Author Topic: Tool marks on original guns? (Read 29056 times)

JTR · « **Reply #50 on:** November 18, 2009, 12:07:53 AM »

Tom,
Funny you should mention my rifle because I’ve been working on it for the past 12 weeks or so. Although some here might not agree, after much thought, I’ve decided to put it back to its original configuration as much as possible.
And you’re right, initially there was some discussion as to just who might have done the carving. Although not a distant departure from his usual designs, it does seem to be somewhat better, or at least more detailed than usual in most respects.
Since buying that rifle I’ve found, or at least seen in pictures, two other Dickerts with similar carving and with the two moons on either side of the cheekpiece star, one relief carved like mine and the other incised carved. The incised carved one and mine both have the large daisy patchbox, and the other relief carved rifle has the small daisy box.
Given the similarities between these three rifles, they must have all been made more or less around the same time, yet two are relief carved and one incised. One thing for sure is that all three were carved by the same hand. During the past year I’ve studied and compared the carving on every Dickert rifle I could find in the books, plus showing mine to a few very knowledgeable friends, and at this point have no doubt that Dickert himself did the work.
This thread has been a good one with many well thought opinions. Personally, I’ve never doubted that the old makers routinely produced guns of varying quality as demanded by the customers. The same as a modern gun makers do today for the same reasons.
Also, if you think about it, rough finishing on the interior parts wouldn’t be unusual; rounded out barrel channels, grinding stone marks on the underside barrel flats, etc. One only needs to look at, and into, contemporary furniture of the time. While the outside of say a chest of drawers might be finely finished maple or cherry, the inside of the piece with be made of tulip poplar, with no finish what so ever inside. That guns should have been made any differently seems unrealistic.
John

Stophel · « **Reply #51 on:** November 18, 2009, 12:30:20 AM »

Acer, my Massachusetts rifle (ca 1820, and not exactly the highest grade) though well worn, still shows scraper marks under the cheekpiece. I don't know if I can do any photos that actually show it, but I'll try...

Stophel · « **Reply #52 on:** November 18, 2009, 12:43:07 AM »

Now, in the Frazer Historical Arms Museum there is (or at least there was a couple of years ago when I was there) a rifle, maker I don't recall, location I don't recall...probably of the 1810-1820 time period that was absolutely magnificent. That I do recall. Smooth, slick, very finely done, and in pristine condition. Clearly built as a top-grade gun, and not your run of the mill piece...or even a typical really nice piece. Must have cost the guy a fortune 185 years ago.

smshea · « **Reply #53 on:** November 18, 2009, 01:37:47 AM »

Those European guns posted earlier are good examples of tool marks on original guns but I would call them very extreme examples in terms of American built Kentucky's. Kentucky's as we study them today were built over a period of 75 to 100 years. 1750-1840 give or take around the edges and we are going to try to apply the same standards to these guns? Tool marks on Kentuckys generally are limited to light rasp marks and often not so light scraper marks. File Marks not completely polished out on brass furniture... things like that. Ive never seen one that resembled a high school shop project to my eye ,at least not if you are willing to judge them individually by maker, region and time period.
I must admit to not having many close up picture's of tool marks on originals because those are not the type of things I would take pictures of. I don't go out of my way to reproduce exact tool marks but rather don't worry about the occasional one left on a gun if ...again the maker, region and time period allow. I.e. I would pay extra attention to a Beck-ish rifle ...not so much on a J. Angstadt-esk rifle. Its apples and oranges... but both kentucks.
As to barn guns being a figment of anyones imagination? Here in Pa. one needs only go to the Allentown gun show or any of the expert restoration guys or any of the stock carvers or yard sales or Dixon's wall and ceiling or any collector who is willing to show you the stuff he collected over the years that aren't "perfect" kentuckys ... and you will see plain guns and pieces of plain guns. Lots of old butt stocks that cracked through the lock area and the front half is long gone. Some with butt plates or showing evidence that there was one... and some without. Most with trigger guards ...some without. Many with a box or the inlet where there was one ...but plenty without. Entry pipes ....yes and no.
While the German farmers in the valley region between the Delaware and the Susquehanna were Frugal , I wouldn't say they were all poor . Still true today. They were very obviously buying these rifles as well as the nicer ones. Sorry

Acer Saccharum · « **Reply #54 on:** November 18, 2009, 02:02:11 AM »

Here is a section from a fine little jaeger, ca 1780, not visible tool marks, with the exception where the carved lock skirt meets the moulded line running along the forestock. It's a tough place to clean out.

