Johann Wilhelm Graef vs Wolfgang Hachen

[WESTbury]

In Gunsmiths of Colonial Reading, Pennsylvania, Part 2 published in KRA Bulletin Vol 47 #2, author David Madary states that J.W. Graef "holds the record for the longest working gunsmith in downtown Reading" appearing from circa 1852 to approx 1805.

As we all know, Wolfgang Hachen gets the credit for most, if not all, early Reading rifles even though none are known with Hachen's mark. Perhaps we should give consideration to J. W. Graef for many of those rifles. I realize we have had 60 years of Hachen publicity and investment by collectors in "Haga Attributed" rifles so this may be a difficult realignment of thinking.

[rich pierce]

In Gunsmiths of Colonial Reading, Pennsylvania, Part 2 published in KRA Bulletin Vol 47 #2, author David Madary states that J.W. Graef "holds the record for the longest working gunsmith in downtown Reading" appearing from circa 1852 to approx 1805.

As we all know, Wolfgang Hachen gets the credit for most, if not all, early Reading rifles even though none are known with Hachen's mark. Perhaps we should give consideration to J. W. Graef for many of those rifles. I realize we have had 60 years of Hachen publicity and investment by collectors in "Haga Attributed" rifles so this may be a difficult realignment of thinking.

This is not the John Graef of Lancaster, right?

[WESTbury]

In Gunsmiths of Colonial Reading, Pennsylvania, Part 2 published in KRA Bulletin Vol 47 #2, author David Madary states that J.W. Graef "holds the record for the longest working gunsmith in downtown Reading" appearing from circa 1852 to approx 1805.

As we all know, Wolfgang Hachen gets the credit for most, if not all, early Reading rifles even though none are known with Hachen's mark. Perhaps we should give consideration to J. W. Graef for many of those rifles. I realize we have had 60 years of Hachen publicity and investment by collectors in "Haga Attributed" rifles so this may be a difficult realignment of thinking.

This is not the John Graef of Lancaster, right?

That is correct Rich.  Possibly a cousin or an even more distant relative.

[Mike Brooks]

I wrote off all of the Haga attributions decades ago.

[WESTbury]

Thanks for the reply Mike.

I certainly appreciate your point of view, given the total lack of identifiable examples. You would think that after all this time something would "pop-up". Scott's research may be the only path through which a Hachen produced rifle could be identified.

Kent

[spgordon]

.... through which a Hachen produced rifle could be identified.

Or newly marked as such ... 

[WESTbury]

.... through which a Hachen produced rifle could be identified.

Or newly marked as such ... 

Particularly if a New England Rifle is "discovered" with Hachen's signature. And then again, perhaps the rifle was stocked when Hachen was vacationing at the Cape, no doubt, probably at "P-Town".

[Eric Kettenburg]

Or newly marked as such ... 

Hold my beer...     

[WESTbury]

As we all know, Wolfgang Hachen gets the credit for most, if not all, early Reading rifles even though none are known with Hachen's mark. Perhaps we should give consideration to J. W. Graef for many of those rifles. I realize we have had 60 years of Hachen publicity and investment by collectors in "Haga Attributed" rifles so this may be a difficult realignment of thinking.

I would like to thank those that responded to the original post on July 11th.

Since there was no push back or contrary opinions posted I am assuming that there is pretty much total agreement with the above quote.

Kent

[Eric Kettenburg]

I'd agree.  Since there are no surviving signed or marked rifles of either, we're currently just throwing darts.

Since both men were working in Reading and surely knew of each other and each other's products, it may be likely that the two were building similar pieces.  Many of the so-called 'Haga' rifles are clearly products of different hands; perhaps we're looking at a real soup of Hachen products and apprentices along with Graef products and apprentices.  We'll never really know until something signed turns up.

[WESTbury]

Eric,

Thanks for your input, appreciate it.

I know it may sound as though I'm looking for a fight, and I am!!!

Not really of course, just trying to generate some thoughtful dialogue. I am sincerely interested in other people's opinions on this subject. I am still in the process of learning about these longrifles and the craftsmen that built them.

