"Workmanship"

[Jim Kibler]

Eric,

I hear what you are saying.  I think the word workmanship implies skill at something.  Did #42 etc. require more skill than an Angstadt? 

On the other hand I don't think something has to be high on the workmanship scale to have merit and value.

All this isn't to say that things aren't completely random and everything can have merit, however.  There are some standards.  I don't think there are necessarily the same standards for all types of longrifles, though.

Jim

[axelp]

Mike... your post reminds me of the Farside cartoon that was of a great master composer who died and found himself in $#*!. For him $#*! was a young student with zero talent or skill  sawing away on a violin... skreeeeeeeeeech!!! LOL.

When you know what is right, and good, and see ignorant folk doing something totally wrong  and not good (and thinking it is right), it can indeed be like nails on a chalkboard. For me its when I see untrained people using professional graphic design software and creating terrible art/advertising because although anyone can push a mouse around and click it, it takes artistic talent sharpened by training, experience and time, to create truly good work.

But the only way folks can learn and grow our ability to discern good from doggy doo-- is if good talented skilled experienced knowledgeable people come alongside and mentor them. And this is what this group here does and that is why I think these forums are a true historical treasure.

Ken

[Eric Kettenburg]

Did #42 etc. require more skill than an Angstadt?

If compared to any of the 'lion-carved' Peter Angstadt rifles, my opinion would be 'no.'  As well as some other rifles that are assumed to be Angstadt rifles.

Frankly much of the background leveling I have seen in Angstadt rifle carving is smoother and less faceted than what is present upon 42.  So what does that say in terms of the discussion of 'workmanship?'

[Jim Kibler]

Did #42 etc. require more skill than an Angstadt?

If compared to any of the 'lion-carved' Peter Angstadt rifles, my opinion would be 'no.'  As well as some other rifles that are assumed to be Angstadt rifles.

Frankly much of the background leveling I have seen in Angstadt rifle carving is smoother and less faceted than what is present upon 42.  So what does that say in terms of the discussion of 'workmanship?'

Interesting.   I’ve honestly not paid a lot of attention to Angstat’s work, but have spent months with 42 while making a bench copy for Wallace.  It’s been a while, but I recall the carving (background included) to be pretty darn good.  Honestly, I don’t think the carving on American work gets much better.

I think this just demonstrates how there are different flavors that appeal to people.  But like I said before, there still are some standards and it isn’t totally just a matter of opinion.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Well if you made an 'as new' copy I sure hope you used a different box hahahahahahahahahahaha. oops sorry ya'll can beat up on me for that one.

I'm not saying the carving is crappy or anything like that.  It's great carving - fantastic, really.  But as I recollect via my time handling it, there is very obvious faceting and chisel work around the carving.  All fine and dandy - it's what should be there.  What I'm saying here is that I have seen pieces that are considered 'lesser' overall in terms of workmanship or design or quality that had better leveled backgrounds.  Me personally, I like to see faceting and background chisel work, because to my way of seeing things, a background that is sanded smooth and mirror level is unappealing.  Totally boring.

I've had a couple of well-published Dickert guns here that folks rave about, but I think if someone carved them today exactly in the manner that they were carved, they would be considered problematic.  I guess this is the point I'm trying to make - by what "standard" are we to judge what is qaulity workmanship vs. not?   Who defines the standard?  And, does the standard change over time?

[alacran]

I haven't looked at RCA #42 in a long time. So, I got my copy out to refresh my memory. Eric, I agree with you on the box, but I'm not a fan of metal boxes in the first place. The text says it is a modern restoration.
If I apply what I stated in my previous posting, Ignoring all the decoration, this rifle fits my criteria for workmanship. The rifle is aesthetically balanced and the lines are "fair".
Looking at the inlets, starting with lock, it looks pretty good, specially if you take into account that the rifle is about 260 years old. The tang, the trigger guard and butt plate inlets look pretty good accounting for age. The only pipe shown in the Photos is the rear one. It appears to be in line with the rifle and not crooked. Overall, it fits what I consider to be a well-built rifle.
Of course, I'm only looking at pictures, and since Jim Kibbler has this rifle in his possession, he might be able to shed light on the quality of the inlets.
In my opinion if the inlets had been sloppy 260 years ago, they would look much worse today.