The scratches I believe are from handling.

Same jaeger, thimble area. No visible toolmarks, though there is a fair amount of wear.

smshea · « **Reply #55 on:** November 18, 2009, 02:51:32 AM »

I'm not much on blowing pictures of other peoples guns around without permission as that will get you in trouble in these parts but here are a few

A nice rifle and all those marks inside the carving pattern are not all handling marks. Good enough for Peter Berry,Good enough for me . As a side note this rifle was never more than 10 miles from the place it was built untill it found it present home.

This scribe line is under the original finish. A very nice J.Roop rifle.
Both by well known builders, One 18th century(Likely)... One Nineteenth century. Both Very Collectable Kentuckys(They all are in my opinion).

caliber45 · « **Reply #56 on:** November 18, 2009, 03:14:38 AM »

Gents -- As usual, I'm probably veering away from the point-in-question, but I'll submit anyway. On the question of Remington vs. "original": Many years back, I'd saved enough to (finally) purchase a long-desired Winchester lever-action .30-30. Went to the gun shop where I knew they'd have them. In browsing the shop, I discovered two "used" rifles, both Winchesters: one in .30 WCF (later .30-30) and another in a more obscure, smaller, varmint caliber. The new .30-30s on the rack were, in my eyes, gorgeous. The old-timers (six-digit serial number on the .30-30) were dinged, dirty, lacking bluing, etc. Price for each was about the same as for a new one. The old .30 WCF had been rebarreled, but it had a 26-inch octagonal barrel (take-down!) and just cried out to me. I forewent a new 'chester and purchased the old-timer, which had magic. It had the expected accumulation of decades and decades of leading (still has some of it). I took out as much as I dared. Still have it. My younger daughter has laid claim to it when I'm gone. All of which is to say: Old-and-less-than-perfect has magic that new-and-perfect can never achieve -- at least not in our lifetimes. FWIW. -- paulallen, tucson

Acer Saccharum · « **Reply #57 on:** November 18, 2009, 06:03:36 AM »

Jacob Kuntz rifle, from the Met. ca 1809/10

This surface appears to be original varnish, with very smooth wood. I do not see scraper markings or scuffing. Almost looks sanded. The contours are very smooth and slick. This surface looks original to me, with some wear, and waxing, cleaning, with the occasional oil rub. The carving has a fair amount of dirt in it. Note the modeling cuts were never super finished.

From the carving behind the cheekpiece, up near the comb.

Jim Filipski · « **Reply #58 on:** November 18, 2009, 06:14:18 AM »

Quote from: Jim Kibler on November 17, 2009, 04:59:13 PM

In my opinion, when done welll, leaving tool marks does not detract from the appearance of a gun, but can actually add to it. Look at some of the work of Eric Kettenburg, Mark Silver, Frank House, Wallace Gusler and others. when they produce a gun and choose to finish it in a manner that tool marks are left, the results are often fantastic to my eye. There has been a definite trend for some to try to work more in the manner of the original gunsmiths. I think those with interest in these guns are becoming educated as well. It seems work of this type is being well received. Not because people force themselves to or think they should, but because it looks good and has appeal!

Since this is still going on ( and on & on)
I would just like to say

Jim Kibler
You hit it right on with the above comments!

It is not just how clean, how precise...how scratched , how rough.... It is how it feels to the heart & eye! Forget the mind.
....the Hauschuka gun is great even with all it's scratches

A High art gun can be too as long as it appeals to the heart & eye

Just my rant

Acer Saccharum · « **Reply #59 on:** November 18, 2009, 06:21:41 AM »

Why is everyone ranting? Can't we just talk civilly about this?

Tom

axelp · « **Reply #60 on:** November 18, 2009, 05:38:31 PM »

Some thoughts from a non-builder but a professional artist of a different sort. What is more art? Photo realism? Brush strokes, and roughness? or Abstract?

