Embellishment limit?

[stan57]

Honest question from a novice - respectfully please don't flame or deride me. In today's sphere of american longrifle collecting/building/research/etc, is there a limit or crossover point on a rifle as regards to the amount of embellishment? To an un-trained eye, it seems the more carving, inletting, engraving, etc crammed onto some of these weapons, the more praise is heaped on the builder. Case in point: the Kough percussion rifle on display at The Metropolitan Museum Of Art: [https://www.metmuseum.org/art/collection/search/845525#:~:text=This%20is%20one%20of%20the,from%20about%201770%20to%201850.]  There is not a square millimeter on that rifle that doesn't have something planted or engraved into it.  At what point is too much too much? Subjective question, I know; would just like to hear feedback.

[MuskratMike]

Not the person who should be answering this as none of mine have much in the way of embellishment, here is my perspective.
What era was the gun built?
Where was the gun built?
What was the gun going to be used for?
Who was the person paying for the build?
How thick of a wallet did the person have?

A stripped out work truck new on the lot vs one loaded with every option under the sun. Both are trucks but probably going to live very different lives.
Just the mussing's of an old man with time on his hands today.
"Muskrat" Mike

[Jim Kibler]

It all depends on how well the decoration is done. 

[J. Talbert]

Among American longrifles the degree and quality of decoration varies greatly, but a classic “Golden Age” longrifle would likely have most or all of the following:
Carved moldings around the lock and side plate panels
Fore stock molding
Lower butt stock molding
Tang carving
Entry thimble carving
Carving behind and to the front of the cheek piece.
Engraved patchbox
Possibly one or more engraved inlays
Perhaps some additional engraving on the trigger guard and or side plate.

The level of decoration on contemporary longrifles varies just as much as originals, with a number of contemporary guns exceeding the amount and quality of decoration typically found on original American longrifles.

Just my take on the subject…
Jeff

[sbowman]

 I find a well executed American rifle with good lines and little to moderate decoration pleasing to the eye; more so than one covered with embellishments that are well executed.  That said, it really gets down to an individual understanding an artform, the skill to execute it, and forming a personal opinion.

Steve

[rich pierce]

Pretty well covered above. I’d add, how does the decoration mesh with originals of the same type? A bunch of inlays on a 1770’s rifle would look out of place. Even the slightest amount of carving on a J&S Hawken rifle would look out of place.

[Hungry Horse]

I find many not all golden age, and a little after were generally fairly tastefully inlayed, and carved
 But as the percussion age got started it seems there was often little or no artistic vision used, sometimes with carving, but more often with brass or silver inlays. It almost feels like a non-in-person order was placed requiring a given number of inlays, and the gunsmith just stuck them in anywhere. Thought to artistic merit, and eye pleasing balance seem to get caste to the four winds.

Hungry Horse

[t.caster]

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, the saying goes. I know some people and builders who love overly embellished long guns of the percussion era. They build them "because they can" is the explanation. Even putting euro carving and engraving on every exposed part of rifles & fowlers that never had them back in the day. I've always resisted that temptation, preferring an original looking gun of whatever school being emulated.

[smart dog]

Hi Stan,
I am not sure there is a good answer to your question.  It is like asking "what is good art"?.  As you already pointed out, that is very subjective.  The Kough gun does not appeal to me very much.  Much of the decoration does not fit or do anything to enhance the canvas. It just presents noise like so much decorative work from the mid 19th century.  Some is very creative and clever.  The cheek piece and eagle are good examples.  I even like the folk design behind the cheek piece. However, many of the silver inlays could be eliminated, revealing more of the beautiful wood and actually help the remaining inlays compliment the stock, not divert our attention to the loudest "bling".  It is of course, subjective.  There is no upper limit or lower limit to decoration.  It all depends on how it fits the canvas and does it reveal a cohesive creative talent behind it, rather than someone just filling up space.  I also want to see that the maker understands the historical context of what they are making. For example, turning an American long rifle into a highly decorated longer barreled German jaeger or a Noel Boutet extravaganza holds no appeal to me. Wrong canvas for that kind of work.

dave   

[Clowdis]

If you choose to copy something from a school or period of gunsmithing that used a lot of inlays that would look more appropriate than slathering a bunch of inlays onto a pre Rev war rifle. Personally I am more impressed by good craftsmanship and stock layout than I am by inlays and engraving. I would rather see a well crafted "poor boy" than a poorly laid out western PA. rifle with a bunch of inlays. If you're new at this, work on your craftsmanship before you start getting gaudy.

[Mike Brooks]

If the skills aren't there less is more. I man should be able to evaluate his skills and know where to stop. I have seen many guns by big names that aren't as good as they could have been because their skills fell behind the legend.

