Lancaster style rifle with "A ALBRECHT" signed barrel aka RCA 46

[WESTbury]

The last couple of days I have been reviewing an ALR thread centered on the Sister Rifle. That thread ran for 11 months Nov. 25, 2017 to Oct. 25, 2018. It is a very interesting and informative read. I've attached a link to below.

What caught my eye was a post by Mike Brooks (Reply #156 Oct 22 2018) in which he states "I also believe that the only signed Albrecht gun is a restocked gun done by Dickert." Mike is a highly knowledgeable and perceptive member of the ALR so his views are looked forward to on this Forum.

What surprised me was, even though the thread centered on the Sister Rifle, Mike's statement of his views relative to RCA 46 elicited absolutely no response.

Perhaps the subject has been the focus of another thread so if that is the case, perhaps some member of the ALR would be so kind to point me in that direction.

Thanks in advance,
Kent

 https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=l8kaqhu5d4g0c8drqk9h8bc8l4&topic=46709.0
   

[WESTbury]

PS!

I forgot to add that I agree with him. Comparing RCA 46 to RCA 48 and RCA 49 clearly demonstrates that the butt carvings are clearly extremely similar. Shumway points this out in his write-up of RCA 46. But, that is a small point and far from definitive.

My only reference as to what an Albrecht rifle may look like are some of those detailed in Bob Lienemann's second book as being stocked in Christiansbrunn. Bob uses the label "Attributed" to Albrecht or Oerter to identify those rifles. I think the known rifles stocked by Oerter make give us a hint of what an Albrecht rifle would look like. After all Albrecht taught Oerter. I find the premise that, when Albrecht moved to Lititz he completely changed his approach to stocking rifles in favor of the Lancaster pattern, as somewhat of a stretch.

I've been studying the Lancaster rifles very intently the past four years, which still makes me a Cherry compared to most on the ALR. I've developed a deep interest in Lancaster rifles and I hope that some comments will enlighten me to one degree or another.

Kent

[rich pierce]

Kent, that rifle is of course very interesting. As you probably know Albrecht moved to Lititz and with that in mind and the rifle of interest in hand, some reasoned that when he moved to the Lancaster area Albrecht made Lancaster style rifle(s). “When in Rome, do as the Romans do.”

If I’m recalling correctly, at one time this gun was a buttstock and a barrel. Unfortunately any one-off rifle that is different from what we’d expect (in this case something that looks like the Oerter rifles) is hard to nail down 100% to everyone’s standards for attribution. There’s always been some amount of “probably could be” or “probably is” equals “Yep, he made it!”  The Wolfgang Haga attributions are perhaps the best example of this.

Just my views and rambling.

[WESTbury]

Rich,

Thanks for your reply, appreciate it.

I've read Scott's paper on Albrecht a couple of times. It usually takes me at least two readings for it to penetrate my thick head.

What struck me was that Albrecht seems to have not been very successful after leaving the Sun Tavern in 1771 and setting up shop in Lititz. Or at least that appears to be so due to the lack of identifiable rifles by him. From Scott's paper I learned that Albrecht was supposed to have help getting business funneled his way by William Henry in Pittsburgh, which never panned out. But he did have some pretty stiff competition from not a few established and successful gun stockers in Lancaster.

I'm guessing that after having been out of the rifle building business for an extended period of time in the 1760's, his notoriety as a gunsmith had faded and I'm sure that the remoteness of Christiansbrunn from Lancaster may have helped to erase his fame. That's just my speculation though.

In any event, I would recommend Scott Gordon's papers on Albrecht and Dickert from the Immigrant Entrepreneurship. I have gained an appreciation for what those early gunstockers were up against.
https://www.immigrantentrepreneurship.org/entries/johann-andreas-albrecht/
 

[B.Barker]

I think Alan Gutches did the restoration on that rifle. Not positive but I think that was one of the rifles he told me about more than several years back.