Its all art of course. So what makes a painting more appealing to some folks? I think its the balance of emotion and tactile feeling one gets when he/she sees and feels the humanity that went into the work.

I personally am much more intrigued by a piece with visible honest (not made up) work marks than I am with smooth modeled perfection. I appreciate the skills that create such, but the simplicity and economy of effort is what really gets to me. Who does not admire Don Getz and his guns that were made in just a few days? Why is that? Because the guy can do this with a minimum number of steps, instead of cranking and working and reworking for months...

I am reminded of Japanese painting where just one simple stroke expresses so much more than a hundred other strokes.

So in closing, forced perfection and forced crudeness can be equally lacking in expression. But the balance of skill and economy is what is truly appealing. --at least to me.

Ken

Dave B · « **Reply #61 on:** November 18, 2009, 06:45:23 PM »

Here is a remnant butt stock that shows some workman like tool marks. Sorry for the poor photo quality I will have to retry later tonight when I have more time.

The flats left on the crown of the wrist section look like spoke shave flats or maybe made by a scraper. Trying to get the light just right to catch them is tough.

Jim Kibler · « **Reply #62 on:** November 18, 2009, 06:49:48 PM »

Sure do like what you said Ken. Tool marks and evidence of how it was made can become part of the final artistic expression. I prefer to think of them as an opportunity, rather than something to apalogize about. What matters is how a surface with texture and tool marks are created. In other words, the process needs to be planned and controlled to some degree for the results to be most effective. This is in no way related to poor workmanship or mistakes.

brokenflint · « **Reply #63 on:** November 18, 2009, 09:24:28 PM »

How about the availibility of tools on the impact of craftsmanship? I would think that this might have an impact on the level of craftsmanship produced. Although an apprentice was to receive a set of tools upon completion of the apprenticeship, I would think both the number and quality of those tools would vary tremendously from master to master who sponsored the apprentice. As the smith acquired additional tools which bettered suited a particular task, so might his level of craftsmanship improve. Just something I was thinking about

Broke

Dphariss · « **Reply #64 on:** December 06, 2009, 01:15:18 AM »

Kindig reports people, collectors anyway, scraping and refinishing kentuckys.

Funny the gun in the link below does not look like it was carved by a simian with a piece of barbed wire.
I guess no "lets clean it up" collectors got it in their grasp.
http://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=7796.0

Dan

JTR · « **Reply #65 on:** December 06, 2009, 01:40:05 AM »

Quote from: Dphariss on December 06, 2009, 01:15:18 AM

Kindig reports people, collectors anyway, scraping and refinishing kentuckys.

Darn no good collectors anyway, they ought to all be shot!
And of course all the guns in the Kindig collection were pure untouched as the driven snow examples.

Waiting for my bullet, John

Dphariss · « **Reply #66 on:** December 06, 2009, 04:53:40 AM »

Quote from: JTR on December 06, 2009, 01:40:05 AM

Quote from: Dphariss on December 06, 2009, 01:15:18 AM
Kindig reports people, collectors anyway, scraping and refinishing kentuckys.

Darn no good collectors anyway, they ought to all be shot!
And of course all the guns in the Kindig collection were pure untouched as the driven snow examples.

Waiting for my bullet, John

But he still did us a great service.
But his comments on "definishing" are valid.
But there have been a lot of guns "improved" by some collectors.
Not all are guilty of such things but its been going on for a long time.
None the less when you see a Kentucky with scrape marks and obvious workman ship that does not meet with the rest of the guns quality you must wonder or at least stop and think before assuming some maker left the wood that rough. There was a certain level of competition and if TOO sloppy looking its might not attract a buyer. Mush less the snickers from the other makers.

Dan

Acer Saccharum · « **Reply #67 on:** December 06, 2009, 06:10:25 PM »

I have seen some terrible things done to some old guns, to make them more attractive. To really valuable old guns, too, mind you. Not just the money aspect, but from the point of view of a builder trying to see what tools were used and how, this is a crime. All that history wiped out with a scraper and polyurethane.

Dan, thanks for the link to the Ron Scott pictures.

But simian carving?