[Pukka Bundook]

I cant see this thread coming to any hard and fast conclusions, art being  subjective and all that.

When I see a Longrifle that is up to what may be called a "London Finish" including  engraving, the first thought that comes to mind is, "But is it valid?"

Myself, I wear a different hat  for different styles of gunmaking.
By this I mean have a different mind set I put on.
A Germanic piece requires a totally different mind set to a longrifle, and it should show.
This does not make one inferior to the other, just a difference  in fit and finish.

Does this mean do sloppy work?
By no means, but neither should a longrifle have hours spent on minute  details.   

One other pet note;
The lines Have to be right.
No amount of ginger-bread will make up for crappy lines on any rifle.

All best,
Richard.

[rich pierce]

They were building rifles from scratch in 2 weeks, possibly less in some cases. Time is a factor. Today someone may spend several months fiddling to get something done at a high level.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I haven't looked at RCA #42 in a long time. So, I got my copy out to refresh my memory. Eric, I agree with you on the box, but I'm not a fan of metal boxes in the first place. The text says it is a modern restoration.
If I apply what I stated in my previous posting, Ignoring all the decoration, this rifle fits my criteria for workmanship. The rifle is aesthetically balanced and the lines are "fair".
Looking at the inlets, starting with lock, it looks pretty good, specially if you take into account that the rifle is about 260 years old. The tang, the trigger guard and butt plate inlets look pretty good accounting for age. The only pipe shown in the Photos is the rear one. It appears to be in line with the rifle and not crooked. Overall, it fits what I consider to be a well-built rifle.
Of course, I'm only looking at pictures, and since Jim Kibbler has this rifle in his possession, he might be able to shed light on the quality of the inlets.
In my opinion if the inlets had been sloppy 260 years ago, they would look much worse today.

Not really going to get into the box issue as its a highly contentious topic.  George noted it as a restoration many years ago.  More recently this is not the accepted thinking by many if not most including previous owners.  We'll all have to harbor our own conclusions on that.

It's probably about as fine an example of a pre-War or War-era American rifle as you're likely to find.  It's very well-made, well-designed (imho) and well-crafted.  The maker was clearly an experienced professional.  I believe it was made for someone wealthy and imho it saw little use which explains the extremely good condition, including much of the original finish.  So, I'd certainly rank it as very high quality workmanship for the era and location (American) and also considering that unlike European work, the stocking, carving and finishing was all likely the product of one man.

[okawbow]

They were building rifles from scratch in 2 weeks, possibly less in some cases. Time is a factor. Today someone may spend several months fiddling to get something done at a high level.

Agree. There should be a formula, good workmanship 🟰 time/quality. I have as much respect for a maker that turns out a “workman like” quality piece in a couple weeks at the maker that takes many months or years to make a “masterpiece”. To me most of the average originals were pretty well made in a workman like fashion, and the maker was able to make a living doing them.

[oldtravler61]

    First I'm no expert or Master gun builder. But I spent 39 years in quality control. When you work with precision equipment day in an day out. You can see flaws in everything. All anyone can do is keep striving to do your very best.  But when you reach that point. Where your ego over rides your advice. It fails to come across as good advice.  To us who really could use it, like me...
 My one pet peeve is the statement : Buy books...yeah it's ok but nothing beats hands on looking at good workmanship.  JMHO

[jmf]

