Tool marks on original guns?

[Acer Saccharum]

I decided to split this topic out from 'removing scratches' thread, so it can live free without the worry of sticking to the original topic.

I have to ask, another myth buster question, what did they do back in the day? Would they bother getting out all the little scratches and scuffs?

Of course, times and expectations have changed. But if you are truly wanting to replicate a 'workmanlike' approach taken back in the day, I doubt you will fuss over tiny scratches. They come with the territory.

Look at this high art gun, and tell me if they cared about the tiny scratches and the dimples. Some of these marks are dings from handling, but there are tool marks a-plenty. Does this ruin the experience?

[smshea]

As far as originals go I think if you look close at many of them will find tool marks of various types, at least that is my experience. I had a very nice Roop in the shop(I posted some pics a while back) that had the original scribe line under the finish running between the tang and the nose of the comb clear as day.
 I am just finishing up a plain rifle(schimmel) that I purposely left some very light rasp marks because some of those didn't show the degree of finish work that you see on most higher end guns. I certainly understand that might make some cringe
 As far as the light colored stain , I mix with alcohol and it doesn't penetrate very deep so you can scrape it all off if you wanted to( I Don't) but  I have used aqua Fortis over the light stain with no problems. If your raising the grain and sanding ,just be sure to pay special attention to the bad spots.   

[Bill of the 45th]

Heck, I think E. K. has made high art of leaving tool marks on some of his antiqued works.   I think we have gotten carried away with perfection.

Bill

[Acer Saccharum]

Carried away with perfection? Hmmm. Depends on the style of gun, time period, etc. Also if you are not concerned with replicating antique finishing methods, you may sand your stock, work it up to a sheen with abrasives. Do what makes you happy. 

I am glad to know how folks get the finishes they do.

[Jim Kibler]

Putting historical correctness aside, I think a highly finished rifle or one showing lots of tool marks can both be equally appealing.  What matters is how you go about acomplishing each.

[Dphariss]

I have had this discussion a few times with friends.
Consensus? Sloppy work is sloppy work no matter when or who does it.
Not all the old guns look like this. Thus it WAS possible to do good work back in the day if the maker had a standard of excellence.
There is no excuse for recreating poor quality work. Unless the maker wants too for some weird reason or has no standards.

Dan

[Madcaster]

 There are some REALLY GOOD suggestions here,thank you all for being so helpful!

[Jim Kibler]

I have had this discussion a few times with friends.
Consensus? Sloppy work is sloppy work no matter when or who does it.
Not all the old guns look like this. Thus it WAS possible to do good work back in the day if the maker had a standard of excellence.
There is no excuse for recreating poor quality work. Unless the maker wants too for some weird reason or has no standards.

Dan

I'm not sure it's so simple.  If the intent was to not finely finish a gun and leave tool marks, I'm not sure it should be considered sloppy work.  Semantics aside, work that shows tool marks can be as asthetically pleasing as that which does not to my eye.  Take for example the rifle Wallace Gusler carved in his stock carving video.  Tool marks are all over this gun, but to my eye, it's fantastic.  He isn't relying a perfect finish to carry the gun.  In addition, care is given to the nature of the tool marks.  For example, gouge cuts in the carving follow the flow of the design and too me add interest.  Another example is in the background surface.  You'll likely not find evidence of the corner of a chisel digging in, but rather there will likely be a texture createded from all the little flat surfaces resulting from all the chisel cuts.  This is just one example.  There are others that like to leave tool marks and  create beautiful results as well.  Perhaps it may help to think of these tool marks as a surface texture.  Done well, they're not comletely random and the result is from a controlled deliberate process. 

[brokenflint]

I have had this discussion a few times with friends.
Consensus? Sloppy work is sloppy work no matter when or who does it.
Not all the old guns look like this. Thus it WAS possible to do good work back in the day if the maker had a standard of excellence.
There is no excuse for recreating poor quality work. Unless the maker wants too for some weird reason or has no standards.

I so disagree with this Dan.  I think Jim has part of it in his response, but to me its a current day assessment of the original craftsman's time period.  Not a correct judgement IMO.  Even if you build for a living you have tremendous advantages over the original craftsman, namely your client has expendable cash for which he can lay out whatever level of craftsmanship he desires.  The original craftsman was working to earn a living, for the most part supplying a general commodity for everyday use, with the  occasionally tricked out gunn.  Attainable levels of craftsmanship differ from man to man, some apprentices may have had it, others didn't.  To me this doesn't equate (for the most part) to sloppy craftsmanship as he probably was doing the best he could (with exceptions of course).  Materials today are usually crafted from investment cast parts, not forged.  this again allows the current day builder to produce a better product, as the investment parts are usually better quality than hadmade parts which have to be completed in short time frames. 

