Thanks, Keith. Yes, I'd enjoy meeting you as well.
There are a half dozen or so basic ways to make these things. Sometimes the flats are higher, and sometimes lower. Sometimes they are forged, and sometimes not. Sometimes grooves are rounded, and sometimes their edges are left angular. When I click on your image of the Albrecht thimbles the image will enlarge, and that helps a lot, but the reflection off the brass still makes it a little hard to discern. And there is only just one image, from one perspective. I’m not convinced at this point that the flat come up onto the rings. I think that may be an optical illusion from the reflection.
Sometimes tool marks give indications of how something was done. But other times it's just a matter of working out an order of procedure that will produce the same effect. So trying this and that until you figure it out is sometimes the best way to learn it.
This is what I think I see:
1. It looks like the outside ring (on the left) is more rounded, at least on the lower, more exposed edge. That may be from wear. It’s hard to tell from the photo, but it may have more squared look beside the wood.
2. The groove between the two rings has an angular edge on both sides. It is possible that the groove was cut with a chisel and then cleaned up with a fine triangular file. It’s also possible that it was just done with a file. In either case, the edges are not rounded over. (
This is in contrast to what I showed with the thimbles in photos I posted above. For more rounded rings like I showed, I only used the file to start the cut, then cut in with the file and rounded the rings. With these on the Albrecht rifle, the cut looks deeper and the edges are not rounded over. But I can’t tell from the photos exactly how he cut the groove.)
3. The flats are cut into the round tube of the thimble blank, leaving the peaks at the intersections even with the angular edges of the rings. He did not forge this thimble. It was filed out.
4. The opposing ring (on the right side) is made the same way as it’s opposite. Its edges are fairly angular (not rounded up like a wedding ring).
5. He wasn't trying to get perfection. First, (a) the two inside rings (one on either end of the flats) might be expected to match, but he didn’t make them exactly the same width. (b) Second, the two flats facing us in the image do not intersect with the ring in front of them exactly the same. These are not “mistakes”. They just tell us that he was working fast, was not overly concerned with his layout, and he almost certainly was not using magnification.
6. The grooves are not exactly consistent in width. This variation could be from his tools and technique, but it might be from wear. My guess is that the groove is triangular in cross section (from the double bevel of a chisel or from a triangular file, I can’t tell which), and so when the surface wears, it causes the groove to seem as if it grows narrow at that worn spot. Anyway, the variation suggests that the groove was not cut with a jewelers saw. If it were, we could expect it to be consistent in width.
7. As it sits now, the extension sits proud of the wood just a little. When the rifle was new the extension was almost certainly seated flush. Wear and minor shrinkage will cause inlays to sit up just a bit like this. The edges of the exposed brass are all worn and rounded in these areas. It’s been that way a long time.
If I was trying to make exactly what we see here, I'd try to do what I described, and then I'd soften the edges with some 600 grit paper. (There should be nothing on a long rifle that will scratch or cut you.)
But they aren't rounded wedding rings. I'm sorry that my earlier posts and images may have been confusing in that they differed on that detail.My comments about Albrecht's technique are not criticism. Little irregularities make an antique rifle charming. They are what show that it is handmade. If the layout and execution is done too perfectly, then a rifle begins to look sterile, and machine made. Some modern builders try to correct and perfect all these little details and polish out tool marks that the old smiths usually left as they were. It's a philosophical perspective, and each of us is entitled to his own approach. But I like seeing new work that looks like old work, and that includes little imperfections that come from using the same techniques the old smiths used. I still have a lot to learn myself, but in terms of philosophy, I think learning to make things the way the old guys made them is the best way to get the results I want.
