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

[WESTbury]

The issue of whether customers cared about the "style" of the gun--if you mean the regional styles that we now use to organize eighteenth-century rifles--is (in my mind) very different. Since I've made my point over and over (most recently above with the example of type-faces in books), let me ask you instead: do you have any evidence that any consumer in the eighteenth-century either (a) recognized or (b) cared about the stock profile of a rifle?

I think that the only hint at customer preferences in buttstock design, that I am aware of, are in the tracings Bob presents on pages 131 and 144 of his second book. Those compare buttstock profile and drop between Oerter's Griffin and Coykendall rifles (page 131) and Oerter's Hankinson and Griffen rifles (page 144). Bob does state that the degree of drop on the Coykendall may be exaggerated because of the repaired wrist.

[WESTbury]

Bob's tracings show a difference in drop and trigger pull which effect the line of sight when the rifle is brought to the shoulder. I think it would all depend on the preference of the shooter as to how his arm length and shoulder "profile", for want of a better term, affects his sighting of the rifle. A customer would want a rifle that he would be paying for to be sighted in a comfortable way.

It does make a difference with trigger pull as is evidenced with the four (by 1918) different lengths of buttstocks the British had with the No.I Mk III SMLE rifle of the early 20th Century.

[WESTbury]

Many thanks to all who participate in this thread. I've learned quite a bit from those who know infinitely more about this subject than I.

My thought on this rifle is that it is not a restock by Dickert or anyone else.

Had Dickert stocked the Albrecht signed barrel into a quality rifle like #46, why did he not dress off the top of the barrel and apply his name. He apparently was not shy in anyway about marking rifles with his name.

[Eric Kettenburg]

It's likely (but, as I said above, not entirely clear) that customers did seek out Oerter's products because awareness of his talent had spread well beyond Bethlehem. So this would be an example of seeking out the product of a particular maker.

The issue of whether customers cared about the "style" of the gun--if you mean the regional styles that we now use to organize eighteenth-century rifles--is (in my mind) very different. Since I've made my point over and over (most recently above with the example of type-faces in books), let me ask you instead: do you have any evidence that any consumer in the eighteenth-century either (a) recognized or (b) cared about the stock profile of a rifle?

I doubt what would be considered real evidence of consumer awareness of a regional style will ever turn up.  However, something which I find interesting is that Albrecht and Oerter were working in a closed community (maybe that's over-simplification but you get my drift I believe).  They were not training outsiders.  You have presented some evidence that Oerter's work was known somewhat further abroad than one might think.  I also find it interesting that Edward Marshall owned a rifle typically attributed to Moravian make at either Bethlehem or CS - this not so odd, given his property up above Easton.  However, his son William living down in Bucks Co. clearly purchased an unbelievable rifle of Oerter (the 'griffin' rifle).  Why not purchase a rifle of someone more local?  This may reinforce the speculation that Oerter's work was regarded as a 'cut above.'

Npw this being said and building on this:  the local makers in western NH county - Neihart, Molls, Rupps - using the earliest examples of their work, clearly (to my eye) seem to have been imitating and building upon the design of Oerter's rifles, certainly not incorporating wirework to the extent that he did in 75/76 but using extremely similar design elements as well as building upon the direction he seems to have been taking his stock work.  If not trained by him, or by anyone at CS, why copy and ramp off his design work?  Could it be that his work, or Albrecht's work, was regionally well-known enough that it was considered the gold standard so to speak, and so to sell rifles in the area, other makers were forced to meet a consumer expectation?  Yes it's speculation but it makes sense to me after focusing upon rifles of this region for many years.

[rich pierce]

Interesting stuff. I admire Oerter’s work a great deal, but am not sure everyone would rank him above Isaac Berlin, for example, in Easton. We are all speculating, and our speculations vary. Oerter is so interesting in part because we have signed rifles by him and a wealth of records. Perhaps if we had a similar number of surviving signed guns by Berlin and lots of documentation (simply using Berlin as an example) we would know of customers far and wide who wanted a rifle made by him. Just guessing there were personal connections we cannot know about. A friend or relative has a rifle made by Gunsmith A and likes it a great deal.

[spgordon]

I doubt what would be considered real evidence of consumer awareness of a regional style will ever turn up. 

I agree (though for different reasons, I suspect). Eighteenth-century consumers could be quite specific. In 1774, the Moravian single sister Mary Penry sent some stockings to Edward Shippen. She wrote: 

For we never keep worsted stockings ready knitt, because every one chuses rather to bespeak them as it suits them. And some chuse one coulour, some another. If Mr. Shippen fancy’s this coulour we have a pound of combed worsted ready. If you had rather have them mixed, be pleased to let me know, and we will do our endevour to serve you. The under sheriff refused to take the stockings he had expressly bespoke, and we had some trouble to dispose of them, as the gentleman had them knit in a Peculiar Way, according to his own fancy, which made them almost unsaleable.

