Early PA long rifle by Baker

[WESTbury]

Hi,
I am familiar with NE rifles too and most were made much later than 1773, if that date can be believed for the Tileston rifle.  I also know about Kimball Arms and their engraver "Teff" who forged all kinds of names, dates, and signatures on NE guns.
dave

Morning Dave,

So we "seem" to be on the same page (or near it!) with regard to engraved names and dates on any rifle and in particular N.E. Rifles.
I just received via E-mail the Muzzle Blasts article from our good friend Scott. I am anxious to start reading it to get a feel for this nice rifle.

Kent

[rich pierce]

Hi,
Eric, your memory for detail is incredible.  I pride myself on that same aptitude but you make me look like an amateur.  The guns in Grinslade that you are referring too are NE45 and NE46, both have locks marked Thomas Holbrook.  He was born in 1747 and died in 1810.  The lock panels on both guns are identical to the Tileston rifle and so is the carving around the comb and barrel tang on NE46.  It would be hard to explain that away except for some connection between the rifle and Holbrook.

Kent, the cherry stock, the actual shape of the butt stock, and the decoration around the comb and barrel tang scream New England.  A feature so often found on NE guns is the carving at the end of the barrel tang is like a potted plant at the end of a featureless table.  There is no florid design connecting the lock moldings in with the tang carving that you find so often on PA long rifles and even southern guns of the period. Here is an example, the famous Hawk fowler:
 


dave

To bring this back around, since the topics of Kimball Arms and later NE rifles has been brought up. In my simple way of thinking:
A) Similarly to Holbrook’s work could easily place it earlier than most NE rifles.
B) It doesn’t resemble NE rifles which are all later.

A) lends support to it being both from New England and pre-1810.
B) doesn’t help us much.

I’ll keep it simple in my head. A cherry stocked early rifle with carving like Holbrook’s makes NE a strong choice for origin. The architecture and furniture styling and lock could easily place it in the whereabouts of 1773. Tiff would more likely choose a known gunsmith and a more Revolutionary date, methinks.   These are all just leanings, not conclusions.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I see the question of it's origin in the same way as does Rich.  There is not much point in comparing it to much later New England rifles as the date on the Tileston gun is considerably earlier.  The carving closely matches up with two pieces signed by a NE gunsmith.  The signature on the piece is of a known NE gunsmith.  Granted, the furnishings are not what we would "expect" but I don't find that to be enough of a reason to immediately dismiss a NE origin; after all, how can we know what to expect of a 1773 pre-War New England rifle when we don't have another to compare?  Yes we can compare it to the many surviving fowlers, but if someone up there in 1773 wanted to stock up a rifle to perhaps mimic what was going on in PA and points South, perhaps he would look to pieces he had seen of that type rather than what everyone in MA was stocking.  So it ends up looking like a weird yet attractive 'combination' piece.  JMHO.

One interesting point which has been made in the past by multiple people is the location of the lock:  it fits the mortice well but the pan fence is considerably to the rear of the breech which is quite odd and awkward.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I'm sure this phenomenon will have struck others besides me: the persons who own these objects are the same persons who are writing these informational plaques (sometimes factually incorrect, often full of what Eric calls "creative leeway") and providing information for the writers of these articles, which will in turn be cited as published evidence of certain "facts" when the same persons sell the rifles at a later date.

A point which has certainly not gone unnoticed.  However, for many, the phrase "eyes wide shut" still seems to apply.

[WESTbury]

The signature on the piece is of a known NE gunsmith. 

Eric,

In my less than meager library on N.E. Firearms, I cannot find where a Tileston is listed as a NE Gunsmith. Would you please let me know where I can find him listed. I have Lindsay's N.E. Gun book but that book has some issues as we all know.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Andreasen states that Tileston "was more than likely the owner and not the maker." However, Andreason's article in MAA was from 1982 (when my hair was still black ) so I'm guessing there has been further research since then, that you are quoting.

Kolar's 2015 article states "the author has not found information in the records of the Massachusetts Historical Society that referred to Thomas Tileston as a gunsmith."

