Interesting early style carving?

[JerryToth]

Greetings all;

I've been contemplating building a transitional as my next project.

I was looking through the May 2004 issue of Muzzleblasts. On page 61, there starts a feature entitled "Flourishes of a Different Fashion". An early smooth rifle is shown.

The carving on this rifle seems unusual; it's an incised carving, but with more than seems to be typical detail. Further, several areas look to be "lowered" as opposed to the "raised" that we see so often.

If any of you most knowledgeable fellows get the Muzzleblasts magazine, please look at it and tell me your thoughts on this style.

I'm wondering if this might not be an interesting, albeit unusual style of carving for my transitional?

Your thoughts, (and advice), please.

Regards to all,

Jerry.

 

[Zonie]

The carving shown is very attractive and oweing in large part to the meticulous detail carved into the flowers it is much more interesting than simple incised carving.

I say go for it, and I defy others to say it is not PC.
When one thinks of all of the guns which were made during that given period of time, the best one can do is say "these features were usually found (or not found) during that time period" but no one living can say for certain that a gun made during that time didn't have carving like this.

I found it interesting that the guns ramrod (in the protected areas where it hadn't faded) was found to have candy striping on it.
I have been told by some "experts" that this was not done until the mid to late 1800s. They will say, no doubt, that the ramrod is not original, but as with my opnion given above I will always say "prove it is not the original".
Just the mean streak in me I guess. ::

For you who have not subscribed to Muzzle Blasts yet, here is what the talk is about

 

[tg]

I recall seeing carving of the sort on pics of originals somewhere, as for whether something is pc or historicaly accurate one can do whatever one wishes and say prove it was not done.... but this is not how the game is played by those who are serious about the study and historical accuracy of the guns we build as "replicas' of guns from another time, the "prove it weren't so line of thought" only fuels the fire for inaccuracy and perpetuates many myths that many longtime researchers have spent years trying to replace with facts. The fantasy guns are fine and many top builders get top dollar for them, but the guns that hold true to what we know of the originals are a different breed and should be kept in a class of their own which is determined by the standards that research provides, but some seem determined to build the first and call it the second with no end to the rationalization to justify the classification. There are many truely great builders around, and many well studied gun historians but very few who combine the two on a regular basis.

 

[JerryToth]

Twist on the rod, and both front and rear sights,... on a smoothbore... Somehow this rifle seems very unusual for it's time.

tg, it is attributed to a Captain Reynolds of the Pennsylvania Provincial Army. There is a quote talking about the Treaty of Easton and 1756. It is believed to have been made by a A. Angstadt of Masatoney township, Berks County.

I might get a chance to make a business trip to Philadelphia in the future, and if I do, I'd sure like to make an appointment to view this rifle.

It's either a fascinating carving style, or else I'm too easily impressed.

I'm not looking to create a totally "fantasy rifle", but neither do I need an exact replication. I'm what you might describe as a casual historian of this era. I don't want to do harm to the correct truth, but honestly most of my time is spent with fellows carrying Thompson Centers and such. I sadly doubt I'll ever have the knowledge you fellows have. Wish I did, but I don't.

I guess I have to be content to just roam the local ridges and daydream!

Take care,

Jerry.

 

[Zonie]

Tg: I agree there is a great deal of very valuable work going on to determine the history of antique guns and the origins of them. I also agree that some false assumptions undoubtedly have been made in the past and it is important to know the truth.

I do feel that in some of the areas dealing with American Longgun the truth is often elusive.

If there is substantiated evidence that something is so, I will not question it, however when people make statements "of fact" based on unsubstantiated assumptions, (particularly negative statements), I reserve the right to disagree.

One area in particular which IMO often falls into the latter category is the area of "art" as it relates to the Longgun.
When speaking of the art forms I feel it is reasonable for someone to say "that is uncommon" but I question the person who says "that cannot be".
Some may refer to Longguns which display unusual art features as "fantasy" guns. I must question the use of the term as it implys the gun is totally out of touch with reality, when in fact the gun may be only outside our limited range of knowledge of the truth.