So it's easily imaginable that, if customers noticed that a Lancaster style rifle was shaped differently than a Northampton County one and, more important, cared about the difference, they would have specified what they preferred when they wrote to ask for a rifle.

I don't think any such evidence will show up because rifle buyers didn't notice/care about the regional styles that matter so much to us. Much as, as I mentioned above, book buyers today don't care about type faces that so interest makers and students of book design. You might have a copy of The Lord of the Rings at home and I might have a copy of The Hobbit, but an analyst would be making a big mistake to assume that we make these choices based on the different type faces in the two volumes.

[WESTbury]

One of the opportunities for knowledge of rifle designs from other "schools" to be available possibly came during the Rev War. There were militia rifle companies formed during the War with many in the 1st Pennsylvania Regiment which had rifle companies from Berks and other counties. These units were deployed to New Jersey and fought in the early campaigns of the War.

I am quite confident that while in the field the riflemen from different counties mingled and had the opportunity to examine rifles made in different Pa counties. Perhaps a small fraction of those troops picked up enough knowledge of other rifle designs and remembered that after they left the service.

As we all know some of Oerter's rifle were captured and taken back to England which is why some survived for us to admire.

Also, many rifles were sent to various gunsmiths for repair which was another opportunity for awareness of different rifle configuration. 

[spgordon]

You have presented some evidence that Oerter's work was known somewhat further abroad than one might think. 

My honest opinion is that his rifles weren't widely known at all at the time. The Baer/Oerter rifle is the only one of his rifles that we know was purchased by somebody "far away" from Christiansbrunn--and the Baers may have been family friends.

Andreas Albrecht supplied eight rifles with "brass boxes" in summer 1776 for Colonel Miles's and Atlee's provincial regiments. Men in these regiments came from a wide range of places and the regiments marched through New Jersey and New York. Maybe some of the men who carried them scribbled their names on the brass boxes. Imagine if some of those eight rifles survived, today, and we could trace who possessed them during the war. Perhaps one man was from Northumberland County, another from Cumberland County--a third from Bergen County, New Jersey, and a fourth from Long Island. Knowing only this, we would probably be amazed at how widely Andreas Albrecht's name as a gunmaker was known! But in actuality Albrecht was known in none of these places.

It is likely that Coykendall and Hankinson acquired their rifles in the same way. They probably didn't order up an Oerter rifle from Christiansbrunn--at least there's no reason to think they did.

The Baer/Oerter rifle ought to be a cautionary tale for the sort of story we have told about these rifles that inflates Oerter's reputation at the time. The Baer/Oerter rifle circulated through many other hands than Baer's--none of whom knew Oerter whatsoever. It is unusual to be able to trace an eighteenth-century rifle to a particular owner, but knowing who possessed a rifle at some point in its life and knowing who purchased it from the maker and for what reason is an entirely different matter.

Rifles, including (we now know) very high-end rifles, circulated widely in these very years we're discussing (the 1770s). In Pennsylvania thousands of rifles were taken from their original owners and put in others' hands. It's like the bouncing ball on the roulette table: round and round it goes, where it stops, nobody knows. I wouldn't rely too much on where a rifle happens to have stopped.

[spgordon]

This may reinforce the speculation that Oerter's work was regarded as a 'cut above.'

I do believe that anybody who saw Oerter's work would have recognized it as a "cut above," and--while we don't know how they came to know of Oerter--the Baers clearly invested in a rifle that they, like us, recognized as distinctive and extraordinary. The price they were willing to pay establishes that.

I don't have any doubt that consumers could tell the different between plain/common and high-end rifles. (There's tons of evidence for this.) Nor do I doubt that some consumers (like Baer) would prefer a high-end rifle.

But all that is quite different from imagining that eighteenth-century consumers cared about other things (stock profiles) that we happen to care about.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I just want to interject for a moment the fact that I have several copies of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, as well as multiple copies of the Hobbit. 

[spgordon]

I just want to interject for a moment the fact that I have several copies of the Lord of the Rings trilogy, as well as multiple copies of the Hobbit. 

Me too! But did you ever notice, or care, what the type face was in the different volumes?

[Eric Kettenburg]

Not particularly the type face or font, but I do care very much about the particular editions as well as the dust jackets and maps inside!

[WESTbury]

Scott---I have a difficult time reading some of these documents, due to the fact that my monitor pretty much sucks. I added arrows to the document you were kind enough to share with all of us, detailing rifle purchases connected to Zantzinger. The document has an entry for a rifle issued to Alex McNickle. Is the name of the person who either made the rifle or owned the rifle "Albright"?

