preceding "Reading" for Ensign Wm. L**** (can't quite make out that name at the moment - Lusk?  Lark?)?

It's Ensign Lusk, I think (see the side note)--and, as per the side note, he received a Fuzee. So that line just reads: "a Gun   Reading."

I think only Fetter's rifle had a brass box. Another receipt (6 April 1776) documents that Captain Samuel Hay received twenty six Rifles: "Eleven thereof from Reading, 2 with Brass Boxes & Nine plain, and of [the other] Sixteen 2 with Brass Boxes and 14 without." So some had them, others didn't.

I guess maker's names or "Reading" could be marked on the barrel or the lock if there were no patchbox?

[wabeek]

 For his services during the war Genl. William Irvine was granted a 1000 acre reserve in what is Harborcreek Twp., Erie County, PA, a still wooded section along the lake being the location of my home.  Most Erie County residents have no idea who he was.  Thanks for the nice longrifle/muskets history  post!

[bp]

Interesting documents. Thanks for sharing.
Could the names may be the source of the arms, possibly reconditioned and marked before being placed into service and a Reading area smith(s) supplied 4 rifles?  Does not explain "new" unless these were built intended for service.

I find the topics fascinating but have had little access to the old guns or documents so consider the above pure conjecture.

[eastwind]

ADDENDUM TO THE WOLFGANG HAGA MONOGRAPH
Recent information found regarding the six rifles with “Reading”
engraved on the patchbox lid.
   
    In October of 2021, six rifles attributed to Berks County gunsmiths were on display at the Eastern Pennsylvania Long Rifle Show in Morgantown, Pennsylvania. Each of the rifles show the wording “Reading” engraved on the patchbox in a similar style and size of typeface. The rifles shown were not by the same gunsmith, nor were they made in the same year, albeit they were Reading style rifles from the late 1700s to 1820 period.—none were signed by the gunsmith.
   These rifles may have been those owned by members of the Reading Rifles, a group of quasi-militia famous for celebrations of military events, holding public shooting matches, and parade marching in Berks County in the mid to late 1800s, while serving as citizen soldiers defending the general public. This militia was formed to honor the original company of riflemen from Reading, also called the Reading Rifles, which served with General Washington at Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1775.
   This recognition of the Colonial Reading riflemen may have been created in 1849 by Sydenham Anacona and his Brother in-law, Daniel Feger, both officers of the Reading Railroad. The group’s original members were engineers and machinists of the Reading Railroad Company, which eventually grew to include over fifty uniformed members, calling themselves the Reading Rifles. It is my opinion that each of these six rifles were owned and later engraved “Reading” by members of that group.
    During the period just before and after the Civil War, fraternal citizen soldier groups were popular with the public and many areas in Pennsylvania formed such groups. The Ringold Light Artillery was another military-like group in Reading, while the Buchanan Rifles was active in Lancaster during the same period. These groups were patterned after Philadelphia’s Old Guard State Fencibles established in 1813 and all such quasi-militias eventually evolved into today’s National guard.     
          From the monograph, Wolfgang Haga - Study of a Reading Gunsmith. ©2021 Patrick Hornberger


My humble opinion above, although I found no specific reference to "guns being engraved, "Reading".
By the way, there are two rifles by Bonewitz with "Womelsdorftown" engraved on the patchbox lid - albeit not in a similar hand.

Patrick Hornberger

[spgordon]

Thanks to Patrick (and others offline) for clarifying that the signed-on-the-patchbox "Reading" rifles are later than the 1776 "Reading" rifles that this document refers to. So the 1776 rifles could have been signed or marked "Reading" differently or, as Eric suggested early on, just so recognizable as "Reading" rifles that they didn't need to be marked/signed at all.

I've continued to peer at this document, trying to figure out what the maker's name is on the 6th and 7th rifles listed. (The same two are also marked "new.") It suddenly came to me that the scribble is an abbreviation for "Lancaster County." (It looks like "Lan^r C^y")

So, the list identifies 16 rifles: three it identifies as "Reading," two it identifies as "Lancaster County," one it just identifies as "new," and the other ten it identifies by each maker's name.

I myself continue to believe that these identifications were marked in some way on each rifle. Otherwise, I can't see the point of this document. The point of it was, I think, to make sure that when, say, John Moore's service was complete, Captain Rippey could ensure that he returned not just a rifle but the correct rifle (marked by John Graeff). Other documents from this exact period, as I mentioned, assigned numbered rifles to soldiers for the same purpose. We would use bar codes!

[WESTbury]

Scott,

Do you think that the Graeff brother listed on this document could be Jacob? I ask this because the letter appearing just before the "G" looks to be a "B".

Kent

[spgordon]

Do you think that the Graeff brother listed on this document could be Jacob? I ask this because the letter appearing just before the "G" looks to be a "B".

The scribble of the first name looks to me like Jn^o--which was an 18th-century abbreviation for John or Johann.

[WESTbury]

Scott,

Thanks for the quick clarification, appreciate it.

For my future reference, what would have been the abbreviation for Jacob?

Kent

[spgordon]

For my future reference, what would have been the abbreviation for Jacob?

Hmm. Jn^o is common for John, Jo^s for Joseph, Ja^s for James ... but nothing for Jacob comes to mind! Jacobus is Latin for James but Jas wouldn't be used for Jacob. (Maybe Jac?)