As you say, those recreations which are intended to represent the originals live in a separate catagory and should only reflect what is actually known as fact which existed during their time. This is well and good however I don't believe a departure from the "known" is necessarly a "fantasy".

Many of the Longguns made by modern builders are not intended to be recreations of specific guns, but are meant to reflect a general time period.
IMO as long as they do in fact maintain the major mechanical characteristics of the period, they should not be criticized for possessing artistic features which are beyond our knowledge.

 

[Deadeye]

Zonie, very well said, I agree. As for the artwork, it's typical leather carving style. I like it and it can be seen in any leather carving book. Hadn't thought about using it on wood but think I might try it.

 

[Stumpkiller]

I think the Bucks Co. longrifles use incised carving to the exclusion of relief. See if you can dig up something on them. (Man, I wish I had a good reference library and a scaner).

 

[Randy]

Deadeye, you're exactly right. That style looks very similar to leather carving you see on old saddles and such. (The ones that were done by hand, not machine stamped.) Especially the flowers and leafy parts.
I've been carving on leather much longer than on guns, and that picture struck me as soon as I laid eyes on it. I may be wrong, but I always thought that style of leather carving was developed in the mid to late 1800's nearly a century after this gun was made. Probably one had nothing to do with the other. An interesting comparison though.

 

[tg]

I agree with the above, my point is aimed at trying to steer those who ask questions about historical authenticity towards what we do know and the originals, then they can decide for themselves how far into the realm of what is not known they wish to go and still feel confortable that they are in the ballpark, to often todays replicas are offered as examples and you end up with the same situation as having a circle of people and one starting a story and it traveling around and returning to the teller......what about a masterfully carved or engraved scene of the King of England mooning General Washigton....historicaly correct persons, a true reflection of the mood, I wonder if was ever done (VBG)

 

[doverdog]

I am posting this information as received from a friend. I shall include the message from him, as I got it, in it's full text. I apologize if the images are too large but I wasn't sure how to get them smaller.

Keith,
Here are a couple of the usual out of focus grainy photos of the Jaeger that I told you about. I copied this from an original in my earlier years of gun building around 1975. The original was a European Jaeger that appeared to be stocked in fruit wood possibly apple. The original was only 38" overall and had a 23" swamped barrel of about 60 cal. The furniture was hand made from thick sheet brass and was not engraved. I initially copied it because of the really nice "set in" incised carving pattern. The two photos included are the patchbox side and the cheekpiece side. Incidentally this piece had no butt trap or patchbox of any kind. It had additional carving at the front of the cheekpiece, tang and behind the entry thimble a rather elaborate lower forestock molding and a black horn muzzle cap. The original was owned by a gentleman in Macungie,PA. Macungie is in western Lehigh Co. and nearly borders Berks Co. and Maxatawney Twp. It would be interesting to speculate that the original may have been carried there, from Germany or Switzerland and the carving design was modified and copied by the maker of the gun pictured by Ironsight. My family came from Switzerland (Bern area) and settled in Maxatawney Twp. in 1731 so there would have been plenty of time for such a thing to happen. I suppose we are as confused as ever, but on a higher level and about more important things.. Regards Ron

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

[musketman]

I think the Bucks Co. longrifles use incised carving to the exclusion of relief. See if you can dig up something on them.

Here is some incised carving for all to view...

 

[Doc Arroyo]

Out here on the west coast, we get a little different view in gun collections. Alot of working man's guns! The Gold Rush caused a great melting pot...I have seen a number of longrifles, and longrifles that were converted to halfstock percussion rifles, as well as a number of European weapons of the period. And this type of carving doesn't look so unusual to me at all! :shocking:

We have two guns with completely incised carving shown at this time in this post. Aren't they both stocked in walnut? Releif carving in walnut wants to flake at the edges much easier than maple. So didn't the smiths just carve to the abilities of the woods to take carving?