Studying originals: Valentine Fondersmith of Lancaster, Pennsylvania

[sbowman]

I just noticed that in the pictures in RCA the guard is smushed up closer to the wrist than in these pictures which are more recent.

you caught that too, i think it has been replaced, probably same time as the hammer. It's a shame so many of these grand old rifles have been molested "restored" in the last century.
Never the less what struck me is the similarity to RCA #119 and RCA #117 as far as butt architecture and the moldings around the locks,as well as the quality of engraving on the rifles. George missed this as was previously stated in an earlier post.
Still, the rifle being discussed is another grand old piece I think could easily predate 1782. The angle of the patchbox in relation to the butt puzzles me and detracts for the overall eye appeal in my minds eye but that's just me.
There's some discussion about the patchbox pattern being used on a Newcomer rifle.  Although I'm not familiar with Newcomer's work, there has to be a connection. What that was I know not. 
Aside from a master apprentice relationship,  What I do propose is that all the gunsmiths located in a specific area knew of each other and probably viewed one another's work at some point, may have even hung out in the same tavern LOL. They probably shared the same sources for their hardware, locks premade barrels and parts etc.  consequently the similarity in style yet the subtle differences in architecture and decoration, ie carving and engraving.

Steve

[Eric Kettenburg]

(1). Rich since you mentioned Isaac Haines, and yes I realize it's a SQUIRREL comment in this particular thread, let's keep i mind that there is only one signed Haines rifle and the others were back-dated from there.  Sorry, had to interject that.

(2).  The engraving on the box is one heck of a lot better, smoother and more accomplished in appearance than that of the signature on the barrel.

Eric, Shumway stated that #79 and #80 in RCA volume 1 are signed Isaac Haines pieces. I altered my text above to acknowledge that #78 is attributed, not signed. Good catch. Quite a gun!

Any thoughts on the similarities between the V Fondersmith patchbox and the one on a Newcomer gun?  I agree the PB engraving is FAR more sophisticated than the Fondersmith’s signature.

Just noticed the cock on the lock in the pictures I showed is different than when Shumway photographed the gun. The more current one is a better pairing with the lock plate.

My RCA 1 is in the shop at the moment but now that you mention it, yes you're correct, I believe there are two signed.  There's the one with the later signed lock (not a Haines lock but signed on barrel) that's just plain and I was overlooking that piece.  The first two in the string are unsigned and are attributed because of the carving on the one that was down in the Harrisurg museum for years, which is the last one in the book and is just in exceptional shape.  But just speaking for myself, I think there is too much focus only on the carving behind the cheek and that 3-scroll design, and as I've surely noted here multiple times previously, I have some 'out there' thoughts on the first rifle pictured, is it 78?  Will check the book tomorrow to make sure I have the number correct.  Regardless, don't want to derail the thread!   Subject for a different discussion.

I knew guys, who are now gone, who freely admitted to "recutting" or 'enhancing' engraving (and carving too), as part of "restoration."  I don't have answers relative to this specific rifle, but whoever engraved that Fondersmith signature did not cut that box engraving unless he was dead drunk one day and sober the next.  And, the box sure does look extremely similar to the Newcomer piece that I saw at KRA in Carlisle years ago when it first popped up.

Very cool observation re: the cheek carving somewhat imitating the English lock engraving.  That certainly makes some sense.

[Doug Frank]

I find it interesting that the carving behind the cheekpiece is separated into two elements, as opposed to being connected.  Also, I think it is neat that the carving intrudes into the lower buttstock moulding.  I do not know how common either of those two things are.

Also, thanks for these threads.  It was enough to get me to come out if being a lurker here, to show my appreciation if nothing else.

Doug Frank

[rich pierce]

One reason for these posts on originals is to help builders “see” originals. At a gunmakers fair with judging, builders were often advised to “see more originals”.  But without direction, what were they supposed to see that would help them improve the quality of their builds? What features of a particular great longrifle follow the “best practices” and which do not?

Let’s look at the lock panels.


Here I am seeing lock panels that are almost non-existent. The wood slopes toward the lock leaving just 3/32” of flat next to the lock. At the rear tip of the lock tail, in this case there’s no extended flat of lock panel. The transition to the wrist is immediate behind the lock, and the beaver tail molding is appreciably lower than the lock panels. It’s more “on” the wrist than higher than the wrist.

Let’s look at the depth of the barrel in the forearm just in front of the lock. It looks deep. A violation of the “expose at least half the side flat of the barrel” rule. Note the top edge of the wood unashamedly rises from the front of the lock then levels out. Deductions deserved?

Note the extreme shallowness of the wood below the lock. No bulk left there at all. I bet the trigger blade didn’t need much height at all to engage the sear. This suggests the ramrod is snugged up close to the breech of the barrel with a thin web, and that under the guard extension, there’s not much wood below the ramrod hole. As lean as it can be.

What are you seeing?

What’s similar is similar and what is different on the V Fondersmith lock panels compared to 2 John Newcomer guns? One signed, one attributed.

