Wolfgang Haga: Feb 1776

[DaveM]

Some other thoughts, questions -

From a different perspective, we now know that
- the only known rifles made by Hachen “for which documentation survives” were signed.
- the only known surviving rifle by Schreidt was signed.
- the only known rifles made by by Thomas Kerlin “for whch documentation survives” were signed.
- the known surviving Reading rifles made by Andrew Fichthorn were signed (any unsigned?).
 
Where does the idea that the makers were required to sign their rifles come from?  Is there a document somewhere for an order of rifles that were required to be signed? They also made muskets at the same time, for the same committees.  If they were not required to sign the muskets why would they be required to sign the rifles?

It is very interesting to me that Andrew Fichthorn, from Reading, also signed his rifles with initials.

It is also interesting that I believe (I could be wrong) that there is indeed a “typical” Reading rifle, early one, that has initials on the barrel of “IG” stamped just like Fichthorn did.  Could William Graeff have used the “IG” mark?  Based on Hachen’s signature, maybe the first initial could vary??  Who else could IG be? My only other thought is a young John Gonter, who we know learned the trade in Reading also, likely with Hachen.

Also, if it were up to Irvine to demand signatures on guns - why would he care?  He accepted unsigned rifles based on receipts.  If anything, the Kerlin document seems to be extremely important as it proves that rifles were not required to be signed at this period.  And the generic reference to Reading rifles n the Zantzinger document appears to support this notion.

[spgordon]

Well, I said “if” the rifles were on hand and not produced as a result of this immediate need.

More important: documents such as this Hachen one do not exist in isolation. It is closely related to the Kerlin one (same date, same handwriting [Hartley’s]—in which it seems clear that not all the rifles being purchased are signed. If Colonel Irvine was demanding that these Reading gunsmiths sign their work, the Kerlin receipt would be quite different. In that receipt as it is, however, Irvine is obtaining some signed rifles, some not signed. He obtained what he could, what was on hand: the receipt specifies the different types of rifles in the purchase.

It is not much of a stretch, it seems to me at least, to read this receipt like the Kerlin receipt. Which would mean that Hachen had six signed rifles on hand.

This is why I proposed that he was routinely signing rifles: Hartley showed up and found (and bought) six rifles that Hachen had already signed.

[spgordon]

Where does the idea that the makers were required to sign their rifles come from?  Is there a document somewhere for an order of rifles that were required to be signed? They also made muskets at the same time, for the same committees.  If they were not required to sign the muskets why would they be required to sign the rifles?

....

Also, if it were up to Irvine to demand signatures on guns - why would he care?  He accepted unsigned rifles based on receipts.  If anything, the Kerlin document seems to be extremely important as it proves that rifles were not required to be signed at this period.  And the generic reference to Reading rifles n the Zantzinger document appears to support this notion.

A captain would care because he had to track what rifles or muskets (or an entire stand of arms) were assigned to which soldiers. This is shown, I think, in the document I posted on the other thread, where a soldier's name is paired with a rifle & maker. It mattered because of the way the finances worked: in some cases, soldiers had to return the arm they were given (or be responsible for its cost), in other cases an arm had to be returned to the non-associator from which it was taken (or payment had to be made to that non-associator). So there was a lot of $$ on the line and some kind of tracking system needed to be established. One way to do this would be through a numbering systems, and I believe we are only beginning to realize how widespread this practice was. Another would be to ensure that each arm had the maker's name. That way, if Private Smith did not return his rifle signed "W. Ha.," he would need to provide the £4.10.0 that this receipt (which Irvine saved) proved that it cost.

None of this shows that Irvine required these rifles to be signed: I agree with you, Dave, that the Kerlin receipt shows that he wasn't requiring such a thing. But that is a separate issue from why somebody would want rifle or muskets signed or marked in some other way. They did--in order to track them.