[spgordon]

What struck me was that Albrecht seems to have not been very successful after leaving the Sun Tavern in 1771 and setting up shop in Lititz. Or at least that appears to be so due to the lack of identifiable rifles by him. From Scott's paper I learned that Albrecht was supposed to have help getting business funneled his way by William Henry in Pittsburgh, which never panned out. But he did have some pretty stiff competition from not a few established and successful gun stockers in Lancaster.

I'm guessing that after having been out of the rifle building business for an extended period of time in the 1760's, his notoriety as a gunsmith had faded and I'm sure that the remoteness of Christiansbrunn from Lancaster may have helped to erase his fame. That's just my speculation though.

I suspect that it was the "stiff competition," as you say, from nearby gunsmiths that made it a challenge for Albrecht to set himself up as a gunsmith in Lancaster County and led Moravian authorities try to solve the problem of what they called his "lack of work."

I don't know that he had any "fame" as a gunsmith when he had been at Christiansbrunn. Except for one Shawnee, who recalled in 1754 that Albrecht had stocked a gun for him in 1752, no evidence indicates that anybody knew who Albrecht was or could tell his work from anybody else's work. We know now that he was a master gunsmith, a stand-out among his peers, but did people think that then? I myself doubt it.

Maybe, if he did make the stock of the rifle that has the signed "ALBRECHT" barrel, he adjusted his "style" to tailor his products to the tough new market he found himself in in Lancaster County? Speculation. But possible. I think it's more likely that, as Mike Briggs suggested, it's a barrel that Albrecht proofed in somebody else's stock.

Remember, too, that since his arrival in America in 1750 Albrecht had never had to worry about "marketing" his products. He worked in a managed economy in Bethlehem and Christiansbrunn that supplied all his needs (food, clothing, housing); he did not sell his own work or earn any money from it. That wasn't the case in Lititz and he struggled.

[DaveM]

Kent, first, I am glad I am not the only one somewhat addicted to the old RCA books, I have studied those countless times - wouldn’t it be cool if a volume 3 and 4 were produced adding the other known early guns!

As to your line of thinking, in RCA Shumway writes that the butt plate s as large as they come. And seeing the gun in person I agree it looks early. So n my mind, unless there was evidence of it being a restock in some way not mentioned in thebook, I see no reason to assume it was restocked.

I agree the carving looks visually almost the same as Dickert carving. It raises questions:
Did the early local makers share carving patterns?
Did the two men work together - perhaps Albrecht assisting Dickert when he was not busy,or vice versa?
Did Dickert really do the carving on his guns? Or is the carving on his guns done by others he worked with at a particular time?
Were there “style shifts” in certain places at certain times?

I always considered the oerter guns ahead of their time in design. Maybe Albrecht rifles never looked anything like those and maybe Oerter created his own style.

I agree with you that the Lancaster made guns can be an entire study of themselves. They could probably fill two volumes of RCA type books. Lancaster was a real gunmaking centerfor the colonies. I would imaging early makers looking for a market would automaticallly be drawn to Lancaster at that time.

[spgordon]

Did the two men work together - perhaps Albrecht assisting Dickert when he was not busy,or vice versa?

This is unlikely, but of course possible. The Lititz diary would record Albrecht traveling to Lancaster or Dickert visiting Lititz and, though we may have missed something, we haven't found that it records this information.

Henry Albrecht, however, worked with Jacob Dickert for six months in 1792 after he left Lititz (where he was training to be a joiner under William Henry II). By 1792, Andreas Albrecht himself was "retired" from the gunmaking trade.

[WESTbury]

Kent, first, I am glad I am not the only one somewhat addicted to the old RCA books, I have studied those countless times - wouldn’t it be cool if a volume 3 and 4 were produced adding the other known early guns!

As to your line of thinking, in RCA Shumway writes that the butt plate s as large as they come. And seeing the gun in person I agree it looks early. So n my mind, unless there was evidence of it being a restock in some way not mentioned in thebook, I see no reason to assume it was restocked.