[utseabee]

One reason for these posts on originals is to help builders “see” originals. At a gunmakers fair with judging, builders were often advised to “see more originals”.  But without direction, what were they supposed to see that would help them improve the quality of their builds? What features of a particular great longrifle follow the “best practices” and which do not?

Let’s look at the lock panels.


Here I am seeing lock panels that are almost non-existent. The wood slopes toward the lock leaving just 3/32” of flat next to the lock. At the rear tip of the lock tail, in this case there’s no extended flat of lock panel. The transition to the wrist is immediate behind the lock, and the beaver tail molding is appreciably lower than the lock panels. It’s more “on” the wrist than higher than the wrist.

Let’s look at the depth of the barrel in the forearm just in front of the lock. It looks deep. A violation of the “expose at least half the side flat of the barrel” rule. Note the top edge of the wood unashamedly rises from the front of the lock then levels out. Deductions deserved?

Note the extreme shallowness of the wood below the lock. No bulk left there at all. I bet the trigger blade didn’t need much height at all to engage the sear. This suggests the ramrod is snugged up close to the breech of the barrel with a thin web, and that under the guard extension, there’s not much wood below the ramrod hole. As lean as it can be.

What are you seeing?

What’s similar is similar and what is different on the V Fondersmith lock panels compared to 2 John Newcomer guns? One signed, one attributed.

Well, it certainly looks like Newcomer favored larger lock panels. Especially at the tail. On the Newcomer rifles, the tail of the lock panel points down at a steeper angle than the Fondersmith.

[Collector]

The carving surrounding the tang is, I think, one of the most unique and most overlooked elements on this longrifle. 

Some considerable years ago, in a similar discussion of a Contemporary interpretation of this same longrifle, a member commented that the tang carving reminded him of another one he'd seen attributed to another builder.  Regrettably, the topic died in silence and fell from memory.

Possibly just my impression, but somewhere along the line, the comparison of Contemporary work that used to be judged against the originals, incrementally became a comparison against the work of and interpretations of noted Contemporary builders.  Not that there is something essentially wrong with that, however it's something like measuring and cutting piece of 2"X4" and then using that piece and each subsequent piece to measure and cut the next, eventually and unintentionally changing and moving away from the original and intended dimensional length/size.  Applied to this topic, there's an inevitable change in what I'd term the 'fundamentals'.

Reengaging discussion of these early longrifles and viewing detailed color photographs of these originals provides an enjoyable 'reset'.

Thanks!

 

     

[Eric Kettenburg]

I will have to dig through my ridiculous library of photos, but for some reason, when I look at the tang carving on this piece the first thing that comes to mind is the lone Breitenhard (signed) piece.

Am I off base? 

[rich pierce]

I will have to dig through my ridiculous library of photos, but for some reason, when I look at the tang carving on this piece the first thing that comes to mind is the lone Breitenhard (signed) piece.

Am I off base?

I don’t recall that gun. Will search. Below are the tang carving photos of the V Fondersmith and Newcomer rifles. I don’t have a photo I can share of the tang carving on the Newcomer of English fowler styling. The Newcomer tang carving reminds me of Peter Rosser (Resor? Roesser?  Son of Matthias?) and George Schroyer’s work but may be a common style of the period. 

[rich pierce]

UTSeabee, I’m seeing a similar strong, steep transition from the rear flat portion of the lock panel to the rear moldings or “beaver tails”. Otherwise, not too similar.

[rich pierce]

Ok let’s look at cheek pieces and carving styles, comparing the V Fondersmith rifle and the Newcomer rifles - one signed and one attributed. I note that the cheekpiece carving of the rifle of English styling attributed to Newcomer is quite different than that on his large signed rifle, but so is much of the gun’s design is different. Also I’m not seeing notable “style signatures” that would link the 3 rifles closely to each other. Just observing, not casting doubt on relationships or the attribution of the rifle styled like an English fowler. Perhaps the rear termination of the cheekpieces of the 2 Newcomer guns are similar.

[Jim Kibler]

I see relations in the carving, between the Fondersmith and the big Newcomer.

[sbowman]

 Judging longrifles, contemporary or original is like judging dogs at the Westminister Kennel Club, all great dogs but subjective as h$%l LOL
 
I see similarities in several elements in the rifles. All three exhibit lack of molding in front of the lock panels and the moldings at the rear are what I call teardrops as opposed to beavertails, long and graceful coming to very narrow points at the back of the actual panel.

 I also definitely see similarities in the cheek side carving of the two signed guns, disregarding the attributed gun for the moment.  both rifles have fairly simple carvings which include two elements and are primarily in high relief;  and if you enlarge the photos you can see how both gunsmiths used the same technique to enhance the ends of the elements in a couple of places with incised carving.

Steve

[Eric Kettenburg]

I see the lock panel shaping on all of them to be extremely similar; all of them look to me as though they were shaped out to a somewhat 'standard form and then any given lock was inlet without regard to how it may or may not "perfectly" fit the panel shape.  So on one gun, small lock with much residual wood around the lock, especially to the rear.  Another gun, large Brit lock with hardly any room to spare.

