Do You See Anything Suspicious About This Rifle?

[plmeek]

The name and address stamp on the barrel was one of my red flags, too. I have to admit that you saw something a didn't.

The thing that looked odd to me about the stamp was the shape of some of the letters. Notice the top of the "L" in Louis and the top of the "U". Those letters don't look like they were made with a stamp. Even the top of the "T" doesn't look straight. I believe Scota4570 pointed this out and questioned if the letters might have been made by EDM. I think EDM would have been clearer and sharper than these letters. They look like they have been acid etched to me. Anyway, I agree they don't look right. Just another point to add to the list of suspicious aspects of this rifle.

 

[S.Kenton]

I’m no expert by far, but the one thing that stands out to me is the fact there is no wood shrinkage around the lock.... looks like it was perfectly inlaid yesterday...shouldn’t there be some shrinkage at least?

 

[plmeek]

I’m no expert by far, but the one thing that stands out to me is the fact there is no wood shrinkage around the lock.... looks like it was perfectly inlaid yesterday...shouldn’t there be some shrinkage at least?

You bring up a good point, Kenton, and one of the areas of concern on my list. That's the condition of the wood or the stock.

The picture of the right side of the butt stock appears to show shrinkage of the wood along the butt plate and at the toe. There's small cracks and discoloration of the wood where it meets the butt plate. Is this discoloration from oil? If so, why was so much oil applied to the butt plate.

The butt stock exhibits some dents and gouges and scratches, but still appears to have most of the oil finish surviving.

The cheekpiece side of the butt stock shows a large crack running from the trigger plate in the area of the rail on the trigger guard, all the way into the cheekpiece. This is an odd place for a crack. They usually occur in the wrist or the lock area. You would have to consider this a shrinkage or stress crack.

On to Kenton's point about the lock panel around the lock. The photo shows some staining from what could be oil applied to the lock. But as he pointed out, there are no shrinkage cracks like in the butt stock. On old rifles, its common to see wood chipped out or literally worn away from taking the lock in and out for cleaning over its likely decades of active use. I don't see that here.

I also don't see much, if any, wear of the oil finish around the edges of the lock panel. Take a look at pictures of the Kit Carson Hawken and notice how worn the lock panel edges are on that rifle.

Also, take a look at the picture that shows the bottom of the forearm on the auction site. The wood and finish almost look pristine. This is an area that shows a lot of wear on most Hawken rifles. Again, look at the Carson Hawken and the Bridger Hawken forearms. There's practically no finish left.

Human skin and hands secrete sweat, oil, and acids that can literally dissolve finishes or at least soften them enough that they're easily worn away by handling. The forearm area between the barrel keys or sometimes toward the front key is usually the balance point on these rifles. When they are carried by hand, the forearm gets a lot of wear here. But these rifles were often carried on horse back. The mountain man and plainsman technique was to balance the rifle across the pommel of the saddle when riding with it. Some Hawken rifles are known to have the wood in the forearm around the balance point completely worn and away, exposing the ramrod. I don't see any indication of wear of this nature in that picture.

The stock has wear and aging in some areas, but not in other areas that you would expect. Seems odd.

Phil

 

[plmeek]

Well all the iron looks like a bleach job. I have a rifle from 1840 and it does not look like that. Too much red. Too those barrel flat edges look a little too sharp.

54ball has brought up the last red flag on my list--the patina of the metal surfaces.

I agree that the iron surfaces do not look like what I've observed on antique guns of this period. And I agree that they may have been "aged" with a chemical process like bleach or acid or combination.

When I made my first trip to the CLA Show in Lexington, KY a few years ago, I was initially overwhelmed by all the stuff on display to look at. In addition to loads of contemporary longrifles of all types, there were accoutrements of all types, art work, and antique rifles.

At the time, it seemed a big percentage, maybe two-thirds or more, of the contemporary builders were displaying rifles that had been "aged" to some degree. I was fascinated by this and found most of it very pleasing to the eye. But I was a little confused as to why and how they were doing it. I spent a lot of time and foot steps looking at the aging a builder had done, then walking over to the area the antique rifles were displayed and comparing it to them. I would see something on the antique rifles and go back to the contemporaries and try to find one of them that had it.

Needless to say, I didn't find any contemporary builders that were duplicating with any significant degree of accuracy what I saw on the antique rifles. That really puzzled me as to what they were actually trying to do with their "aging". I finally realized it was just another part of their art form. They weren't trying to make their rifles look like an antique, though some had the skills to do that if they wanted. I don't believe they were even trying to make their "new" guns look like any "old" guns. The faux aging they were doing was pleasing to the eye, which is a definition of art, but not intended to duplicate real aging.

Anyway, in the process of trying to understand all that, I studied the patinas on a bunch of antique rifles. And ever since, when I see an antique rifle at a gun show or museum, the patina on the metal and wood is something I study closely.

