Many of these hard-to-attribute guns will continue to exist in la-la land due to a hesitancy at times by knowledgeable people to get into specifics that can be discussed and debated. Rather, such guns are often referred to in vague terms, such as "The gun in question was said to have attributes of many SW VA makers..." without specifically mentioning which attributes, or which VA makers. If this same gun were in a North Carolina collection, we'd probably hear the same vague "the gun has attributes of NC guns by several known makers."
At times I think these "don't nail me down" comments come from a bit of fear of being contradicted on a shaky attribution made more on wanting it to be such-and-such rather than knowing it is. That's the value of publishing research and/or in-depth study results and basing conclusions on observed/explained details... then it can be critiqued, questioned, other facts or comparisons brought forward, etc., and hopefully the gun will move a bit closer to a real attribution based on facts, rather than "knowledgeable" opinions.
From personal experience, I know those of us who focus strongly on a single state's guns begin to see that state's details in many unsigned guns [the attractive ones, not the ugly ones!]... and unfortunately at times we look past the other little details that tell us to "slow up and look closer," or we become good at rationalizing those "other" details away. It's human nature, that's why discussing specific details is more productive than discussing "knowledgeable" opinions on these old rifles.
Shelby Gallien
