Old World Curl

[blienemann]

This interesting rifle is Lot 1420 in Hermann Historia's auction - a German flintlock rifle, by Hans Loeffler in Ruhla, dated 1723.

It sure looks like curly maple. The German suggests it is imitation Tuja wood, similar to our red cedar, and burls of this wood were used in carving like our maple burls. What do you think. Nothing is new? I came across a 1750 side opening, raised brass lid patchbox with carving similar to the Isaac Berlin rifle some years back. But I've not seen much curly wood. Click to enlarge a bit. Bob

[rich pierce]

I found it online and looked at other pictures. It’s hard for me to see it as anything but curly maple.

[Jim Kibler]

Looks like curly maple to me.  If it’s not walnut and has figure, it’s common for it to be listed as Tuja wood.  I have no idea where this nonsense got started. 

[Hungry Horse]

 Could this be an early American re-stock? I would say it is curly maple.

Hungry Horse

[whetrock]

I don't know about European arms, so forgive my ignorance, but is it not possible that some wood was exported to Europe?

[rich pierce]

I don't know about European arms, so forgive my ignorance, but is it not possible that some wood was exported to Europe?

Always a possibility; one often brought up when an early maple stocked gun comes to light.

[Jim Kibler]

Maple with curl grows in Europe.

[whetrock]

Maple with curl grows in Europe.

So why is it that anytime we see curly maple the general assumption is that it must be an American built piece? Was curly maple just not used in firearms in Europe? (Again, please forgive my ignorance here. I'm not debating with you. It's an honest question.)

[Jim Kibler]

Curly maple was rarely used in Europe and England.  In the 17th and very early 18th century burl maple was very commonly used.  In the early 19th century you'll see maple used once in a while on English guns.

[whetrock]

Curly maple was rarely used in Europe and England.  In the 17th and very early 18th century burl maple was very commonly used.  In the early 19th century you'll see maple used once in a while on English guns.

So, it wasn't a matter of availability, but rather stylistic preference?

[Jim Kibler]

Yes, it was available.  Could have been a stylistic choice or a preference based on the characteristics of the wood.  European walnut is a wonderful stock wood.  Looks aside, it's better than maple.

[Howard]

You have to remember American wood was also shipped back across the pond used as ballast on the ship.

[smart dog]

Hi,
Part of the explanation is that there was a prejudice against using woods that required stain for gunstocks.  That does not mean light colored woods were never used.  Maple, birch, sycamore, and beech all were used.  The Spanish often used cherry but if you read Espingarda Perfeyta, the authors clearly state a strong preference for walnut because of strength but also it did not require staining.  I agree that the rifle in question is stocked in some form of maple.  However, Juglans regia can have incredible curly and flame figure.  Here are two examples from my own work.













dave

[Daryl]

WOW Dave. I've always thought those 2 were maple. Was i ever wrong.

[okawbow]

There was plenty of curly maple in Europe. They used it for violins since the 1500’s.

[Socks]

I think a new stock is possible. That would also explain the uneven muzzle area and the stock being too short.

Socks

[alacran]

In Wolfe's Jaeger book there are about a half dozen maple stocked rifles. I'm not close to my copy but if recollect most are burl and not curly maple.

[JV Puleo]

I don't know about European arms, so forgive my ignorance, but is it not possible that some wood was exported to Europe?

A really good observation. The single largest export of the American colonies from pre-revolutionary times well into the 19th century was hardwood. As early as the 1690s America was identified as a major source. The notion that curley maple invariably implies American manufacture is fallacious. Walnut was the most popular export but there is no reason to think that other woods weren't included. I have at least one reference, in an 1817 newspaper, of rough maple stocks and planks landing in Liverpool.  There is no indication that this was new or even unusual.

[lexington1]

This is a curly 1777 Pattern Brown Bess.

[spgordon]

The single largest export of the American colonies from pre-revolutionary times well into the 19th century was hardwood. As early as the 1690s America was identified as a major source.

There was plenty of curly maple in Europe. They used it for violins since the 1500’s.

These two valuable insights illustrate how certain assumptions make the attribution business (one could call it other things) extremely conservative. If you assume that curly maple indicates American-made, then firearms made of curly maple will be routinely attributed to American makers (or at least identified as American made)--swiftly the pool or corpus of American-made curly maple firearms will grow larger and larger--and it soon becomes more and more unlikely that any firearm made of curly maple will be attributed to anywhere other than America--it's just too "obvious" that it belongs with these others.

All attribution categories work this way (i.e., they are conservative and self-confirming). The one that interests me most are the "schools" that Kindig introduced.

Once we conclude that the "Roman nose" comb is characteristic of the Reading school, then any rifle (maker unknown) with a "Roman nose" comb will be assigned to the Reading school. But that just eliminates (through attribution) what may actually be significant variety. Maybe that rifle with a "Roman nose" comb was produced in Lancaster or Lehigh county? Maybe some maker in Lehigh or Lancaster imitated somebody in Reading? Or maybe the "Roman nose" was, without much thought, produced in all these places? The conservativeness of the attribution business obscures this--because each new "Roman nose" rifle will be inevitably placed in the "Reading school" and so more and more "Reading school" rifles will have the "Roman nose" and ... well, it becomes less and less likely that any "Roman nose" rifle would be attributed anywhere else.

So, maybe, with regard to curly maple, we simply cannot use it as an indicator of whether a firearm was made in America or in Europe? Sure, that leaves things uncertain. But why do we need to be certain about something about which certainty is really not possible?