Here are a couple of photos, of the patina on a .36 caliber J. Fordney rifle.

J. Fordney / Lancaster PA

J. Fordney Breech

This photo is of a H. Leman squirrel rifle.

In addition to the odd color of the patina that 54ball pointed out, the patina on the S. Hawken looks "crusty" to me. If you notice on the Fordney and Leman above, the patina on them is darker and smoother. Antique rifles don't have that crusty texture unless they've been buried or stored in damp environments.

One more suspicious aspect of this Hawken rifle.

Phil

 

[Rifleman1776]

I’m no expert by far, but the one thing that stands out to me is the fact there is no wood shrinkage around the lock.... looks like it was perfectly inlaid yesterday...shouldn’t there be some shrinkage at least?

Threads like this are some of the most educational we have on this forum. Anybody who may be considering spending big money on a valuable 'original' should read and heed what has been posted.
This reminds me, not happily, of a situation I experienced when I had me shop in Indiana. A gun trader I had done business with several times stopped by one day with a flint lock pistol. I examined it carefully and was convinced it was a rare and valuable original. We did the negotiating dance and I ended up with what I thought was my retirement nest egg. Sometime later, a regular customer who owned a large collection of originals came by, saw the pistol in my display case and said, "Oh, I see you got one of those also." :shocked2: Also? Seems the trader/forger was very good at aging things. Long story a bit shorter....he used acids, burying in dirt, scavenging old hand made screws from other things and made some really convincing fakes. And a lot of money. Some of it mine. :redface:

 

[plmeek]

Threads like this are some of the most educational we have on this forum. Anybody who may be considering spending big money on a valuable 'original' should read and heed what has been posted.

Yes, sound advice Rifleman.

There's one more tell concerning this rifle, and that's the price it sold at auction. The subject rifle fetched $17,825.00 (including the buyer's premium). That seems low for a S. Hawken rifle is good condition.

For a comparison, another S. Hawken half stock rifle sold in October 2017 for $32,200.00 (including the buyer's premium). That's amounts to a 45% discount for the subject rifle. It might indicate that the more knowledgeable collectors weren't bidding on the suspect rifle.

This has been fun, and hopefully, a learning experience. I'm no expert, and I don't think anyone else that's commented is either. We also need to keep in mind that we only had the auction site's photo's to base our opinions on and not personal inspection of the actual gun. We can't say anything definitive. But still, we have our opinions and suspicions as expressed above and summarized here (items in red were my original list):

• Top of breech bolster left as cast
• Triggers position too far forward relative to guard bow
• Rear scroll on trigger guard not oval and not a right angle to plate
• The butt plate is suspect
• The lock and hammer like Art Ressel's reproductions
• The patina on the metal parts is suspect
• The name and address stamp doen'st look right
• The condition of the wood and finish isn't consistent
• The sale price seems low for original Hawken rifles

Another aspect that serious collectors look for is provenance. Antiques, art, or any collectable will be more valuable with a well recorded provenance or history of prior owners. No or uncertain provenance should be a big red flag to the collector.

For the student that's wanting to learn about these old guns and especially looking for examples to guide a contemporary build, it's important to look critically, or else, one may be copying someone else's interpretation of an original.

Phil Meek

 

[XXX]

This has been fun, and hopefully, a learning experience. I'm no expert, and I don't think anyone else that's commented is either. We also need to keep in mind that we only had the auction site's photo's to base our opinions on and not personal inspection of the actual gun. We can't say anything definitive. But still, we have our opinions and suspicions as expressed above...

Phil Meek

I agree that this has been fun and educational. It would have fooled me. My question at this point would be; What features of this gun look original enough to have convinced the auctioneer's assessor that it was an authentic piece? In other words, if so much of it looks wrong, what if anything looks right to the some people who pointed out their suspicions? Looking forward to some interesting opinions.

 

[plmeek]

...What features of this gun look original enough to have convinced the auctioneer's assessor that it was an authentic piece? In other words, if so much of it looks wrong, what if anything looks right to the some people who pointed out their suspicions?

Triple X,

I think most people see what they want to see. If someone is presented with a rifle like this one and told it's an original, they tend to only see the things that support that. This applies to the people that looked at the pictures online and the people that saw it in person.

It has the correct architecture. It looks old. It had the S. Hawken stamp that probably looks correct with the naked eye.

It wasn't until they were asked if they saw anything odd about it that the people here started seeing these suspicious aspects. Call it the power of suggestion.

I didn't suspect it the first time I looked at it online. I saved the pictures in a folder on my computer under original Hawken rifles.

Later when I came across it again, the lock and hammer caught my eye. I knew that Art Ressel used to have an original in his collection with that lock and hammer and there was another pictured in Baird's first book that was in the Dr. Leonard collection at the time. It's now in the Buffalo Bill Museum in Cody, WY. I don't know where Ressel's is now, so wondered if this was it or a third one not previously published.