It really depends on what grade gun I ammaking, what kind of finish is appropriate for the social status of the customer, what the economies of the time period I am working within, etc. I do not believe in finishing every gun to perfection levels. It's not practical, and not desired in many cases. A hunter wants something he can drag through the swamp, wire inlay and relief carving will get passed over for a good, durable gun. That every gun should be finished to the level of today's expectations is not part of my program.

I need a change of diet from gun to gun. It has to fuel my interest, believe me, but that does not mean fancy all the time. There has to be something intriguing about what I am building, or I am bored to tears. But that is a luxury, since I don't do this for a living.

JTR · « **Reply #68 on:** December 06, 2009, 08:39:47 PM »

Quote

But he still did us a great service.
But his comments on "definishing" are valid.
But there have been a lot of guns "improved" by some collectors.
Not all are guilty of such things but its been going on for a long time.
None the less when you see a Kentucky with scrape marks and obvious workman ship that does not meet with the rest of the guns quality you must wonder or at least stop and think before assuming some maker left the wood that rough. There was a certain level of competition and if TOO sloppy looking its might not attract a buyer. Mush less the snickers from the other makers.

Dan

Oh I agree that he did us all a great service and that without him we'd all still be searching in the dark!
And I've seen my share of guns that have been pretty well screwed up by the well intentioned.
On the butt stock pictured above, I assume the rasping might have been done after the fact too, as the carved area looks much better done, if you look past the old age cracks, ripples and warping.
Some old guns need 'fixing', and some don't. As to which is which, is something not everyone will ever agree on. Although I don't think a scrapper or polyurethane has a use on any of them.
John

kentucky bucky · « **Reply #69 on:** December 06, 2009, 10:02:51 PM »

I like seeing the human hand in the hand made. Perfection if fine, but look at one particular modern gun and you've seen them all of that type. They are very boring to look at because you can't see the builder's hand in the gun.

smart dog · « **Reply #70 on:** December 06, 2009, 11:28:19 PM »

There is a philosophy or style of art in Japan called Wabi Sabi. The basic principles are that nothing is perfect, nothing lasts forever, and everything changes with time. Artists and craftsmen who follow Wabi Sabi prominantly display imperfections in their work as part of the art form or style. It is very appealing. In "Muzzleblasts" there are a number of articles on gunsmithing showing elaborate jigs and set ups to make perfect holes, ramrod grooves, etc. Almost every one of the guns pictured in those articles as examples of the techniques discussed have perfect inlets, flawless smoothing and finishing, and machine-like precision. Not one of them appeals to me. In my opinion,they all lack soul and any sense of human feeling or expression. I do not consider them artistic in any sense despite the precision of the machine-aided craftsmanship.

dave

Dphariss · « **Reply #71 on:** December 07, 2009, 06:52:12 PM »

Quote from: Acer Saccharum on December 06, 2009, 06:10:25 PM

I have seen some terrible things done to some old guns, to make them more attractive. To really valuable old guns, too, mind you. Not just the money aspect, but from the point of view of a builder trying to see what tools were used and how, this is a crime. All that history wiped out with a scraper and polyurethane.

Dan, thanks for the link to the Ron Scott pictures.

But simian carving?

It really depends on what grade gun I ammaking, what kind of finish is appropriate for the social status of the customer, what the economies of the time period I am working within, etc. I do not believe in finishing every gun to perfection levels. It's not practical, and not desired in many cases. A hunter wants something he can drag through the swamp, wire inlay and relief carving will get passed over for a good, durable gun. That every gun should be finished to the level of today's expectations is not part of my program.

I need a change of diet from gun to gun. It has to fuel my interest, believe me, but that does not mean fancy all the time. There has to be something intriguing about what I am building, or I am bored to tears. But that is a luxury, since I don't do this for a living.

I should have been more specific.
I was referring to the horridly scratched background on an antique rifle somewhere above on this thread.
I could not see any guild master allowing this level of work. I can see someone not getting in the guild, or being thrown out. But having the rest of the rifle being well finished and the wood looking like this? Nope someone would have been scorned and would have been a laughing stock for the other guilds.
Dan

News:

Author Topic: Tool marks on original guns? (Read 29056 times)

caliber45

brokenflint