The other reason to require a maker's name is to be able to hold him responsible for inferior products. Later contracts explicitly required maker's names on every arm procured by the government. Tench Coxe insisted in 1806, for instance, that in government contracts "every maker's name is to be on his rifles." Such thinking may also have been in people's minds thirty years earlier, though such an explicit statement hasn't yet been uncovered.

[JTR]

Such thinking may also have been in people's minds thirty years earlier, though such an explicit statement hasn't yet been uncovered.

And I'll bet that if anyone uncovers it, it'll be you!
Thank you for all the info you've provided here.
John

[WESTbury]

In my opinion, it is pretty exciting to know that Hachen may have signed at least six rifles. If even one of these can be located and vetted, the rifle could give an idea of the characteristics of a 1776 Hachen rifle and help to dispense with some of the seemingly hundreds of "attributed" Hachen rifles that are extant.

The situation being, where on the rifle did Hachen sign the piece? Probably the top barrel flat as was common or perhaps the sideplate, or stamped on the stock flat opposite the lock, or, or, or,---------------------------------------.

Perhaps George Shumway stated the case very succinctly in regard to supposed Wolfgang Hachen rifles on page 83 of RCA Vol. I,
"But he never signed apiece that we are aware of, so it is not appropriate to attribute any to him."

I humbly appologize for my cynical nature.

 

[DaveM]

Scott, your explanation as to why a captain would potentiially want identification does make alot of sense, thanks.  And as you note, it was a requirement later for government contracts, so it must have begun before that.  You certainly have added a wealth of information from your great research!

[WESTbury]

It is also interesting that I believe (I could be wrong) that there is indeed a “typical” Reading rifle, early one, that has initials on the barrel of “IG” stamped just like Fichthorn did.  Could William Graeff have used the “IG” mark?  Based on Hachen’s signature, maybe the first initial could vary??  Who else could IG be? My only other thought is a young John Gonter, who we know learned the trade in Reading also, likely with Hachen.

Julia's attributed an "IG" stamped rifle to "Haga"!!!!!
https://www.morphyauctions.com/jamesdjulia/item/1492-373/

[DaveM]

WESTbury, thanks!  I could not remember where I saw that!  Looking again, that does not look as early as I thought.

[spgordon]

The notion that rifles can be attributed to a maker who has no known signed work has always been a dealbreaker for me and, frankly, has produced a healthy suspicion about the entire attribution business. I state this as my own opinion and am not interested in convincing anybody else of it. I know breezy statements such as that frustrate some members of this list.

I understand the rationale for such attributions, which, it turns out, is stated succinctly in that Julia auction listing: "Of the four orig masters of Womeldsdorf-Reading School (Bonewitz, Reedy, Figthorn and Haga) all can be identified by existing signed examples with the exception of Haga. For this reason early guns of this school that cannot be identified by maker are generally attributed to Haga." Or, basically: we know Haga was important, we know he was active, so all these unsigned rifle must be by him.

I don't buy that--or the notion that we know who the "masters" were from the particular set of objects that have survived. Maybe all those unsigned rifles currently attributed to Hachen were by John Kerlin? How do we know they weren't?

As far as IG being William Graeff: "I" usually stands in for "J," not "W." A "V," as indicated on the Hachen receipt itself, might stand in for a "W."

[WESTbury]

As far as IG being William Graeff: "I" usually stands in for "J," not "W." A "V," as indicated on the Hachen receipt itself, might stand in for a "W."

Unfortunately Scott, logic and facts have no place in the auction arena.

Monetary reward is the soul motivator in my opinion.

Kent

[Eric Kettenburg]

The notion that rifles can be attributed to a maker who has no known signed work has always been a dealbreaker for me...

I'm going to assume you take issue with all of the Christian's Spring-attributed rifles aside from Oerter's! 

I've had discussions with a number of people over the years - people who I respect - who believe the lone signed Albrecht rifle is actually a Dickert with a restocked barrel.  I couldn't say one way or the other and frankly have no opinion on it.  I've likewise had discussions with people who feel the same about the Schreit.  I think it's a situation where we may have a sole signed example of a maker, and perhaps it does not line up with how we "think" that maker's work should look, so we begin the mental gymnastics.