Kent

[Dobyns]

I'm aware of ongoing research and comparisons of some of these old rifles for an upcoming publication.  Perhaps the photographed rifles will yield some clues.

[WESTbury]

I'm aware of ongoing research and comparisons of some of these old rifles for an upcoming publication.  Perhaps the photographed rifles will yield some clues.

Excellent! Thanks for promising news!

[Buck]

Kent,

Is Graef listed as having any other occupation other than a gunsmith? Farmer, Stone Mason, etc.? Haga, if I remember correctly, was a bit of an entrepreneur - he was involved in several other industrious ventures. Not that my opinion matters, the attribution of the "Haga" style really should be the "Reading" style only and all named smith attributions should be dropped entirely. If it's even responsible to call it the "Reading Style".

My thought, replacing historical theory with another theory isn't advancing anything IMHO.   

Buck

[WESTbury]

Buck,

Thanks for your thoughts!

In David Madary's KRA article, David brings two points out. First that a John Reiffsnyder's obit states that he "learned his trade of gunsmith here with Wilhelm Graef". Also, the KRA article states that 1761 dated deeds, as well as tax records, list Graef's trade as a Gunsmith.

I agree with you that we should not develop a second theory to supplant another theory. That would definitely not make any sense. What I think is, other known gunsmiths should be considered as well as Hachen, to be the stockers of some of the extant Reading rifles that are unmarked.

I'm hoping that the author of the KRA article will chime in here at some point.

Kent

[DaveM]

Kent,

As the author of the bulletin article, a few notes:
My article is written purely based on what I, and a few others, could find as historical fact from first hand sources (not old books, second hand info, etc). I intentionally tried to avoid the whole question of attributions, that was not what the article was intended for.  And if I speculated at all about something in the article, I did my best to state that I am speculating.  I do not own a Reading made rifle, and I was only interested in the history.  It doesn't matter to me how Hachen spelled his name, my only interested was getting it correct.  I have found that no matter what people may believe, when all the facts are known on a subject, the truth is usually the most interesting story. There is plenty more to be discovered here!

That said, the intent of the story was to point out who the "probable" rifle makers were for a given period in Reading colonial and early post war history.  If we assume a rifle was made in a given year, in downtown Reading, there are only so many makers in downtown Reading at that particular time who could have made it.

Excluding John Kerlin who lived outside of Reading but had an association with the Reading makers for government contracts, and excluding Henry Hahn Sr. since we have not yet found proof he made guns, look at the following for examples of eligible makers in a given time: 
- A rifle made in Reading in 1750 or 1751:  Hachen appears to have been the first and only maker in town.
- ditto 1752:  the only makers in town were Hachen, Graeff.  Young new guy starting out was Graeff who was only 20-years old then, and probably trained with Hachen for at least a short time (speculation but makes sense to me).
- ditto 1755:  Hachen, Graeff, Schreit. The new guy in Reading was Schreit by 1755 or 1756.
- ditto 1760:  Hachen, Graeff, Schreit. 
- ditto 1765:  Hachen, Graeff, Schreit. New guy was Schroyer by 1763, left town by 1770
- ditto 1770:  Hachen, Graeff, Schreit, New guys starting on their own were John Reiffsnyder, William Shener Sr..  Reiffsnyder trained with Graeff.
- war years 1775:  Hachen, Graeff, Schreit (moved out of Reading around this time), Reiffsnyder, William Shener Sr., Henry Hahn Jr., Anthony Bobb, possibly Christian Balsely (Balsely likely trained with Hachen), John Eister.
- war years 1780:  Hachen, Graeff, Reiffsnyder, William Shener Sr., Hahn Jr., Bobb, John Drinkel, Andrew Fichthorn Sr., possibly John Gonter, Charles Witz, possibly Christian Balsely, John Eister.
- post war 1785:  Hachen likely stopped building after the war - he was last noted as a gunsmith in the 1782 tax list.  1782 is also the year that my ancestor Nicholas Madary died. I speculate based on common land ownership and other interests that the two worked together.  Hachen was noted as blind by 1789 and I speculate his blindness was a progressive disease that started after the war.  Still active in 1785 were Graeff, Reiffsnyder, William Shener Sr., Drinkel, Fichthorn Sr., Witz.
- post war 1790:  Graeff, Reiffsnyder, William Shener Sr., Drinkel, Fichthorn Sr., Witz.
- post war 1795:  Graeff, William Shener Sr., Drinkel, Fichthorn Sr., Witz, John Shener new guy starting out.
- post war 1800:  Graeff (may have retired by then but still noted as gunsmith), William Shener Sr., Drinkel, Fichthorn Sr., Fichthorn Jr., Witz, John Shener, William Shener Jr.
- post war 1805: Graeff probably was retired.  William Shener Sr., Drinkel. Fichthorn Sr., Fichthorn Jr., John Shener, William Shener Jr.
- post war 1810: Drinkel, Fichthorn Sr., Fichthorn Jr., John Shener, William Shener Jr.
- post war 1815-1820:  Drinkel, Fichthorn Sr., Fichthorn Jr., William Shener Jr.