He had good days and he had bad days, just as I'm sure everyone of us has had in our working career.  You can create a judgement on a single extant piece but that will never be indicative of any man's work. Example here, let me see your first piece compared to your last piece.  We use modern tools and shops, most current day folks do this as a hobby which affords a higher level of workmanship mostly imposed on ourselves.  don't discount out an annal retentive attitudewith quality workmanship, this leads to never getting anything done. 

As an added plus the tools marks have left the clues as to how the original craftsman made his product, thereby helping us understand his methods, tools available to him et al.  My 2c  I'll shut up now

Broke  good Journeys, walk in no man's shadow

[brokenflint]

Vpitman  sorry for my last post straying from your thread.  Give the diluted yellow food coloring a shot on some scrap pieces from your stash, preferably from the piece you're working on if it was a blank. 

Broke

[Jim Kibler]

One final point that I think needs to be made clear.  Stocks showing tool marks were accepted as quality work during the eighteenth century.  If the Haushka fowler Tom posted has them, you better believe they would have been accepted over here.  With that being said, it seems at least to me that in some regions in the later golden age period, there was an attempt to focus on finer surface finishes.  Ok I'll quit now!

[Acer Saccharum]

Ok I'll quit now!

Don't quit now, Jim you just got going!

Yes, this has strayed from the original topic, but in a very educational way. I also think the original question has been answered to a large degree.

All that said, the kind of surface treatment you wish to develop is entirely up to you. If you wish to capture an accurate historical gun, you have some serious homework to do. A highly sanded and polished finish is wrong in my opinion on replica of the 18th Century, just as toolmarks would be a problem for the high end contemporary gun.

In an age where the customer is far more discriminating and educated than they were ten or twenty years ago, so, too must the builders increase their level of skill and awareness of historical precedent.

[holzwurm]

One final point that I think needs to be made clear.  Stocks showing tool marks were accepted as quality work during the eighteenth century.  If the Haushka fowler Tom posted has them, you better believe they would have been accepted over here.  With that being said, it seems at least to me that in some regions in the later golden age period, there was an attempt to focus on finer surface finishes.  Ok I'll quit now!

.... which speaks to the issue for whom was the rifle being made? A rural sportsman or local merchant might not even pay attention to minor imperfections - the gun was a tool. However, IMHO, if the piece was going into the local Lords castle that rifle was a close to perfect as the maker was capable. In the latter case I'm pretty sure the maker wouldn't have presented that stock to lord as a finish piece.

Coincidentally, I had this same conversation about tool marks with the conservitrix of a Swiss museum last week. It was an area she had never considered.

[Acer Saccharum]

Not only do we have tool marks on the wood, but on the metal as well.

This is a 1760-80 era barrel, imported, I believe, from Germany or Begium.



The above is an underlug. If it is mounted crosswise, it's a rear sight. (seen EK do this)

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Each time I have had the privilege to study original longrifles, I have been impressed by the presence of sanding, chisel and scraping marks quite visible.  It is well known that most of the rifles that we see in texts and collections have been restored, some several times.  So, which of the marks is original to the gun, and which were created by the restorer?  I think one can assume that chisel marks on the ground around relief carving are original, but some of the sanding/scraping marks may not be.
I have been impressed and pleased to view photographs of all the great contemporary guns that have been presented here and on the blogspot, and at Dixon's Fayre.  They include the entire gamut of craftsmanship, and yet I love them all.

[Jim Kibler]

One final point that I think needs to be made clear.  Stocks showing tool marks were accepted as quality work during the eighteenth century.  If the Haushka fowler Tom posted has them, you better believe they would have been accepted over here.  With that being said, it seems at least to me that in some regions in the later golden age period, there was an attempt to focus on finer surface finishes.  Ok I'll quit now!

.... which speaks to the issue for whom was the rifle being made? A rural sportsman or local merchant might not even pay attention to minor imperfections - the gun was a tool. However, IMHO, if the piece was going into the local Lords castle that rifle was a close to perfect as the maker was capable. In the latter case I'm pretty sure the maker wouldn't have presented that stock to lord as a finish piece.

Coincidentally, I had this same conversation about tool marks with the conservitrix of a Swiss museum last week. It was an area she had never considered.

holzwurm,

I hear what your saying, and it's my feeling that it's true to some degree.  I do think that our expectations are generally different today, however.  Machines and the industrial revolution have had an impact on us.  As an aside, the Haushka fowler shown is no slouch of a gun.  I don't know if it was made for a "local lord" or not, but it stands right up there with some of the best work of the period in my opinion.

[Acer Saccharum]

In reference to the Hauschka gun, from an artist's point of view, the creation was the focus of the gun; finishing the wood appears to have been secondary. The metal work was finished to the n'th degree.

Often times on old guns like this the wood is finished a certain degree, and the metal work is finished to a much higher level. I understand that these guns were the product of workshops, with craftsmen from many different fields, combining their efforts to make a completed product. In my limited experience, the metal parts are almost ALWAYS finished better than the wood. Does sthis mean that wood work was not held in as high a regard as metal? Is there a status thing going on in the workshops, woodbutchers vs metalsmiths?