Two Points Indentured apprenticeships, and Guilds.    For the jewelry trade here in the US the Federal Trade Commission sets forth guidelines NOT laws concerning products sold in the USA.   Therefore all jewelry made of Silver being sold in discount stores is mostly less than 0.925.   When I was buying and selling scrap gold and silver between 2005 - 2019, 90% of the scrap silver I bought averaged approximately 30% silver and heavily plated to keep it shiny.     If you are concerned about your trade and quality products I suggest a change toward that which is practiced in other countries like England for example.   If you wish to sell a piece of jewelry you must first send it to goldsmiths hall it must be tested and Hall Marked with a certified stamp into the metal.  If you are concerned about the quality of Modern but Authentic Longrifles then consider setting up a guild to protect the craft while there are still people alive who know whats right and wrong, Like  Mike Lea or Ken Netting.   A guild can also educate those who wish to buy an authentic piece, this will cause them to understand the cost and the commitment and the rest can go buy something else.    As the old saying goes "Any one can make anything cheaper and if your biggest concern is low price then you are that mans lawful prey."   

This answers an awful lot. So you are saying that if someone accepts your price to build something they are going to get screwed, and they deserve it?

[Cory Joe Stewart]

This is a really interesting thread.  When I first started building there was a common phrase used that went something like a "workmanlike manner."  Meaning something was done in a way that would work well, but not high art.  I have not heard it in a while and this thread made me think of it. 

On my current built I just finished there are some issues.  It fell in the vice one day and there is a ding under the cheek piece from that. I also had a small piece bust out in the front part of the patch box.  I have not bothered to fix either one.  I know how to, but I decided to consider it character. 

So would that be considered poor workmanship??

Cory Joe

[alacran]

They were building rifles from scratch in 2 weeks, possibly less in some cases. Time is a factor. Today someone may spend several months fiddling to get something done at a high level.

Please enlighten me for the documentation on how long it took to build a rifle in th18th century.
I'm quite ignorant of the documentation.
However a work week back then was anywhere from 60 to 90 hours depending on season and latitude.
How many apprentices a Smith had, would influence how much time it would take to build a rifle. A lot of grunt work would be done by the apprentices. In the Summer two work weeks could easily be 180 hours.+

[JH Ehlers]

would that be considered poor workmanship??

In the 18th century shop the apprentice that did that would probably get wacked over the head with the biggest plane in the shop, and wouldn't make that mistake again. I think people preferred to buy new guns in the 18th century and not aged guns. I think sloppy work can be aged to hide the sloppiness, some blockyness can't be hidden by anything, and are very obvious poor workmanship. It's all kind of art and depends on who is willing to pay how much for what.

[kutter]

Workmanship....I always figured I would do the very best job I possibly could.  That was my standard always and I've been at it for 50+ yrs
30+ of that full time.

Yes you will get accolades from friends and family and even some people you don't know. But YOU can look at your own work
and if really truly honest with yourself, you can see if it's right. Or if something isn't right. Or wasn't done to best of
your ability at this point in your 'career' whether it be a hobby or a paid job.

I can't count the hundreds of extra hours I spent over that time getting things to be right. That is acceptable in my mind that they are done  and look perfect as I can do.
As an engraver that was a lot of time spent hunched over many an inlay or other figure getting things correct.
Not being one of those natural born artists who can draw you favorite pooches portrait on a dinner napkin on a whim, I wanted the art to be correct. The same idea goes into all my gunsmithing work and always has.

Seeing a poor piece of your handi-work at some point down the road and probably with your name proudly stamped of otherwise signed on it is not a good feeling. You can't get those back and Fix Them as a general rule.
You can try and explain the crude craftsmanship away by using the Hacker Martin parallel.
But I'm not nor are you, Hacker Martin.
He did his thing, I do mine

Do the very best you can at all times.
Shoddy, cankerous, sloppy work I will not sluff off as period correct or aged appropriately for the era.
You want it looking like that, find someone else
It's right when it leaves my bench

[Stoner creek]

Workmanship? Whose call is it? I’ve had folks look at my work and comment “awesome,stunning,fantastic” and countless other accolades, then I open up the vault and show them (and explain what this is) what the good stuff looks like. The reality immediately changes.
 We may be overthinking this one.
 It’s an individual call y’all!!!
W

[Jim Kibler]

Workmanship? Whose call is it? I’ve had folks look at my work and comment “awesome,stunning,fantastic” and countless other accolades, then I open up the vault and show them (and explain what this is) what the good stuff looks like. The reality immediately changes.
 We may be overthinking this one.
 It’s an individual call y’all!!!
W

So you think it's all random and just an opinion?  I don't think so.  It's sort of like beauty...  Different people often have somewhat different views, but there are some standards as well.