Attributions based on speculation have been a very entertaining game as long as people have collected and discussed not merely these old guns but pretty much any antique.  It's irresistible fun and also does provide a some brain exercise!

I can very well see your point, however.  Not knocking it in the least - you are coming from a much more rigorous and demanding background than most of us.  Certainly me, anyway 

[DaveM]

For another twist, Graeff’s full name actually was John William Graeff.  He signed his will as “Jn. William Graeff”.  He also had a son Jacob, but I am not sure if Jacob was a gunsmith.  We know that Graeff made rifles also because in his 1814 estate he left his “rifle-making tools” to his grandsons (sons of his sons Frederick and Jacob).

[spgordon]

I think it's a situation where we may have a sole signed example of a maker, and perhaps it does not line up with how we "think" that maker's work should look, so we begin the mental gymnastics.

This is another "problem" with the attribution business (not a problem with the folks doing it, just an inherent problem): it is deeply conservative. That is, say we have an unsigned rifle that looks like a signed Newcomer. It will be attributed to Newcomer. That may be correct, of course. Or, the rifle may have been made by somebody else and, for reasons we cannot know, looks like a Newcomer. But the outcome of the attribution system has left us with less variety (two similar rifles, made in different places by different people) and instead with only one thing (Newcomers). And the next one that resembles those will be grouped, again, with Newcomer--and yet more possible variety has been eliminated by the attribution process.

I'm not sure I'm explaining that correctly. I think I'm trying to say that the attribution process doesn't tolerate outliers--it erases them by ascribing a possible outlier to the known maker. So there isn't an outlier anymore. That's what I mean by conservative.

But this is totally off-topic, I think!

[WESTbury]

For another twist, Graeff’s full name actually was John William Graeff.  He signed his will as “Jn. William Graeff”.  He also had a son Jacob, but I am not sure if Jacob was a gunsmith.  We know that Graeff made rifles also because in his 1814 estate he left his “rifle-making tools” to his grandsons (sons of his sons Frederick and Jacob).

The Fall/ Winter 2021/2022 KRA Bulletin has a discussion of John William Graeff (1732-1814) in David Madary's article of Reading gunsmiths. No mention of any signed rifles though. Wonder how he may have signed them, if any, "IG" or "W Graeff" or "J Graeff"?

[eastwind]

First: Haga’s name: Why does the Haga signature on the latest receipt look so different than Wolfgang’s signature on his own 1791 will – which shows it as a clear, Wolfgang Haga – not Hachen? Ref: Wolfgang Joh Haga will, 1796 as recorded in the Register of Wills office, Berks County, Pa. Would the man not know his true surname? And wouldn’t the spelling of the name on the will be the more credible? I’m thinking the name on the receipt may have been by another party, so this may not be Haga’s signature. And yes, there are other signatures for Haga, but his family surname appears to be Hagen, as stated on his gravestone, his Oath to King George and many other official documents.  I maintain that the man’s name was indeed Haga in casual use and his birth surname, Hagen in formal use – a common traditional combination of names used by European immigrants. I’ll be happy to expand on this point and show some references if one is interested is such matters beyond the guns themselves.
As to the initials on the rifles, Scott has uncovered a wonderful document, but there are questions about it as well. I know we are talking rifles here, but too many early sources call muskets – rifles --some muskets were rifled, did they call them rifles-what do we have here? Earlier in this thread I saw “raised work” on another Hartley document, but again is this contemporary meaning of “superior work” or our current meaning of raised carving?
 Nothing in the receipt says where the marks are located -lock, stock, or barrel? (no pun intended)- location of the initials might help, if only on the lock I’d be suspicious. Are the rifles marked “W” or v.Ha.” because the initials were different on each gun or just a sloppy application of the initials? And as Scott points out these could be the last-minute identifying marks applied to satisfy guns confiscated from the non-associators – but does that signature mean Haga made the guns or was just the man turning them over to Dundas? At that time Haga’s operation in Reading was a depository, possibly militia magazine for supplies, gun powder, etc. (re: the 1752 explosion document). Ref: Proceedings, Pennsylvania German Society, 1909.
 I agree with Eric, that this document alone is not enough proof that Haga signed all or even a lot of his guns. Short of a signed rifle/musket we need more evidence than that one receipt. Another document more articulate and precise would sure help. But this one is a helluva good start.
 Also, I’m not comfortable drawing comparisons with the Kerlins, according to the late Dave Stewart, a scholar who has studied the Kerlin guns in depth, all three of the Kerlins signed their muskets under the barrel (which they made) and signed their locks on the back. He also told me no rifle has been found by the Kerlins – only muskets. Ref: Pennsylvania Contract Muskets by Stewart and Reid, American Society of Arms Collectors, 2005.
 And one more point - Scott is good enough to give us the sources for his great submissions -- could we all do the same and give references when making precise points relative to the subject at hand. Again, a large thank you has to be extended to Scott for his ability and keen eye to dig into new areas, he should get the annual award for research.
 PATRICK HORNBERGER