[rich pierce]

I see the lock panel shaping on all of them to be extremely similar; all of them look to me as though they were shaped out to a somewhat 'standard form and then any given lock was inlet without regard to how it may or may not "perfectly" fit the panel shape.  So on one gun, small lock with much residual wood around the lock, especially to the rear.  Another gun, large Brit lock with hardly any room to spare.

I’ve often seen a side plate that is a poor fit for the off/side panel. It just didn’t occur to me that they’d shape then inlet. But I’m sure they did many things just the opposite of the way we do it!

[utseabee]

Rich or Eric,

     Do you have any pictures of RCA# 75? I don't have any online and my bock won't fit in the scanner. That rifle signed JO Shock, but it is the closest rifle to Valentine Fondersmith. It looks like Valentine could have built that rifle. What do you think when comparing the V Fondersmith to RCA 75?

[rich pierce]

Rich or Eric,

     Do you have any pictures of RCA# 75? I don't have any online and my bock won't fit in the scanner. That rifle signed JO Shock, but it is the closest rifle to Valentine Fondersmith. It looks like Valentine could have built that rifle. What do you think when comparing the V Fondersmith to RCA 75?

I agree there are similarities, but the Shock rifle seems much less sophisticated than the V Fondersmith rifle. It looks like it’s a later gun compared to the V Fondersmith rifle. Maybe an apprentice?

[Collector]

Did a bit of digging through ALR Re: V. Fondersmith tang carving_Comment by J. Talbert from 2012, 06 December to OP D. Taylor Sapergia

J. Talbert

Hero Member
Posts: 2310
View Profile Email Personal Message (Offline)

Re: Martin rifle on Contemporary Blogspot
Reply #2 on: December 06, 2012, 08:41:10 PM

    Quote

Curious point about Allen's tang carving, inspired by Fondersmith's... 
There's a duck gun by Barbar, #249 in Great British Gunmakers, with a more sophisticated version of that carving, suggesting a possible connection of some kind between the Barbar gun and Fondersmith.   

Jeff
« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 06:30:04 PM by J. Talbert »


I have a closeup photo of the A.Martin's interpretative tang carving buried in a jump drive someplace.

[Eric Kettenburg]

I see the lock panel shaping on all of them to be extremely similar; all of them look to me as though they were shaped out to a somewhat 'standard form and then any given lock was inlet without regard to how it may or may not "perfectly" fit the panel shape.  So on one gun, small lock with much residual wood around the lock, especially to the rear.  Another gun, large Brit lock with hardly any room to spare.

I’ve often seen a side plate that is a poor fit for the off/side panel. It just didn’t occur to me that they’d shape then inlet. But I’m sure they did many things just the opposite of the way we do it!

I think that if we were able to time travel and view one of the good 'old guys' at work for a couple of days, we would likely be somewhat shocked at the manner in which aspects of the job were accomplished in comparison to how the majority of us go at it now.  This talk about the lock/sideplate panels for example possibly being shaped out first and the lock inlet after; I've seen quite a few now upon which I suspect this was the case.  To the extent that most of the time, I do this as well - in my case, mostly because inletting locks is boring and I'm much more excited about shaping out the stock and getting a good look at where it's going architecturally.  Of course, after inletting the lock, I'll go back for some refinement in shaping, and whether or not this would have been done historically is just a big question mark.  Lots of question marks! (exclamation point)

[Collector]

From my files: Photos by Jan Riser/2012, December 06 Contemporary Makers Blog Spot

V. Fondersmith Tang Carving - Contemporary interpretation conforming substantially to the original.






Flat Cock on a Round Faced English Lock, THIN Lock panels - Lock and Cock by Jim Chambers Locks:




Comments:

No debate that the V. Fondersmith tang carving isn't typical of his American Colonial regional contemporaries.

A Flat Faced Cock on Round Faced English Lock, replicating the form in which the original was found and photographed in RCA-1. 

Were this on a English styled fowler, I'd probably seek to replace it with a matching round cock in a restoration.  Given that this is an American Colonial piece, built in a period of our history known for scarcity of materials and repurposing of parts, I'd have let it stand as found. 
Besides being kinda edgy-kool, asymmetry in artwork, appeals to the eye.  It draws you to look at it.

As I recall, the V. Fondersmith sideplate is also viewed as unique and as such, it too stands apart from his regional contemporaries.

There's a lot to look at, examine and discuss in the early American Colonial longrifles.  I had a conversation with Earl Lanning a few years ago at the Tennessee-Kentucky Rifle Show, in Knoxville and he proffered (and I agreed), that the trajectory of the Contemporary Longrifle art was moving in the direction of what we'd call the Federal Period pieces; overly complicated with add-ons, filling in virtually every square inch of surface with some visual element, all in the pursuit of demonstrating the attainment of ever higher levels of 'art'.     

There's more, but it can wait...