" Defarbed "

[Whitworth]

No. Farb is a reenacting term for something inaccurate or incorrect. Comes from “Far be it from me to criticize your impression, but…” in this case, many of us don’t want to see the modern markings. It ruins your time trip. Like setting somebody wearing modern glasses or a wrist watch.

I stand corrected but like "Fubar" better

 

[Billy Boy]

Just wondering, i see alot of this in the classifides . Google describes it as altering the guns factory design to be more original .in modern times does it "devalue " the gun ? If all markings are removed how do you know your getting whats being advertised instead of some subpar gun ? Just thinking out loud .

We participate in this hobby because of some mysterious tie to the past, or an interest in the history of the time. The firearms of that era weren't covered with Italian gibberish. I clean up all of mine because they look better. Handling, cycling, and field stripping will give an attentive mammal a good indication of quality, condition, and value.

 

[sturmkatze]

Defarbing can also refer to correcting other issues as well. For example removing a modern polyurethane finish and applying a more historically accurate oil finish. Reshaping the stock or grips to correct profile and shape. Most modern replicas are a bit lumpy and have too much wood. This can lighten the rifle and make it feel all around better. Correct cartouches can be added to the stock. Some modern offerings are case colored where as the original was made in the white or blued. It's just another part of the hobby. Some like it Some don't.

Oh yeah. I’m pretty happy with the work Lodgewood did.

I farb sometimes after eating black bean soup…

Isn’t that farberating?

 

[sturmkatze]

What exactly do you think a Kibler is? It's probably the most modern made gun in the muzzleloding industry.

Why’s that? Because it’s made on a cnc? Nothing wrong with that. As to looking authentic, they’re not at all incorrect. They don’t have modern markings. Why do you think they are the most modern made?

 

[Conquerordie]

Referring to fully using technology to create the kit that he does. He's doing things that others never have using technology that has been around, just not necessarily used to produce a muzzleloaders. That's why I think it the most modern made gun in the industry, contemporarily speaking. Didnt say anything about authenticity. I believe the post I responded to originally said that they didn't mind legalese on a contemporary firearm made with modern manufacturing technology. That's exactly what a Kibler is.

 

[Billy Boy]

Oh yeah. I’m pretty happy with the work Lodgewood did.

Isn’t that farberating?

Wife says it is a mortal sin, guess I’m porked..

 

[sturmkatze]

Referring to fully using technology to create the kit that he does. He's doing things that others never have using technology that has been around, just not necessarily used to produce a muzzleloaders. That's why I think it the most modern made gun in the industry, contemporarily speaking. Didnt say anything about authenticity. I believe the post I responded to originally said that they didn't mind legalese on a contemporary firearm made with modern manufacturing technology. That's exactly what a Kibler is.

Ah, I see. He’s certainly innovative.

 

[springfield art]

That’s not what I mean. Do you mean you think defarbing is stupid? I can understand that. Done do. My brother was all going in about how someone in the future could get taken. Maybe, if they don’t do their research. I have a neat Bedford rifle somebody built to fool people. I think the lock plate is real. Still needs some things, but I bought it as a repro.

True, people simply have to educate themselves and know what they're buying. There's a ton of Fake Confederate pistols out there, but the collecting community has gotten wise since the 1950's, esp. since the cost of those is extremely high. It's easy to spot a fake once one has been around the collecting field for a while. Civil War muskets have had lock plates and other parts 'swapped out' in order to fool people. Whole books could be written about fake stamps, coins, collector cars, whatever. Buyer beware!

 

[dave951]

As a former, hard core Civil War stitch counter, I really don't like defarbing. If you're that level of serious, for what you'd spend, get an original and don't potentially put a fake out for the unsuspecting. You can build shooter grade parts gun for less than a new repop.

 

[Frontier's]

Removing all the factory stamping is not trying to fool anyone into buying an authentic S.TC Hawken St.petersberg rifle...

It's simply to clean up the rifles overall looks and not have to look at all that garbage.

Can't tell you how many people show up with an investarm hawken and say it's a tc, and then argue with you when you tell them it's not.

Doesn't matter if there's writing on the barrel or not. The stupid will always be stupid.

 

[sturmkatze]

As a former, hard core Civil War stitch counter, I really don't like defarbing. If you're that level of serious, for what you'd spend, get an original and don't potentially put a fake out for the unsuspecting. You can build shooter grade parts gun for less than a new repop.