[Eric Kettenburg]

Patrick - regarding the signatures, the document Scott posted was clearly written by an English speaker or speller, but the signature is utilizing German lettering as has been noted above.  If not Hachen/Haga/Hagan, then who?  An agent?  Someone else in his shop?

Re: his will, I have not seen it.  Are you positive that the signature in the will is actually his signature?  I have seen many wills of the period which were clearly written by someone other than the person in question, and in some cases I've doubted the signature or of course in many cases the person in question was only able to scratch a 'mark.'  Could you post a portion of it?  Would be interesting to see.

[eastwind]

Hopefully Haga's signature on his will as mentioned above loads this time.
Patrick

[smart dog]

Hi Patrick,
In the will, look at the text above the date.  Does that not read "Wolfgang Hachen"?

dave

[Eric Kettenburg]

That "signature" looks to my eye to be the same writer as the rest of the document, and it specifically notes 'his mark' which indicates to me that at the time the will was written, Hachen was either unable to sign his name due to infirmity/illness or was otherwise illiterate, which the document Scott posted seems to contradict.  But what does seem clear is that at the time this will was written, he was only able to mark an "X."  That's how I read it, anyway.

[spgordon]

We have three Hachen signatures now, all nearly the same—plus a fragment of a letter to his daughter and son in law in the same hand. There should be no question that this is Hachen’s signature.

The will, on the other hand, as Dave says, notes explicitly that the signature is NOT Hachen’s. He signed only with his mark. From another document we know he was blind by the late 1780s, which probably explains why he signed only with his mark.

[eastwind]

How and where does the will "explicitly say it is NOT Haga's signature? Not by the "his mark" statement. And if all instances shown in the body copy are Houchen or Hachen, why is it still written by someone saying Haga?
There are two issues here. 1. Is it his signature on the will and receipt? I think the will is his signature based on the Berks Register opinion. Because it says, "his mark", it is still "marked", Haga -How do you see that discrepancy? 2. It only matters if we are comparing signatures receipt to will, but in any case, it is spelled HAGA- on the most important part of the will. How do you get around that fact?
If the argument is who signed the receipt- Hachen or Haga why is the receipt signature more credible than the signature/mark on the will?
 As to the number of instances of Hachen, there are more records census, taxes, church, etc. using Haga. I maintain that you can't overlook the Oath to King George as Hagen, and his gravestone as Hagen- how do you question the family's preferred surname? Why do you all insist it is Hachen?

Patrick

[spgordon]

I agree with Eric, that this document alone is not enough proof that Haga signed all or even a lot of his guns. Short of a signed rifle/musket we need more evidence than that one receipt. Another document more articulate and precise would sure help. But this one is a helluva good start.