[David Rase]

All the engraving and carving in the world will not compensate for bad architecture.  I will take a plain unadorned rifle with good architecture over a poorly designed rifle that is carved and engraved.  It's like putting lipstick on a pig.
David

[Stoner creek]

The absolute rare argument to that is RCA #42. The lines on that gun are almost dreadful but the decorative work puts it in a class by itself.

[oldtravler61]

  I'm not a fan of over elaborate guns...unless like David Rase said...the lines have to flow and be well executed.  Also like David said...you can only put so much lip stick on a pig...but it's still a pig....

[smallpatch]

Rifles of that type always remind me of the junk yard Cadillac.
You know the one, every square inch covered with rhinestones, pink faux fur plastic flowers, dolls heads, etc., etc.,etc.

It’s all about the architecture, and a little tasteful, well executed carving.
Think Dave Person, Allen Martin, Mike Brooks, etc., etc., etc.

[Goo]

It is your gun you should finish it the way you want to. If you are building it yourself evaluate what your skill level is and push yourself to achieve that.    Caveat; being no amount of embellishment will make up for ungraceful architecture and slender flowing lines. If its among your first builds find someone who will show you how to achieve the architecture first.

[Rmh]

I don't know the limit but I find the rifle in the museum grotesque.  Like a gargoyle, it may have been done well, but it is ugly as sin.  Nothing appears to work together.

[Majorjoel]

Back in high school, I took a class called Music Appreciation. In those days I was mostly into good ole Rock & Roll. The class actually did strike a note within me and to this day I do enjoy just about all the various kinds of music with a few modern exceptions.

My studies of the American Longrifle has resulted in a similar pattern. I like and enjoy just about all of these guns. They represent the places, time periods, and changing styles of the late muzzle loading era.  True! I fixate mostly on the earliest work but learned through study to appreciate all from the beginnings to the end.

[Dave B]

What i noticed is this piece is missing is the silver squrirrel.

[Pete G.]

Building a good rifle is an art form. There is good art and bad art. Study the good

[Randall Steffy]

As I study this rifle art form showcased in the Met Museum, I can't help but draw a comparison to modern-day tattoo art. Despite the seemingly haphazard arrangement of images, one cannot deny that the person who commissioned this artwork must have found it appealing. Who am I to impose my taste on others? After all, everyone has the right to their own preferences. My pappy would say, "Each to their own, as the milkmaid kissed the cow."

[Bob Roller]

I find many not all golden age, and a little after were generally fairly tastefully inlayed, and carved
 But as the percussion age got started it seems there was often little or no artistic vision used, sometimes with carving, but more often with brass or silver inlays. It almost feels like a non-in-person order was placed requiring a given number of inlays, and the gunsmith just stuck them in anywhere. Thought to artistic merit, and eye pleasing balance seem to get caste to the four winds.

Hungry Horse

I got my interest in muzzle loading guns at the same time I was working on Duesenberg cars and also came under the influence of E.M.Farris and Major Ned Roberts.There was absolutely NO INTEREST in flintlock rifles and no locks available anywhere.I am still waiting to see a first class copy of the General Grant Whitmore rifle which to me IS the ultimate in caplock rifles from America.Top of the line English caplocks for me came later but they did come.I saw a representation of the Grant rifle but it had a $40 lock that killed the idea entirely.Great color and profile though.I appreciate the labor intensive work in the embellished long rifles but remember Jud Brennan saying he could make more than 6 plain and very good guns in the same time frame.When usable locks became available from Chet Shoults hey cost THIRTY dollars and that kept many away from them.The lock HAD to be the cheapest thing on the gun.To me the Grant rifle and a well made walnut Soutthern long rifle represent my ideas in muzzle loaders for target and hunting.
Bob Roller

[stan57]

This week I visited Dixie Gun Works and viewed, up close, their collection of originals from all eras. Embellishment level per gun that I saw was less than I thought was common.

eta: I thought I'd better add that I do fully understand that there are regional and personal aspects to all collections.

[LynnC]

The Jacob Kuntz rifle pictured as related and below the above abomination is a far superior rifle in every respect.

The Kuntz. Beautifully designed. Beautifully executed.

No flame intended. Even if a plain rifle but with elegant lines, it beats bling on a so-so rifle any day.  JMHO

Please dont take this as harsh in any way. Just my opinion 😉

[AZshot]

I believe the original question is referring to contemporary made rifles, but you always can refer to the past.  Look at many of the NC school rifles, like the Jamestown School.  Those were made to have a lot of attached or inlet silver and brass decorations all up and down the rifle.  There were many gunsmiths there in the 1840s making ornate rifles.  That evidently was expected by their customers, and considered very desirable.  I've even seen some ornate Appalachian School rifles, with engraved barrels and brass work on the stocks.  I think fancy was sometime done by any gunsmith for particular customers and to show off.  Same today.

http://www.antiquearmsinc.com/jamestown-rifle-carolina-percussion-inlays-lamb-franklin-ledbetter-ward-merritt-wright-gardner.htm