Nice as the idea of an original is, I’m really not going to do that

 

[Grenadier1758]

No. Farb is a reenacting term for something inaccurate or incorrect. Comes from “Far be it from me to criticize your impression, but…” in this case, many of us don’t want to see the modern markings. It ruins your time trip. Like setting somebody wearing modern glasses or a wrist watch.

There's at least two versions of the origin of "farb". Sturmkatze has one, but that seems to be derived. The version I give some possible credence to is the version that the term Farish came out of American Civil War reenacting. Back in the 1960's there was a Civil War unit that had done a lot of research in their uniforms following their mentor, an old German (probably stitch counting) sergeant. At one event, a new unit showed up in their brand new uniforms of bright colors and some obviously modern materials that didn't really look to be wool, even from a distance. The old sergeant was asked what he thought of that resplendent looking troop. Apparently not wishing to be overly critical of a group that was trying to represent a civil war unit, simply shook his head and muttered, "Das ist farbish." (That is colorful.)

To me, being farbish is the wearing of modern footwear, polyester fabric, modern glasses, smoking a cigarette, and a mix of periods in one suit of clothing while carrying a rifle 50 years newer than the time period of the event.

In full disclosure, I have been guilty of such farbish behavior. I try to be better now and really try to avoid getting into stitch counting mode.

 

[Grenadier1758]

Perhaps one of the most detailed and best versions of the origin of the term Farb is included in an earlier posting.

https://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/threads/newby-question-whats-farb.43909/#post-514528
There is a link to a paper on the topic. Both versions are recorded.

 

[Artificer]

In a way, the British Army in the 18th century was known for modifying the appearance of their issued King's Muskets and not long after they were issued:

According to: "A System for the Compleat Interior Management and Oeconomy of a Battalion of Infantry" (which was first published in the 1760’s after the FIW) we find the following information on British Military gun stocks:

Bottom of page 91

……to complete the whole, the stock (after scraping it extremely smooth) must be brought to as clear a polish, as the nature of the wood will possibly allow; a little beeswax, joined to………..

Top of Page 92

……the labour of the Soldier to rub it on, will soon accomplish a point, which, if executed with due attention through the whole, will produce a most pleasing effect, in the appearance of a Battalion under arms: habituating Soldiers to such remarkable neatness, about every part of their appointments, not only gives employment for many of those idle hours they otherwise must have (a circumstance alone quite worthy of consideration) but beyond all doubt, encourages in them a kind of liking for those arms, which they are taught to take such care of………

Footnote at end of Page 91

By going to some little expense, it will not be difficult to bring the stocks of the firelock to one uniform color, by staining them either black, red or yellow; and then by laying on a varnish, to preserve them always in a glossy, shining condition.

A link to the entire manual:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/_/1SxEAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1
Gus

 

[kh54]

Great thread!

As a former, hard core Civil War stitch counter, I really don't like defarbing. If you're that level of serious, for what you'd spend, get an original and don't potentially put a fake out for the unsuspecting. You can build shooter grade parts gun for less than a new repop.

I’m not a reenactor but I began collecting ACW firearms (mostly reproductions, a few originals) to enjoy handling and shooting the kinds of firearms that my ancestors carried in the war. Modern markings detract from that so I’ve had three or four defarbed. The original maker’s name and serial number are on the underside of the barrel for anyone to look. There is no intention to deceive. For those I’ve had defarbed “fake” is inaccurate. In fact I might argue that modern markings, warnings, logos, etc. are all “fake” on period reproductions. And isn’t a parts gun also “fake” in a similar sense even if it is visually accurate?

 

[dave951]

Great thread!

And isn’t a parts gun also “fake” in a similar sense even if it is visually accurate?

I would say no as the parts are original manufacture. There hasn't been any molestation in any way, they're just being assembled as intended years ago.

But having being a reformed "stitch counter", I get the desire for a more authentic arm. But when you factor in money spent, you're often better off with originals in the case of Civil War arms. The one thing that gets me is the number of reenactors who think a new looking arm is "farby" but they fail to realize that during the War, quite a few arms were issued looking "new". That patina they cherish is the result of over 150yrs of age.

 

[Grenadier1758]

Good topic @Artificer. Changes were always being made to the issued firearms. One big problem was around the practice of dating the locks for the Land Pattern muskets and storing them until they were installed in new assembled muskets. Often a new musket would be rejected as being old because it had a date on the lock that would imply the musket was several years old and likely used and abused. I do know that eventually the year stamp was replaced by the assembly location only. I don't believe that anyone would have altered (present term "defarbed") the date on any King's Musket although some probably would have wanted to.