Using the above as a baseline, you can start to draw your own conclusions for any attributions based on the process of elimination - by that, I mean there are signed examples of Fichthorn rifles for example that are different than typical "Reading" style.  But until more rifle examples come to light that have some sort of (hopefully genuine) marking, With what I know currently, I personally would not be able to tell you a Drinkel rifle from a Shener rifle from a Graeff rifle from an early Pannebacker rifle, nor can anyone else unless someone has a signed gun.  We also cannot forget there were a handful of rifle makers that worked in Berks county just outside the town of Reading like Pannebecker that are candidates for "Reading" type rifles. 

What has become evident through this work is that "LOTS" of early rifles were made in Reading.  I have no doubt in my mind that quite a few must have survived just by the sheer number that were made.  Just one example, when John Reiffsnyder died in 1793, he had numerous locks and other rifle parts outlined in his estate.

[WESTbury]

Kent,

As the author of the bulletin article, a few notes:
My article is written purely based on what I, and a few others, could find as historical fact from first hand sources (not old books, second hand info, etc). I intentionally tried to avoid the whole question of attributions, that was not what the article was intended for.  And if I speculated at all about something in the article, I did my best to state that I am speculating.  I do not own a Reading made rifle, and I was only interested in the history.  It doesn't matter to me how Hachen spelled his name, my only interested was getting it correct.  I have found that no matter what people may believe, when all the facts are known on a subject, the truth is usually the most interesting story. There is plenty more to be discovered here!

Dave,

Thanks for your invaluable input and information. Hopefully some of the other knowledgeable people on the ALR Forum will run with it.

It appears that we have several candidates to consider for these unmarked rifles rather than just Hachen.

The rifle with the "IG" stamp at the breech is intriguing. However, the stamp could be that of the barrel maker as well. Alot of possibilities.

https://www.morphyauctions.com/jamesdjulia/item/1492-373/

Thanks again Dave for responding.

Kent

[Buck2]

Kent,

Then we shouldn't attribute the rifles to anyone - only to the "Reading School", Berks County School would make even more sense.

Buck

[WESTbury]

Kent,
Then we shouldn't attribute the rifles to anyone - only to the "Reading School", Berks County School would make even more sense.
Buck

Buck,

In the case of unmarked rifles, that would seem to be appropriate in my opinion. I have seen at least one rifle described as Lancaster Pattern in an auction. That particular rifle is RCA 70.
https://poulinantiques.hibid.com/lot/56249474/lancaster-pattern-flintlock-with-powder-horn-?q=LANCASTER&sortOrder=0

Lancaster rifles are what I've been studying for the last 3-1/2 years due to a family connection. If you could liquify what I know about Berks County rifles, I doubt that you would be able fill s shot glass. But, I'm trying to learn.
Kent

[Eric Kettenburg]

Something that has always bugged me if you look at the early 'Reading' string in RCA1.  George attributed 20, 21 and 22 at least all to the same guy.  I'd agree on 21 and 22, and I've seen them both personally.  There are at least one or two others that fit in with those two very closely as representative of what we think are "early" i.e. pre-War or War-era.  But then go back and really look at 20.  I find enough differences there that if we hadn't been so Haga-crazed for the past 40-50 years, it probably would be attributed to a different stocker or at the least been slapped with an "associated with" label.