Sometimes a little scratching leads to a much bigger question.

Hauschka lock and carving:


photo use courtesy of the Met.

[rich pierce]

There were different standards and traditions in different eras.  Common everyday export double barreled shotguns on the mid-1800's often show immaculate inletting.  This continued with the fine cartridge double barreled shotguns in America in the late 1800's and early 1900's.  This type of "English" fit and finish on common or plain guns seemed to emerge in the 1770's from what I have seen.

But in the 1700's in the colonies, we see a lot of grind marks on the bottom flats of barrels as Acer showed, a lot of round barrel channels for octagon barrels, and generally, workmanlike "get 'er dun" inletting and surface finishing.  Carving and engraving were often unsophisticated by European standards.

There are plenty of exceptions and these are among the guns we cherish the most.  But you'll still often see work marks on metal and wood alike on "Golden Age" Becks etc. Pits in castings, some file marks on furniture, scraper marks on wood.   Philly school guns seemed to be emulating European standards.

[Stophel]

I don't mind seeing tool marks...in fact, I like to see them.  I just don't like little gouges, or dips where there shouldn't be.

Super fine surfaces simply were not expected 200+ years ago.  Remember, this was a job to these people, they had to make money and get these guns out the door.  Besides, the vast majority of people would NOT notice, nor would they be able to appreciate the gunsmith taking inordinate time to finely sand every surface to a glass smooth polish.

So far, I have seen VERY few 18th century guns (and in photos only) that show the kind of "perfection" that is desired by some today.  Very few.  Everything else I have seen, even "high art" guns made for royalty show pe-lenty of tool marks.  Rough backgrounds to carving, scraper marks, file marks on metal, etc.

 

I have this one old German gun, about 1720 or so with a wonderfully original surface.  Never sanded down nor refinished.  I wonder what the original finish was..the grain is fairly open, other than the dirt ground into the fore end.  It exhibits no real trace of anything.  I waxed it just to make it look like something again.  Tool marks all over it.  It's not rough, mind you, but the surface shows facets where the scraper ran across it.  Hard to tell from my photos, but maybe you can see in this one what I mean:


The wrist is not really round, but it is made up of a multitude of narrow flats on the wrist where the scraper was run down it!

The triggerguard, on the other hand is magnificently well polished...much more finely filed than I usually see.

Somewhere I have a "contraband" photo of a chest of drawers made in Lancaster, PA with a wonderful potted flower design carved into the crest.  The background of the carving is just left as it was chiseled away.  Rough and gouge-marked, which would absolutely mortify some people today, I'm sure.  It is magnificent.

[Acer Saccharum]

Horrors!

Another gun from the Metropolitan. Look at the background scuffs. This would not pass these days as acceptable. Would anyone have the nerve to buck the current trends toward perfection? Hmmm. EK has done quite a bit of that.

close up:

[keweenaw]

When I sit in our booth at Friendship each June I see a lot of contemporary guns going by.  Some are finished to the nth degree, sanded as smooth as a baby's bottom and finished like glass.  Locks polished like chrome and barrels polished to the same extent before being plum browned. Obviously good workmanship, carefully  and time comsumingly done with nary a tool mark in sight.  And they just look terrible as longrifles.

Tom

[Acer Saccharum]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder; you cannot dictate beauty. You cannot force anyone to like something they are not already in love with.

I find the more I look at the old guns, the more I am drawn to them. The tool marks say to me that a man worked on this gun. I see his mark. It's not like some God laid down the art on a perfect plane; a man did this, and here is his mark, hundreds of years later. I get clues to how well he could see, how sharp his tools were, what level of workmanship he believed in. It's a tangible link to the past. That's what excites me.

[Jim Kibler]

Horrors!

Another gun from the Metropolitan. Look at the background scuffs. This would not pass these days as acceptable. Would anyone have the nerve to buck the current trends toward perfection? Hmmm. EK has done quite a bit of that.

close up:

Now this brings another point to mind.  There was sloppy workmanship then as there is now!  Even if different standards exist between now and then, everything from the past doesn't get a pass in my opinion.  I realize this is somewhat subjective, but the standard I use is wheter it is asthetically appealing.  The scratches shown above detract from the carving in my opinion.  The facets shown on the gun Chris posted are beautiful and extremely appealing to me, however.  This goes back to my previous post on how the method of obtaining  a degree finish matters. 

[Mike Gahagan]

Slick and perfectly made guns are beautiful and have their place,but I have begun to feel that a gun built with imperfections has more soul and character.It took years for Earl Lanning to beat that into my head.

[Stophel]

I agree, Jim, the scratches would drive me nuts, but a warbly surface in the carving background wouldn't bother me a bit.