Dave,
Thanks for your insight, appreciate it!
I've never had the opportunity to study any of these rifles in any meaningful except for photos in books. That's really not the way to do it in any reliable way.
I've got to convince my wife that I need to take up residence in Lancaster for an extended period.

As to the barrel of the extensively restore "Albrecht" rifle, I think it would been interesting, at least for me, to compare its "construction" and finishing techniques with an Oerter signed barrel. That approach, of course, probably would not be definitive at all, but perhaps yield some results as to where it was manufactured/purchased. We know, thanks to Bob L. and Scott, that the Christiansbrunn facility purchased rifle components for rifles even though equipment for making complete rifles existed in Chritiansbrunn.

I'm just thinking out loud know and perhaps the two cups of coffee I just consumed are interfering with my brain's logic centers.

Kent

[Mike Brooks]

I have read that Dickert went hot footin it over to CS looking for barrels while Albrecht was there. I figure that is one of the two barrels he went hot footin back with and Albrecht had already signed it. Dickert obviously didn't think it was an issue as long as he got the gun built.
 I'm sure all the swells around here don't take me seriously so take my observations for what they are worth.

OR.....it's possible that Abrecht barrel got stuck together with that Dickert stock relic to make it more "saleable" in the 40's (19 that is )
 Anything is possible, But that stock is Dickert.

[WESTbury]

I have read that Dickert went hot footin it over to CS looking for barrels while Albrecht was there. I figure that is one of the two barrels he went hot footin back with and Albrecht had already signed it. Dickert obviously didn't think it was an issue as long as he got the gun built.
 Anything is possible, But that stock is Dickert.

Mike --Appreciate your input on this. I was hoping you would chime in on this.
 
We do know that Dickert is on the books at Christiansbrunn as owing money. If barrels were available it is quite possible/probable that Dickert purchased them as well as other rifle components, as barrels, along with locks, are labor intensive rifle components and obtaining finished barrels would have been a priority.

Kent

[spgordon]

Dickert owed the Christiansbrunn gunshop for 18 rifle barrels in 1777--a decade after Albrecht left the gunshop. (He didn't owe them in 1776, so this was not a long-standing debt.)

Since I don't believe that what we recognize as regional styles (shape of stock) were actually recognized (or cared about: as if somebody "preferred" Lancaster stock profile to Northampton County stock profile) in the eighteenth century, I think Mike's conviction that the stock is by Dickert is a more likely possibility than Albrecht switched his style to adjust to the style in a new location.

[WESTbury]

Dickert owed the Christiansbrunn gunshop for 18 rifle barrels in 1777--a decade after Albrecht left the gunshop. (He didn't owe them in 1776, so this was not a long-standing debt.)

True enough but does that preclude Dickert from having purchasing barrels at other dates? I realize the answer would be speculative.

Relative to the buttplate width, Shumway has the buttplate of RCA 46 (Albrecht) at 2-3/16" x 5-1/4", RCA 49 (Dickert) at 2-1/4" x 5-1/4", and RCA 50 (Dickert) at 2-1/4" x 5".

[spgordon]

Dickert owed the Christiansbrunn gunshop for 18 rifle barrels in 1777--a decade after Albrecht left the gunshop. (He didn't owe them in 1776, so this was not a long-standing debt.)

True enough but does that preclude Dickert from having purchasing barrels at other dates? I realize the answer would be speculative.

No, it doesn't preclude that. There's no trace of that in the Christiansbrunn records, but if he paid for them immediately/quickly the charge would not show up on the annual inventories or in the outstanding debts. (This is why we need a Daybook so badly!)

But this purchase of the 18 rifle barrels seems part of the urgency of arms production in 1776, and I don't believe Dickert purchased--or would have purchased--these barrels in the early 1760s. Nor do I believe that Albrecht was signing barrels in the 1760s.