I entirely agree that this document isn't proof that Hachen signed all or even a lot of rifles. I don't think anybody suggested that. I do think that the most reasonable reading of these two documents (Hachen and Kerlin) is that Hartley showed up and purchased what rifles he found--and at Hachen's he seems to have found six signed rifles. But that doesn't tell us how many rifles, in total, Hachen signed.

The receipt does prove that Hachen signed six rifles, even if they were signed only because Hartley showed up. The receipt states this explicitly. I suppose it is possible that he didn't deliver any of them and so, if these were the only six rifles he was ever going to sign, and he didn't deliver them, then he would not have signed any rifles. But, absent that possibility, you cannot read a receipt that states that Hartley purchased six signed Hachen rifles to say that there were no signed Hachen rifles.

The Kerlin receipt is equally explicit and clear, even more so in that it differentiates between signed and unsigned rifles. If somebody has stated that Kerlin did not make and sign rifles--at least these few mentioned in the receipt!--then this document disproves that statement. One needs to be open to new information ... and if there wasn't proof before that the Kerlins made rifles (probably Thomas, in this case, given the mark) ... there is now. Further conclusions may require speculation, but the receipt is clear that Hartley purchased signed rifles from the Kerlins.

I don't know what "raised work" mean but I would guess carving. The flip-side of that very document specifies that one of the rifles is "carved."

I don't really know what to say about the possibility that Hartley did not understand the difference between muskets and rifles! I have, now, probably more than 500 documents regarding purchases of rifles and muskets for troops in 1775 and 1776. It is absolutely clear that the producers of these documents (different people: gunsmiths, captains who purchased arms, higher level administrators who were middlemen) know the difference between rifles and muskets. Many of the documents list a large number of arms being sold or bought and, in these lists, separate muskets from rifles; different valuations were set on these different arms and that, too, indicates that the folks selling, looking for, and purchasing these arms understood the difference between a musket and a rifle.

[spgordon]

How and where does the will "explicitly say it is NOT Haga's signature? Not by the "his mark" statement. And if all instances shown in the body copy are Houchen or Hachen, why is it still written by someone saying Haga?

When individuals could not sign something--for whatever reason--somebody else wrote their name and they signed with their mark (an "x" in the middle of the signature). This is very common. You find it in other sorts of lists of signatures, too: petitions, for instance. "His mark" means that the individual has left only a mark (the X) rather than a signature.

I know there are lots of instances of his name on documents using variant spellings--including the will! I pointed out that there are three signatures of his, only three, and they all use "Hachen." Tax records, etc., involve others spelling the person's name. The three surviving signatures show how he spelled his name.

[spgordon]

And as Scott points out these could be the last-minute identifying marks applied to satisfy guns confiscated from the non-associators – but does that signature mean Haga made the guns or was just the man turning them over to Dundas?

This is a possibility that I hadn't considered--but certainly could be the case. If the marks (W/V Ha) were added by Hartley's orders, that is, were not on the rifles beforehand, Hartley could certainly be purchasing six guns from Hachen and asking that some identifying mark be placed on them to indicate where he got them from--in which case, the W/V Ha could be placed on rifles that Hachen had but weren't of his own making.

I don't think the Kerlin receipt lends itself to this sort of reading, though, since only a subset of the rifles that Hartley purchases are signed. So, in that case, it doesn't seem like it is Hartley who is requiring the makers' marks on the rifles. I still think the same is true of the Hachen rifles but the possibility that Patrick proposes is certainly possible as well.

[eastwind]

  Scott I appreciate what you say about "marks" as opposed to signatures and I defer to your knowledge, but that still doesnt account for someone, Haga I assume, telling someone else his name is Haga-that is what the mark says. Even a blind man can say that much.

In defense of my points I offer the following below and if not too much of a burden I'd like to see some references regarding the use of Hachen, to compare the sources, i.e., military, Englishman writing the documents. etc. vs Reading cultural or local administrative records.

