In 1993, Don Vaughn and I co-authored a book on Lancaster rifles. In all truth, I wrote the book in its entirety and Don provided the access to the specimens, and copyread for clarity. Both aspects were necessary, and that's how this book came about. I do not offer the following as an excuse, but rather simply as a matter of fact. We were under time constraints by the publisher and had deadlines. It needed to be cranked out without delay.
After sixteen years or so, upon reflection, there are a few things I would have done differently. I make no apologies for the folkish drawings, as that is exactly what they were, done by me or by folks who were friends and helped out for the cost of a complimentary book or two. I also can't take credit for the absence of page numbers; that was a printer's error, and since they were paying for it, it was not done over. I'm looking at things that could actually be misleading, and here is my confession.
For starters, regarding the Beck rifle with the flame patchbox, on the page adjacent to the Beck pistol--it was clearly identified as a rifle with a patchbox applied later than the original rifle. We know this because the grooves for the wooden lid are extant and unused. The rifle has caused problems because some readers did not read the adjacent caption and have put this pattern into their minds as a Beck product. My opinion is that it is not so. I envision the added brass box as an attempt to replicate an acceptable blend to the rifle, but by an inferior hand. It is a nice rifle, but, for my purposes, it is not representative, and I would now leave the rifle out of the text.
Also, the Graeff and the Breitenherd signatures. All I'll say about them is that, in those days, I had friends at Quantico who had legitimate access to the labs there. I would have had both of those signatures vetted there as period applications...ruled in as probable, or ruled out. This was not done. The "Graeff" signature is faint, and, to be sure, you can see the same gun in George Shumway's work listed as the product of a different maker. Clearly what I think I saw and what George thought he saw were distinctly different. Could it be that we were both influenced by the desire to see what we wanted to see? I accept the possibility of error and should have tempered my language here. The Breitenherd signature is pronounced; I woke up one night wondering if it were, perhaps, too pronounced. Never saw another one, and the architecture of the smoothbore is really old but generic. Anyway, just one researcher's concern. I do not wish to denigrate any of these arms, just document my uncertainty on these specific points.
Next, the unsigned straight rifle, converted to percussion on the page adjacent to 3 hunting bags. I would have left it out. I am rather certain that it is a composite gun of married pieces. I once owned the piece and know it well, and am not playing with words. I did nothing to it, but wonder about it. It is not representative enough. I would not include it today, even though the patchbox is pure Lancaster and very well built.
Worst of all perhaps is the photo of the military musket adjacent to the vignette entitled "gunpowder and lead." I profess innocence on this terrible photograph, as it was the only acceptable specimen I could find nearby (in the Commonwealth "William Penn" Museum) and the Commonwealth insisted that I use their photographer and pay for the photo. This is the best my government could do; my tax dollars at work. Sorry.
I feel better now that I got that off my chest, as, at least, I got a chance to correct some possibly misleading words. I've never been told I wrote something wrong in this book, but, as you can surmise, I would not be offended one bit if you find a mistake. I just want to know about it so that it, too, can be corrected. JWH
