"J GRAEFF" signed rifle Lot 1100 at Morphy's Nov Auction

[WESTbury]

Does anybody know if the Graeff rifle in Morphy's Nov auction appears in any books or previous auctions?

[Molly]

What's the "button" like thing on the frizzen?

[Tanselman]

"Button" appears to be a rivet holding a thin "fresh" steel layer on the frizen face.

Shelby Gallien

[WESTbury]

There appears to be a rather large gap between the bottom edge of the lockplate and the lock mortice.

[Shreckmeister]

THERE APPEARS TO BE A RATHER LARGE GAP BETWEEN THE BOTTOM EDGE OF THE LOCKPLATE AND THE LOCK MORTICE.

I think you’re seeing the bevel of the lock plate

[JTR]

Kent, What are you looking for, a lock replacement, or what?

[rich pierce]

Looks like the bevel is casting a shadow. I don’t see a gap.

[smallpatch]

Beautiful piece. Very clean carving.

[WESTbury]

Beautiful piece. Very clean carving.

It is a great rifle.

[WESTbury]

Kent, What are you looking for, a lock replacement, or what?

The consensus is that the chamfer of the lockplate is the cause of the shadow. Very plausible explanation.

[WESTbury]

Take a close look at the great amount of deep wear to the re-soled Frizzen and the deep pitting on the Cock, and compare all of that to the relatively pitting free area of the barrel adjacent to the lock and the very small touch-hole.

One could reasonably conclude that, in contrast to Morphy's statement "Rifle appears to be original flint", something is afoot here. Of course, I guess that the word "appears" gives them an out.

All in all though, it is a great looking rifle. Would that it were mine!

[DaveM]

Kent - In general I would be surprised if more than 1 in 100 Antique pa rifles are original flint.  I always assume reconversion of varying quality.

[WESTbury]

Kent - In general I would be surprised if more than 1 in 100 Antique pa rifles are original flint.  I always assume reconversion of varying quality.

I would agree 100% with you. It's too bad that fact has not sifted down to these auctioneers or, as I suspect, they do not give a @!*%. What is amazing, as has been discussed many times on this forum, facts are trumped by dollars. This hurts our hobby and may discourage younger people from becoming interested in collecting these fine old rifles.

I'd like to amend this by asking everyone to please excuse my Scots-Irish/Welsh Temper.

[JTR]

Well, Kent, I have to smile and laugh a little bit at your comments regarding auctions.
In one respect you're dead on right; Auctions are all about dollars!
Can you imagine bringing your gun to an auctioneer and having him say 'Great gun, I'll sell it for as little as possible to give someone a great deal!' I'd guess that guy would be out of business in short order.

As for the guns we're interested in, Kentucky rifles, for the most part they come down through time with absolutely no history. If your lucky, there might be a previous owner known, or maybe a few on the Great guns. As for work done on them, there's pretty much no history. Add that to the fact that these guns were being restored at least as early as Dillin points out in his book of 1924, and you have a huge black hole!

To move on to today, you have an auction house that might be handling a thousands of items at a large auction, with maybe less than 50 being Kentucky rifles. Now, I don't know how many appraisers they have, but I doubt appraisers have more than an hour per Kentucky rifle to determine what it is and what's been done to it over the past centuries, and write up an appraisal. And you really think, or expect, that they're going to get it exactly right all the time?

I know you're new to Kentucky rifle collecting, and it takes some time to learn what's what. The best advice I can give is to look at the pictures of a gun in an auction and judge for yourself based on what you see. If you don't think the lock in the Graeff is original, don't be surprised. Lot's of these guns have an early restoration, and then a later one to fix the errors of the early one.

In the end, just remember buying from an auction requires you to do your home work and have a sound knowledge of what you're interested in. I don't believe a reputable auction house will lie to you outright, but also realize that they might not be correct on every detail. 

We have an auction appraiser on this forum, and maybe he can elaborate on this better than I.

John

[WESTbury]

To move on to today, you have an auction house that might be handling a thousands of items at a large auction, with maybe less than 50 being Kentucky rifles. Now, I don't know how many appraisers they have, but I doubt appraisers have more than an hour per Kentucky rifle to determine what it is and what's been done to it over the past centuries, and write up an appraisal. And you really think, or expect, that they're going to get it exactly right all the time?
John

I'm not fully on board with the argument of not enough time to appraise something accurately. If an "expert" describer is going to put a relatively high estimate on a given Lot, they are obliged to justify that, not only to a prospective bidder but to the consignor and the auction house. The use of the phrase "APPEARS TO BE" is problematic. That phrase is little more than a "wink and nod" in my opinion.

I've read most of the other Lot descriptions in this auction and they are quite forthright in acknowledging the conditions, whether they be replaced locks, reconverted, etc., in most cases. If the describers can meet that threshold of accuracy and candor in those cases, it should not be a stretch to expect that to be the case for high estimated lots and leave the cute word games to used car salesmen.