Kent

[smart dog]

Hi Kent,
You got me laughing because Lindsay locates Tileston in Duxbury but provides no documentation and then Whisker in his "Arms Makers of Mass" identifies a Thomas Tileston on the basis of the "Tileston" rifle. It is kind of a circular confirmation bias.  Nonetheless, we have carving on the rifle that is virtually identical to 2 NE fowlers by Holbrook.  In many circles, that would be sufficient to attribute a gun to a specific maker with the same style.

Eric, that odd positioning of the lock may have to do with accommodating the pan gutter and drain slot between the pan and fence.  Note the fence arches backward to form the drain slot.

dave

[WESTbury]

Dave,

Thanks for your observations on Tileston, the supposed and still unconfirmed (at least to me) gunsmith.

I'll consider Andreason's statement that Holbrook could be the maker of this rifle, until other documented evidence surfaces.

I am looking at page 174 of Lindsay's alphabetical listing of Massachusetts Small Arms Makers from his 1975 book and do not see Tileston's name. What list of Lindsay's are you referencing?

Where is Joe Puelo?

Kent

 

[smart dog]

Hi Kent,
Page 12 of Lindsay in his intro to NE rifles.

dave

[WESTbury]

Hi Kent,
Page 12 of Lindsay in his intro to NE rifles.
dave

Thanks Dave for the heads-up. Somewhat odd that he did not include Tileston in his lists at the other end of the book. Probably just an oversight the Proof Reader did not catch.

My attention was always focused on pages 65 to 91. Kind of myopic, but that is the way it was. I have not looked at the book for many years, until just the other day

Kent

[backsplash75]

I'm sure this phenomenon will have struck others besides me: the persons who own these objects are the same persons who are writing these informational plaques (sometimes factually incorrect, often full of what Eric calls "creative leeway") and providing information for the writers of these articles, which will in turn be cited as published evidence of certain "facts" when the same persons sell the rifles at a later date.

A point which has certainly not gone unnoticed.  However, for many, the phrase "eyes wide shut" still seems to apply.

Fidelio

[JV Puleo]

Hi,
Eric, the Berry is definitely post war but it is still one of his best.
Kent, they identify the iron mounted Tileston rifle as New England made and dated 1773.  The iron hardware on that gun just has to be seen.  It was made extremely well.  The maker and date are stamped on the barrel and the stock appears to be cherry.  If I recall, some folks suggest the gun was southern made but there is definitely a Thomas Tileston, gunsmith, documented from Mass.
dave

Thanks for the info Dave. Would love to see it. Is the rifle published anywhere?

As far as I know (which might not be far enough as usual) what most collectors consider the Classic New England Rifles, were not produced until late in the 18th Century.

I do know that Don Andreasen referred to the "Tileston" rifle on pg13 of his 1982 article, Observations on the New England Flintlock Rifle in MAA Magazine. Andreasen states that, "research indicates" that Tileston may have been the owner and that John Holbrok made the rifle. Without photos of the rifle, it is difficult to form an opinion. Can you give some particulars if you took a look at it? 

Perhaps Joe Puleo may weigh in here. He is very knowledgeable about firearms made in New England.

In any case, a New England Rifle is still out of place in a PA. Rifle display, in my opinion.

Kent

This rifle has been discussed endlessly and without any consensus being arrived at. Personally, I'm of the feeling that Tileson was probably the owner, not the maker. I believe we published pictures of it in MAA when the Army acquired it – which was fairy recently. If it was made (assembled might be a better term) in New England, I doubt that the rifled barrel was. The barrel could well have been imported and made into a rifle. Certainly rifles were known in England 1773 and a well-to-do American with an interest in such things could easily have imported a barrel and had it made into a rifle. He could also have purchased a barrel from one of the several Pennsylvania sources available. I haven't handled the gun myself and I suspect that, even if you were able to dismantle it, it would be difficult to tell where the barrel was made. If it was English-made, it would not have to have been proofed. In 1773 the requirement for proof only applied to complete guns sold in London and the surrounding area. It did not apply to exported guns or to gun parts.