It's just about this time (1776-1777) that Dickert and John Henry establish a gun boring mill in Lancaster County.

[Mike Brooks]

Dickert owed the Christiansbrunn gunshop for 18 rifle barrels in 1777--a decade after Albrecht left the gunshop. (He didn't owe them in 1776, so this was not a long-standing debt.)

True enough but does that preclude Dickert from having purchasing barrels at other dates? I realize the answer would be speculative.

Relative to the buttplate width, Shumway has the buttplate of RCA 46 (Albrecht) at 2-3/16" x 5-1/4", RCA 49 (Dickert) at 2-1/4" x 5-1/4", and RCA 50 (Dickert) at 2-1/4" x 5".

My reference to two barrels that Dickert bought came from one of the Moravian books. Can't remember which. Also, on a different tangent, I believe most all of these gun builders were buying sand cast brass mounts from the local founder. That's why all the mounts in a particular "school" look somewhat similar. It's all about how you operate your file. There were some exceptions of course.

[spgordon]

But this purchase of the 18 rifle barrels seems part of the urgency of arms production in 1776, and I don't believe Dickert purchased--or would have purchased--these barrels in the early 1760s. Nor do I believe that Albrecht was signing barrels in the 1760s.

I should have added that Dickert may have obtained more than 18 barrels from Christiansbrunn--since the document noting the debt for 18 barrels says "remaining still" and the next year's account, 1778, notes that Dickert still owes for 2 barrels. (These must be the two barrels that Mike is thinking of?--Bob L. mentions them in Moravian Gunmaking I)

So he may have bought even more than 18 in mid/late 1776, paying off some; still owed for 18 in May 1777; and still owed for 2 in May 1778.

[WESTbury]

Scott,

There are three signed pistols made by Albrecht while he was still in Germany, one illustrated in Bob's second volume, so Albrecht does not seem to have been adverse to signing the fruits of his labor at some point. Perhaps it was some guild requirements for him identifying himself as the maker.

Was there something in Moravian doctrine that would have discouraged him from signing firearms he built in Christiansbrunn? I do realize that the Moravians were working for the good of the community and not the individual's benefit. I'd appreciate your thoughts on this as you, as well as Bob, have the expertise on Moravians.

Kent

[spgordon]

Was there something in Moravian doctrine that would have discouraged him from signing firearms he built in Christiansbrunn? I do realize that the Moravians were working for the good of the community and not the individual's benefit.

No, despite what others have written, there was nothing that would have prohibited or discouraged Albrecht from signing his work. Other Moravian craftsmen--during the communal economy and afterwards--signed their work (John Antes, the instrument maker).

I think the question really ought to be: why would Albrecht have signed his work in the 1750s and 1760s? Was anybody else doing so? I believe craftsmen signed their work because they were required to--either by a guild (as you suggest), or by other authorities, to certify quality or so buyers could trace the product back to makers in case of a problem. Moravian authorities required their hatter to put labels in his hat when other people were passing off shoddy product as Moravian-made. I think Oerter began to sign his rifles for some similar reason--just as many regulations for mass produce locks or barrels required the maker's name. Also, it is much more likely that one would sign a product that was going beyond a community (where the maker was not known) than one that stayed in the community or was produced for friends (who would know the maker).

I've posted about this so often on this forum that I suspect people are tired of hearing this perspective.

[spgordon]

There are three signed pistols made by Albrecht while he was still in Germany, one illustrated in Bob's second volume, so Albrecht does not seem to have been adverse to signing the fruits of his labor at some point. Perhaps it was some guild requirements for him identifying himself as the maker.

Also--I am not at home with the book in front of me--but didn't Bob's write-up about the pistol with the Albrecht-signed lock that he included in MG II indicate that there's another A. Albrecht, gunmaker, in Germany in and after 1750 (when our A. Albrecht was in Bethlehem) who may have made this pistol? I didn't think (but could be wrong) that we know that our A. Albrecht produced and signed three pistols before he emigrated to America.