Just to be to clear, if the "appears to be" phrase had been left out, I would have absolutely no problem with the balance of the Lot Description.


 

[JTR]

To move on to today, you have an auction house that might be handling a thousands of items at a large auction, with maybe less than 50 being Kentucky rifles. Now, I don't know how many appraisers they have, but I doubt appraisers have more than an hour per Kentucky rifle to determine what it is and what's been done to it over the past centuries, and write up an appraisal. And you really think, or expect, that they're going to get it exactly right all the time?
John

Just to be to clear, if the "appears to be" phrase had been left out, I would have absolutely no problem with the balance of the Lot Description.

Sometimes, "appears to be" might be as accurate as possible.

The most reliable option if you don't trust the auction house, is to not buy from them!

[WESTbury]

The most reliable option if you don't trust the auction house, is to not buy from them!

 

That is good advice.
I've bought from a few auction houses, including Morphy's and would do so again in their case.

$#*!, I would bid on Lot 1100 because it is such a great looking rifle and more importantly, it has the Graeff name on the barrel. Unfortunately, after 12 years of retirement, I would be very hard pressed to even bid the $10k they are asking for as an opener.

[JTR]

The most reliable option if you don't trust the auction house, is to not buy from them!

 



$#*!, I would bid on Lot 1100 because it is such a great looking rifle and more importantly, it has the Graeff name on the barrel. Unfortunately, after 12 years of retirement, I would be very hard pressed to even bid the $10k they are asking for as an opener.

Well bid the 10, and at least you can say you tried! 

[spgordon]

I don't believe a reputable auction house will lie to you outright, but also realize that they might not be correct on every detail. 

There's a broad area between these two possibilities.

I don't think anybody would fault an auction house--or anybody--for being incorrect.

If they know that something is incorrect, and include it anyway, then they are "lying outright." I believe this happens.

But the more common occurrence is that they should know it is incorrect. It is easy to have known, in many cases. But it is not in their interest to know. That is the whole point. So they take somebody's word, they don't do (simple) research, etc. I guess this gives them deniability. (Not plausible, in my opinion, but deniability.)

The issue is not whether a particular person will or will not bid on an item. The issue is that, although the law (sadly) seems to protect these auction houses from legal responsibility, this practice is equivalent to fraud. Claiming something is what it isn't, in order to sell something at a higher value, is fraud. Whether anybody is taken in by the fraud is beside the point.

Saying that it shouldn't matter to you if you aren't going to bid on it sort of like saying that you think it's okay to put razor blades in Halloween candy because you aren't going to go trick or treating. There's a more important issue than whether you yourself will be harmed.

And of course a buyer who is taken in has an enormous incentive to keep the fiction going. Next sale, same auction house or different one, same story. And perhaps an exhibit or two, with fictional signage, can "amplify" (as my students say) the fictional story.

Who wants to speak up in favor of fraud? Anybody?

[JTR]

I don't believe a reputable auction house will lie to you outright, but also realize that they might not be correct on every detail. 

Saying that it shouldn't matter to you if you aren't going to bid on it sort of like saying that you think it's okay to put razor blades in Halloween candy because you aren't going to go trick or treating. There's a more important issue than whether you yourself will be harmed.

If you're pointing that analogy at me, that is quite disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself!
John

[spgordon]

I don't believe a reputable auction house will lie to you outright, but also realize that they might not be correct on every detail. 

Saying that it shouldn't matter to you if you aren't going to bid on it sort of like saying that you think it's okay to put razor blades in Halloween candy because you aren't going to go trick or treating. There's a more important issue than whether you yourself will be harmed.

If you're pointing that analogy at me, that is quite disgusting, and you should be ashamed of yourself!
John

I didn't point it at anybody. I just said that it is a problem if a business is misrepresenting things--whether or not I happen to be in the market for what that business is selling. This is easily understandable in every other aspect of our lives: I have never understood why auction houses get a pass because of the "buyer beware" saying.

[JHeath]

I've been collecting images and info of English sporting flintlock rifles from auction sites.

Auction listings of American rifles seems always to fall between "uncertain" and "sketchy". That is interesting. They got left in the barn or over a sooty mantle, shot out, traded for a horse then given away to repay a debt, rebored, cut to half-stock, converted then reconverted. Stocks are dried and cracked so inletting is hard to gauge as original. Phony "period" repairs hide modern alterations.

Most of the English sporting rifles I see at auction are completely different. The wear patterns on American rifles that make their history uncertain say a lot about American culture, about which most of us would be proud. Generations of hard honest use by common men. So it's not all bad.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Could someone post a link?

[WESTbury]

Could someone post a link?

https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/_A__JOHN_GRAEFF_FLINTLOCK_KENTUCKY_RIFLE-LOT553295.aspx

[rich pierce]

It’s a real beauty. Anybody care to wager on the over/under for this one?