20 has very elongated lock panels, which is unusual.  21/22 do not.  This is an odd change for a single stocker to make, imho.  Also 21/22 have the common Reading 'pot belly' or swelling under and around the cheek, but 20 does not.  Some have referred to this as a 'pregnant' appearance and that's quite an apt descriptor also.  Nevertheless, 20 does not display this characteristic.  the furnishings on 20 are also different, and notably the sideplate while maintaining the Reading-typical heavy bevels is filed out in a different manner.  Also, 20 appears to have remnants of small gouge or arc cuts along the side borders of the box mortice (they're faint but they appear to be there) much like the more prominent arc cuts on the Schreit rifle.  This is not present on 21/22 or the others.  Even the cheek carving on 20, while of a similar design and style, is executed differently with an added volute.

I guess what I'm saying is that if these rifles had been attributed to some other area or region, I suspect that they would not all be attributed to the same maker - again, I'm pointing directly at 20.  I strongly suspect there would be an "associated with" label being thrown at it.  So I guess what I'm saying or wondering here is, are we looking at the work of two different men who may have been contemporaneous and working in the same location, working to an established or accepted style but two different men regardless?

[Buck2]

Kent,

I think Eric hit it there - "Associated" with the Reading / Berks School.

Buck

[WESTbury]

Kent,
I think Eric hit it there - "Associated" with the Reading / Berks School.
Buck

Buck,

As usual, Eric makes some very cogent observations. Perhaps "associated" is a good term to apply to unmarked rifles.

What I find interesting with the Berks County rifles is the seemingly, but probably not as suddenly as it appears in RCA1, evolution to a Roman Nose buttstock profile. What may have precipitated that change?

Kent

[Eric Kettenburg]

Dave or anyone:  have you ever come across any documentation of John Philip Beck working - even if briefly - in Reading or nearby?  I bring this up because of RCA 30, which is unsigned, and the signed JP Beck "Chrisdianborgey" rifle which turned up a few years ago now (probably 15+ - yikes!) which is extremely similar to RCA 30 to the point of clearly being the same guy.  So things get further confused!  I was able to examine the Chrisdianborgey rifle quite closely, and while I know (of course) that some folks immediately began to try to make excuses and convoluted stories because it did not fit in with what we 'expect' of a signed Beck rifle, I found nothing at all to indicate it wasn't completely non-butchered.  Nothing to indicate a fake signature and nothing to indicate a recycled barrel.  And Mike D'A who had it at the time, and whose opinion I do respect very much, was also convinced it was right as rain.  I know it's been subsequently auctioned so I don't know where it is now.  But anyway looking at that rifle and RCA 30, now we have ANOTHER wrench in the works.  Did Beck apprentice or work as a journeyman in Reading or nearby?  Or was this architectural style more widespread for a brief time?  Too many questions to try to render non-speculative answers.

[DaveM]

Eric, I had done lots of searching and have never found reference to a J. Philip Beck in Reading records.  It is very possible he trained there since he was born I believe in 1751?  As one example of the "ghost" appearance of other gunsmiths in Reading while they were training - we know from guardianship records and revolutionary war pension records that Christian Balsely, born around 1755, and who later was a trained gunsmith, grew up with Wolfgang Hachen and Nicholas Madary as his guardians after is father died when he was small. And Balsely was in Reading until sometime during the war.  Yet he does not show up in any official tax or other records, just more obscure records.  Then of course there were the Gonters - even John Gonter, gunsmith and younger brother of gunsmith Peter Gonter, stated that he was a resident of Reading at the time he enlisted in the war!  I suspect both Gonter brothers trained with Hachen after their father died.  But again nothing in "normal" tax, church or other records.

[Buck2]

Eric,

I have heard or read somewhere that Beck was in Reading / Berks.

Kent,

The Roman Nose is a French Architectural feature - I've wondered myself when and why that became the status quo for Berks County Arch.

Buck