[axelp]

There are standards certainly, but "beauty" has always had goal posts that move depending upon preference, geography, culture and time periods. History teaches us that. If that were not the case, then the "schools" of long rifles would not exist, as well as the obvious differences in rifles from different time periods? Lots of variables in what "beauty" is... too many to list, right?

It seems to me, when I meet a person that has a super strict definition, they are leaning WAY over on their own preferences.

Ken

[bobw]

It appears this thread has drifted.  It’s title is “Workmanship” not Beauty.  I’ve seen guns that look absolutely beautiful from 20 feet but the beauty fades fast when I got close and saw the workmanship!
Bob

[Bob Roller]

After I sent the first flintlock for the target pistol to Germany I got a call from Helmut Mohr and he told me the lock had arrived and then I heard a heavy voice that said "Alte Deutsche Arbeite" which means Old German Work.It was Helmut's father Alfons who spoke no English.
CONSTRUCTIVE criticism like Tom Dawson gave me on my one and only attempt at making a Hawken was just that.constructive and I shot
it in the second Hawken shoot on the primitive range at Friendship in 1969.130 yards offhand but no good score.No sleep the night before and it showed up.Not the fault of the gun and about 2 years later I sold it to Wes Kindig and now don't know if it even exists anywhere or not.I have a feeling that harsh criticism has cost more than one venue the potential skills of more than one would craftsman or woman.
The first lock I made I sent to E.M.Farris's shop and he returned it with a lot of harsh criticism and I was surprised and then copied the very simple design P.I.Spence used in making caplocks.I called Mr.Spence who was 95 years od and he told me to do it and asked if I had a car and I told him I did and a few days later I drove to Marietta,Ohio to meet him*and he gave me a big sheet of 1075 spring steel and a lock to copy.This was in 1957.
Bob Roller
*The trip involved crossing the Ohio River on the 6th street bridge and I was on the bridge,stopped dead because of a long line of traffic and while I was waiting to move a young man in a U.S.Navy uniform came to the car and asked about where I was going and I told him,Marietta and he said he was on emergency leave and his father was ill with a heart attack and he had emergency leave papers signed by a Lt.Commander at Norfolk Va. He fell asleep and I had to wake him when we got to Marietta so I took him to his home and the next day he called and told me his father had passed away right after he got home.
 

[Humpy]

One man’s treasure is another man’s junk or vice versa, ha ha!
But yes, in all seriousness, I don’t believe something should be called beautiful if it’s not really beautiful or good workmanship, or if it’s not well done, but I would give praise to any person that tries or attempts to even build something of their own accord, you might call it, good, serviceable, sturdy, or even ugly, etc.

[LynnC]

How many original long rifles have the perfect mirror image of their swamped barrel perfectly cut into the stock?  What did not show was “workmanlike” and at the time good enough.

Today none of us work by oil lamp light. We have our modern tools and lighting. We have the capability to do superior finish work. Most of us are not making guns for a living. Bless those that can.

Nothing will ever replace good lines, good architecture, good inletting and well executed carving (I’m trying).

All this to say, by what standard should we be judging a hand crafted item?  Should we leave traces of the facets in the carved background because its on the original or should we make it perfectly smooth because we can do better and have the time to do so?  I’m talking American gun making here.

There are approaches to gunmaking that vary from Historically correct to High art. We all have our preferences. I can see where both ends of the spectrum come from and appreciate their work.