[WESTbury]

There are three signed pistols made by Albrecht while he was still in Germany, one illustrated in Bob's second volume, so Albrecht does not seem to have been adverse to signing the fruits of his labor at some point. Perhaps it was some guild requirements for him identifying himself as the maker.

Also--I am not at home with the book in front of me--but didn't Bob's write-up about the pistol with the Albrecht-signed lock that he included in MG II indicate that there's another A. Albrecht, gunmaker, in Germany in and after 1750 (when our A. Albrecht was in Bethlehem) who may have made this pistol? I didn't think (but could be wrong) that we know that our A. Albrecht produced and signed three pistols before he emigrated to America.

I have not been able to find an explicit statement by Bob in MGII that "our Albrecht", as Bob identifies him, made the pistol illustrated in MGII. I guess we will give Bob a C.Y.A. on this one. Although, why illustrate the pistol at all if there was a possibility that another A. Brecht made it. Bob needs to explain himself.

[spgordon]

Well, given that there *is* another gunsmith named A ALBRECHT in Germany at the same time, there’s certainly a possibility that the pictured pistol was made by him. But how one would weigh probabilities … I’ll defer to Bob on that!

[Eric Kettenburg]

Well Albrecht did clearly sign at least one lock in the 1750s (or at least, while he was working in Bethlehem).

The Albrecht rifle is so heavily restored - as are many rifles - that it's almost impossible to determine tool technological evidence and process etc.  Yes, it looks like a Dickert however what was left of the original tang carving *seems* to display the small triangular flat behind the squared tang which is not something I have seen on Dickert rifles.  It generally seems to be a very noticeable characteristic of Oerter's work and Bob and I have discussed this as it's not something. commonly seen - certainly not the extent it's seen on rifles that have been attributed to CS.  Lion/lamb and two tailed dog rifle included.

There are no pre-War *dated* Dickert rifles other than those we have assumed for years are pre-War.  So it's all speculative.  For all we know, Albrecht moved down to Lititz with this stock style/carving design etc in mind and he ended up influencing Dickert as opposed to the opposite.  Likely?  Probably not, but there is no way to know.

[blienemann]

Kent and all, in MGM II p 63 "The pistol illustrated here was made by another man - but it is from the period and the part of Germany that our Andreas Albrecht and Valentin Beck traveled." The early rifle and this pistol were included to show what Albrecht and Beck were exposed to in terms of design, and what they may have brought with them to this country.

Regarding the one rifle with A Albrecht on the barrel, I believe this is AA's work after he moved to Lititz. Like Dave, I see no indication of a restock. It is a short jump in design from the Marshall rifle, #43 and Oerter's work in wire with the large C scroll and flourish above to the large C scroll and smaller C scroll above in and around Lancaster. The design on #46 signed A Albrecht is drawn and executed so well. Dickert's work is similar, but often squashed with other details added, and only occasionally looks this good to my eye.

There is speculation in all of this, but a signed barrel in a rifle is as good as we have thus far. Bob

[WESTbury]

Bob,

Thanks for the clarification on the pistol and your thoughts regarding the carving on the rifle in question. As you are very painfully aware, I know nothing about stock carvings.

I'll get back to you on this. So far, my feet are still on Mike's side of the fence.

Kent

[WESTbury]

The Albrecht rifle is so heavily restored - as are many rifles - that it's almost impossible to determine tool technological evidence and process etc.  Yes, it looks like a Dickert however what was left of the original tang carving *seems* to display the small triangular flat behind the squared tang which is not something I have seen on Dickert rifles.  It generally seems to be a very noticeable characteristic of Oerter's work and Bob and I have discussed this as it's not something. commonly seen - certainly not the extent it's seen on rifles that have been attributed to CS.  Lion/lamb and two tailed dog rifle included.

Eric,
Thanks your thoughtful analysis and the info info relative to the remnant of the tang carving.
Kent