It would be great if it was Albrecht. Although that would be too good to be true, which means it probably isn't true. You may have discussed this already but I cannot find the posting to which you attached this document.

[spgordon]

Yes, that’s “Albright” (Albrecht)!

[WESTbury]

Yes, that’s “Albright” (Albrecht)!

Hmmmm, well that's interesting. Was Albrecht a common name in Pa in that period?

[spgordon]

That’s our Andreas Albrecht, if that’s what you’re asking?

[Eric Kettenburg]

A few lines above, "Alescander Stevinson" also looks to have had an "Albright."

[spgordon]

We know that Albrecht proved musket barrels and supplied rifles, including these in the Zantzinger receipt and, separately, 8 with a brass box (as I wrote just above) to the Atlee/Miles brigade, for provincial troops in 1776. I may be missing a point if there is something additional here.

My point about these would be, as I mentioned, that this is how (many rifles) circulated in these years. Many men were carrying Albrecht (and Oerter) rifles who were not consumers and who did not "choose" them on any basis whatsoever. So we should be very cautious about conclusions from the identities of men, esp. if they were soldiers, who happened to possess a rifle at some point in its life.

[Mike Brooks]

I appears on the document above that some rifles were specified buy makers and others just noted as "Reading". I wonder why some were noted by maker? Were they the only ones signed perhaps?

[spgordon]

I appears on the document above that some rifles were specified buy makers and others just noted as "Reading". I wonder why some were noted by maker? Were they the only ones signed perhaps?

There was a long discussion of this document and what this "Reading" may have here: https://americanlongrifles.org/forum/index.php?topic=72236.0

[WESTbury]

That’s our Andreas Albrecht, if that’s what you’re asking?

It would be nice if there was a "A." in front of Albright. 

[WESTbury]

In the thread from July 2022 which Scott brought to our attention, he asked in his Reply#5 on 7-2-22 that "Albright" was used as an identifier for two rifles on the list. I think Scott raised an interesting point when he asked if Albrecht signed the rifles he was stocking, presumably at Lititz, "ALBRIGHT" rather than "ALBRECHT".

I could not find a response to his point in any of the replies that followed.

Below is another document Scott posted at some time ago showing muskets delivered and paid for by various gunsmiths. There is an "Andrew Albright" listed as having received 11 barrels but delivering no muskets.

Did Albrecht Anglicize his name? Or was that the interpretation of whoever drew up this list?

[spgordon]

I don't think he signed them ALBRIGHT: I think he signed whatever he signed as ALBRECHT.

Lots of German names get (pretty routinely) Anglicized: in the Lancaster Committee minutes, Philip Grünwalt's name (that's how he spelled it, in German script) is often spelled Greenwald by others. Most educated folks in Lancaster could toggle easily between these variations. So Zantzinger or somebody else recorded "Albright" on these documents but, if they were looking at signed rifle barrels, it's very very likely they said ALBRECHT. Albrecht himself, by the way, apparently never learned to speak English very well.

In that document about muskets, that's William Atlee's handwriting: he's chairman of the Lancaster County Committee of Observation. He Anglicized Albrecht's name.

Another list of guns acquired from the familiar list of Lancaster makers (the one where he supplies eight rifles with brass boxes)--Dickert, John Henry, Messersmith, etc.--also refers to him as "Andrew Albright."

[WESTbury]

Another list of guns acquired from the familiar list of Lancaster makers (the one where he supplies eight rifles with brass boxes)--Dickert, John Henry, Messersmith, etc.--also refers to him as "Andrew Albright."

I do not recall seeing the list you site above, but would like to!

So, as of now I'm just going to assume that all of these arms transaction took place prior to Albrecht refusing to sign the Loyalty Oath and he returned to making pipe bowels.

[spgordon]

So, as of now I'm just going to assume that all of these arms transaction took place prior to Albrecht refusing to sign the Loyalty Oath and he returned to making pipe bowels.

Pennsylvania required its first loyalty oath (Test Act) in June 1777, so supplying these armaments occurred before that, yes.

But nothing about refusing to take the loyalty oath (he probably refused, like most others in Lititz, but we don't know that) would have required Albrecht to give up his profession. The two things were unrelated. Citizens who refused to subscribe to the loyalty oath suffered particular, specified penalties. The Test Act initially barred those who would not take the oath of allegiance only from civic privileges such as voting or office holding, and an April 1778 revision added to its punishments the confiscation of property and banishment from the state (few suffered these penalties).

Everybody in Lititz who refused to take the oath continued working in their trades--and Albrecht could have, too. If he was producing arms and the county or province wanted them, he could have continued to supply them. He does not seem to have objected to supplying arms in 1776 (though I suppose he could have been forced to do so), so I don't think he would have felt scrupulous about doing so in 1777 or 1778.