 In almost all cases from 1750 until 1795 one finds Wolfgang’s name in the hard copy records is shown as either Wolfgang Haga or Hagen, leading one to believe Wolfgang communicated those two names to the authorities when official records were called for. These are the two names predominant in the census enumeration, tax collection and cultural records for Reading, Berks County and those found in the Pennsylvania and National Archives.
    Here are some of those documents - the underlined name is the spelling as actually shown on the document: references follow the listing.
•   Signature of Wolfgang Joh Hagen. The required Oath to King George and Penn’s Provincial Government of Pennsylvania upon arriving in Philadelphia, 1750. Wolfgang’s shipmate Brothers, Nicholas and Christian also signed their Oath as Hagen - spelling which is a clear indication of the family surname. Reference: Pennsylvania Archives, Series2, vol.17Archives, SeNote: Wolfgang’s middle name, Joh is a commonly baptized Germanic male name. Typically, only one of a Germanic man’s secondary names is used, as Joh or Johann are given to many boys and is considered a bit of a throw-away title in Old World German culture. The name Johannes, on the other hand is traditionally considered the true John.2
•   Wolfgang Haga, a gunsmith. Ref: Pennsylvania Archives, Series 3, Proprietary and State Tax Lists for Berks County for the years, 1767, 1768, 1779, 1780, 1781, 1784, 1785. Note: In 1767 he was taxed for 2 houses on 2 lots, on Franklin Street, Reading, likely his “factory”.


•   Wolfgang Haga, Ref: First Census of the United States 1790, U.S. National Archives database.

•   Sponsor of Baptisms by Wolfgang Haga and Dorothea Haga for Peter Mieler, Peter Hiller, Maria Baer, et al. 1788. Ref: Schwartzwald Reformed Church Records at the Berks History Center. NOTE: Such Baptism are not necessarily adoptions which were common in the 18th century, where no infrastructure existed to help unfortunate children. Researchers should be cautious in assuming these adoptions are trade apprenticeships.

•   In 1767 Wolfgang Hagen applied for a land grant for 300 acres in Northern Berks County under Penn’s, East Side Application program. Ref: Atlas of Township Warrantee Maps of Berks County, Pennsylvania Archives, Series 3.

•   Birth of daughter, 1755 shown as Susanna Elizabeth Hagen. Ref: Berks County Courthouse birth records.

•   Susanna Elizabeth Hagen marriage to Peter Gonter. Ref: North America Family Histories, Ancestry

•   Wolfgang Hagen. Church record, Communion and burial, 1795. Ref: First reformed Congregation, Lancaster, Pennsylvania Church Records, Adams, Berks and Lancaster Counties, Lancaster County Historical Society. Note: Haga died in Lancaster County, not Berks County.

•   Wolfgang Haga will, 1796 Ref: Register of Wills, Berks County Note: The hard copy will shows Wolfgang Haga as the signatory, while some of the body copy refers to a Wolfgang Houchen, (or Hachen) indicating someone other than Haga scribed the will.3 

•   Wolfgang Hagen, Engraved on headstone at the Woodward Hill Cemetery, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. Note: His wife, Dorothea also shown as Hagen on her headstone. Notice the small “s” after Hagen which is a form of masculine genitive case - literally “his bones”.

•      The two earliest and most complete histories of early Berks County, both show our subject as Wolfgang Haga throughout their books. Daniel Rupp’s 1844, Berks & Lebanon Counties shows Wolfgang Haga as being one of the taxable inhabitants of Reading in 1757. Morton Montgomery’s ambitious volumes published in 1886 and 1909 show a Wolfgang Haga as one of the Trustees appointed to replace the original log constructed German Reformed Church in 1759. Both Joe Kindig, Jr. and Henry Kauffman referred to our gunsmith as Wolfgang Haga – further evidence of the preponderance of the name Haga in the official “paper” records. George Shumway used Haga, until he found the 1752 shop explosion news report. 

Patrick Hornberger