I can't remember whether the information I've seen regarding this rifle has been published or not. I am privy to a lot of unpublished research and have to be very careful not to cite data that someone else has found but not published as yet so I'm  being vague here on purpose. As many of you know, I am very skeptical of attributions when no documentary or physical evidence survives and this is especially true of NE guns where there is very little difference between most of them regardless of the maker. That said, Holbrook was an excellent gunmaker — better than most. I've had at least one Holbrook fowler that was comparable to a "best quality" British fowler so I have a high regard for his craftsmanship. (I traded that fowler to Don Andreason for a NE rifle).

I'll add that very little emphasis should be placed on the stock wood. That's another of my projects but my preliminary research into the British imports of American hardwood shows that Walnut, Maple and Cherry, imported from American ports, were readily available from British timber merchants well before the American Revolution.

[Edit] Lindsey's book is just about worthless.

[WESTbury]

Joe,

Thank you for your sober insight and comments regarding this particular rifle, it is appreciated.

Kent

[Eric Kettenburg]

I might have fired off to quickly and will eat my words if required; I remember looking for Thomas Tileston many years ago and definitely remember finding something relative to him, but unfortunately I can no longer remember where I found it or what specifically it was.  I may have simply found a Thomas Tileston, but can not say for certain whether I found evidence of gunsmithing or not.  I will have to look for this.

I also believe I remember discussing this with Wallace at the same KRA show where these photos were taken, and I believe he mentioned Tilestons being in Virginia.  On that one, I can't say one way or the other.

[scottmc]

The pictures of the tileston rifle were great.  I have a question a little off topic.  I noticed on the tileston that there is a chunk of wood missing under the sear area of the gun.  I have seen this before and never gave it much thought but I was studying an original the other day for measurements and architecture and it had the same section missing and it was clearly intentionally cut away as the tileston appears.  I was told this was done so they could get lubrication to the sear area.  Seems crazy to do that to a beautiful, functioning rifle when you could easily remove the lock.
Was this a common practice?

[rich pierce]

Not a common practice. If a sear tip wears the sear bar keeps dropping lower. Also careless removal and re-installation of the lock can cause such wear. Could be other things as well.

[Eric Kettenburg]

No, this is the sear and tumbler interaction wearing and dropping the sear lower, and instead of modifying or repairing the sear as the arm drops lower through wear, it's easier albeit less attractive to simply cut away wood to allow for the sear dropping lower.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Oops was typing and Rich beat me to it!

[JV Puleo]

Hi Kent,
Page 12 of Lindsay in his intro to NE rifles.
dave

Thanks Dave for the heads-up. Somewhat odd that he did not include Tileston in his lists at the other end of the book. Probably just an oversight the Proof Reader did not catch.

My attention was always focused on pages 65 to 91. Kind of myopic, but that is the way it was. I have not looked at the book for many years, until just the other day

Kent

All of the names in Lindsay's list came from secondary sources, some of which were very dated if not outright questionable.

[scottmc]

Ok.  That makes sense.  Thanks for the explanation.

[smart dog]

Hi Guys,
Yes, as a sear tip wears it may drop lower but not if it hits the trigger bar.  For a sear to drop as low as you see on the Tileston rifle, the trigger bar would have to be so low that there must have been 1/4 to 3/8" creep before it engaged the sear.   

dave

[rich pierce]

Hi Guys,
Yes, as a sear tip wears it may drop lower but not if it hits the trigger bar.  For a sear to drop as low as you see on the Tileston rifle, the trigger bar would have to be so low that there must have been 1/4 to 3/8" creep before it engaged the sear.   

dave

True, but when the sear bar falls below the lockplate with the lock out of the mortise, it could perhaps cause wear or hogging out issues when the lock is removed and re-installed.

[Eric Kettenburg]

The trigger blade itself also typically wears at an even faster rate as the majority of them clearly were not casehardened.

[WESTbury]

The trigger blade itself also typically wears at an even faster rate as the majority of them clearly were not casehardened.

To Eric's point, photos attached showing the worn trigger blade and "hole" under the lock from a Graeff signed rifle.

Check out RCA# 28 &67 for a similar conditions.