That's when I started looking at it critically to see if it matched the pictures I had of Ressel's Hawken. The first odd thing I noticed was the crusty texture of the metal patina. I then started looking at the condition of the wood and finish.

Probably next, I took a good look at the close-up photo of the name and address stamp and noticed the odd shape of the top of some of the letters. This is where photography can help a lot. That detail probably can't be seen with the eye.

By that time I was suspecting a contemporary build and did the comparison to my Hawken Shop Hawken lock. I think the last thing I noticed was that the top of the snail wasn't filed properly and looked like a modern breech as-cast. That was the clincher for me.

Phil

 

[Flintlock_bob]

That was my thought too, that crusty look didn't seem right. I have a few civil war era guns, one that sits out in the unheated shop through the winter and one of those old Arab desert flintlock rifles and none of them have a patina that looks like this.

 

[Col. Batguano]

If I were the buyer of what turned out to be a fake for $17,000 (thinking it was original) and I found out it was a fake, I would be hopping mad. I would certainly go back at Julia demanding restitution.

I'll let the lawyers here chime in on the veracity of the claim, but I don't believe that frauds are time barred, regardless of what their "inspection period" states in the fine print. Either way I bet they would make it good, as the damage to their reputation would far exceed the $17,000 purchase price if they didn't.

 

[meanmike8665]

I also would like to thank everyone who posted. This is really good stuff. I enjoyed the whole tread,thanks again.

Michael

 

[S.Kenton]

A very enjoyable thread, and very informative....

 

[Herb]

Here is Track of the Wolf's Bridger buttplate, #BP-Hawk-JB-I, compared to a life-sized photo of the Kit Carson buttplate. I think this TOW buttplate originated about 1979 or 1980. Also note the trigger guard loop at right angles to the toeline. There were numerous Hawken buttplates, but none that look like the unaltered TOW buttplate. Also, some of the trigger guard loops were not at right angles to the trigger plate.

 

[2049runwer]

If I was going to try to buy a org Hawk I would have someone go down the bore really close , was getting one of our builders on here years ago start one for me until I couldn't find anyone that could copy the bore, I don't remember which book had the drawing of how the bore was done but it got tight then loosen up some it was something like 7 changes but it worked they tested it up to 200 grains of 2f at 200 yrs and it sure amazed me.that was the end of trying to copy that rifle. It was in one of the Baird or Hanson books. And maybe it's old eyes or bad photos but the wrist shape looks :idunno: not right to me.

 

[F.G. Ford]

Thank you for a very educational post.
Fred

 

[Rifleman1776]

I think most people see what they want to see. If someone is presented with a rifle like this one and told it's an original, they tend to only see the things that support that.

I recently read an article about the psychology of selling high end cars ($1 million to $5 million and up). The key was to make the buyer want the car so no one else would get it. Auctions, at any level, use the same psychology. That is why buyers often say they "won" an item at auction. The savvy auction buyer does not view the event as a competition. Methinks the buyer of this rifle was less expert than desirous to own an 'original' Hawken.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Herb, your depth of knowledge continues to 'wow' me. You are a valuable asset here. :bow:

 

[Herb]

Bear 2049th, I can't image the bore having seven changes. When the Green River Rifle Works had Jim Bridger's Hawken in their shop about 1975, the gunsmiths pulled the breech plug. Carl Walker told me that a groove cutter had ridden up on a land from the breech for about half the barrel length. Nobody else knows this except them, and now the whole world. No one would ever want to duplicate this bad cut. The muzzle was detailed, with seven lands and grooves. You can see that in my photos of the Bridger rifle in the post below. http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showpost.php?post/1315481/
When I built a copy of the Kit Carson Hawken (which has a similar muzzle detailing), I detailed mine. The muzzle is lightly coned for about 3/8 inch, then the grooves are filed back deeper.

This is an Oregon Rifle Company barrel, made with seven lands and grooves like the original Hawkens. The detailing serves the purpose of making loading easier. Doc White said he did this a few times, but it was not worth his time to do it.

 

[Rifleman1776]

muzzle is lightly coned for about 3/8 inch, then the grooves are filed back deeper

That looks like an excellent idea. Would make loading easier and faster. But, as pointed out, a time killer for the builder.

 

[Herb]

It doesn't take long to do, but Doc White said it wasn't important to his customers and he didn't add enough to his price to pay for his time. I probably did this in an hour- well, maybe two. All the Hawken muzzles in Jim Gordon's book show uncrowned muzzle bores. Of 40 shown, I think 16 show filing similar to the Bridger rifle, another 11 show no rifling or grooves, being "coned", on 6 I couldn't tell, 4 were not shown, one pistol was filed, one "coned" and 2 were not shown. All the muzzles are flat, with no crown.