A question about visual differences...

[rich pierce]

One of the results of the wide availability of kit guns and precarves is homogenization of certain styles of rifles till they all look about the same. Same furniture, similar architecture. This was not the case on originals. Many early rifles, being unsigned, present a difficult problem in guesstimating where and when they were made. Another result that arises is that folks think a "Dickert", an "Early Lancaster" and an "Isaac Haines" are like gun models (think Winchester 94). Yes, they are today, but they never were. Dickert's work is easy to recognize as is Isaac Haines', but still there was a lot of variability in the rifles these guys made over time and even in the same decade. Isaac Haines and Jacob Dickert were both "Early Lancaster" gunsmiths, historically, which you might never guess or learn from current offerings.

 

[roundball]

One of the results of the wide availability of kit guns and precarves is homogenization of certain styles of rifles till they all look about the same. Same furniture, similar architecture. This was not the case on originals. Many early rifles, being unsigned, present a difficult problem in guesstimating where and when they were made. Another result that arises is that folks think a "Dickert", an "Early Lancaster" and an "Isaac Haines" are like gun models (think Winchester 94). Yes, they are today, but they never were. Dickert's work is easy to recognize as is Isaac Haines', but still there was a lot of variability in the rifles these guys made over time and even in the same decade. Isaac Haines and Jacob Dickert were both "Early Lancaster" gunsmiths, historically, which you might never guess or learn from current offerings.

Interesting stuff...yes, I had been under the 'model '94' impression...that a Dickert was a Dickert, and an Early Virginia was an Early Virginia, etc...ie: the photo above was advertised/sold as "a Dickert"...my long guns from Matt Avance were called "Early Virginias" and "Late Lancasters"...but if I understand you correctly, there were variations of each, evolving over time, even from the same builders.
At least in the case of my Late Lancaster, there are some obvious differences compared to the Early Virginias like having the toe plate, having a thinner more narrow butt stock, different drop, etc...and my 'Dickert' seems to have some of the same aspects of the Late Lancaster compared to my Early Virginias.
At the end of the day, with my main interest being in having good quality, dependable Flintlocks for hunting it doesn't matter all that much, just curious

 

[rich pierce]

Understood. The presence or absence of a toe plate is not a clue as to where a longrifle was made or when, though it's shape and whether it also functions to hold a patchbox release mechanism could be an important clue. Nearly all 1770's and earlier rifles regardless of where they were made had wide buttplates 2" or even more in width and correspondingly sturdy buttstock architecture. This decreased to an average of 1 and 7/8" or 1 and 3/4" by the 1790's almost everywhere, and by 1820, to 1 and 5/8" wide on most longrifles regardless of where they were made. There were exceptions; some makers continued to build in an earlier style as they got older, not changing as much with the times. It's important to realize that guys like Dickert built rifles over a 40-50-60 year long career and it shouldn't surprise anybody that a gun he built in the 1760's would be different from one he built or was built in his shop in 1810.

 

[roundball]

It's important to realize that guys like Dickert built rifles over a 40-50-60 year long career and it shouldn't surprise anybody that a gun he built in the 1760's would be different from one he built or was built in his shop in 1810.

A huge point...particularly when applied across the board with all builders over decades...there would simply would not be any model'94 cookie-cutter Flintlocks from anybody...thanks

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

A question about 'differences' between the design / looks of two rifles...and to simplify it, consider they're two longrifles built by the same builder, same quality wood, same caliber, same barrel, etc, etc...one is built as an Early Virginia, the other as an Early Lancaster.
What would be some of the obvious differences to the eye...IE: Lancasters seem to have a toe-plate where Early Virginias do not, and so on...

It would really help to define what 'early" is and what virginia school you are comparing to before any conversation on the subject starts....of course since you have me blocked it's all irrelevant anyway. :haha: Always a good idea to block those that are capable of giving the most educated answers to your questions. :blah:

Mike, maybe I'm not blocked and he'll see this? The modern terms of "Late Lancaster" and "Early Virginia" used in the market today really mean nothing. They are one builder's impression of something that he knows will sell and that is all. As you are aware, there were numerous schools of rifle making here in Virginia from the 3rd quarter of the 18th Century until the mid-19th Century. The "Early Virginia school" didn't exist and is simply a modern marketing ploy that does seem to work and has, unfortunately, become reality in the minds of many. Sad really, the Virginia schools were varied and beautiful and few really appreciate them because of ignorance.

 

[LaBonte]

And even the idea of schools of guns is a modern construct of collector's and historians it is not a period concept per se - you will not find mention of such in the past.

example: during the early to mid-1800's Henry, Goetz, Goomph, etc and eastern makers made a "style" of trade rifles that modern historians call the Lancaster model (whether they were made in Lancaster, PA or not), but in the period such rifles were known as the American Model (no matter who made them and there were differences between the makers although they worked from a basic pattern suplied by such as the American Fur Co) to differentiate between the English Model (a model that the English originally supplied from the late 1700's and was based on their idea of what an American long rifle should look like) - even after the imports ended the model, which was then made by American makers, principally Henry of Phila/Boulton, PA, continued to be called the English model. Then in 1834 Henry produced a new style incorporating ideas from both styles, American & English, yet he called it the New English model......go figure....

It's also the same reason that many of the students of historical firearms don't care for the terms Hawken, Lancaster, Virginia, etc. being applied willy nilly by many of today's builders(mostly for advertising purposes only) since they were not a model, but rather the product of a particular shop - it is the confusion caused by such names as noted above that most serious students of the genre find problematic, not necessarily due to some form of "Purism" or whatever that we often find ourselves accused of.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

LaBonte, excellent points well stated, thanks for the input. :hatsoff:

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

Thank You,

Really good information, even if it falls on deef ears, some of us are paying attention as this stuff matters, or should.

 

[fm tim]

I make no claim to being able to clearly differentiate the schools.
It would certainally help me, and maybe others, if a claim like "It has a Union County feel" were accompanied with a description of exactly why it does.
That may separate the wheat from the chaff.

 

[tg]

"A huge point...particularly when applied across the board with all builders over decades...there would simply would not be any model'94 cookie-cutter Flintlocks from anybody...thanks" I know the poster probably will not see this but the above also does not allow an anything goes situation with a school or builder.