Jaeger Lovers...

[galamb]

Whatever our opinions that sure is one pretty rifle and in the world of "custom builds" 11K is certainly not unheard of.

And we can all be honest. If money was "no object" we would have more than a few "kicking around" that were of this (in some guys/gals view, perhaps "over the top") level of decoration along with maybe a few dozen originals by the famous builders that usually go for auction in the 6 figure range.

Nope, it wouldn't kill the paper/bambi/tree rat any "deader" than a used $300 T/C, but it sure would look pretty doing it.

And as some have mentioned here - this has gone way beyond simply building a rifle and crossed into an art form.

But we do tend to find considerable justification not to own the things we can not afford.

And on that note, I AGREE - that's way too pretty to take in the woods so it would live it's life on the wall - AND I wouldn't want it to go to waste like that, it should be shot regularly, so at present, I will leave it for "someone else" to enjoy :rotf:

 

[rickystl]

Me too! :rotf:

 

[hanshi]

Well, money is no object for me - don't ever see it so it ain't no object - but a very, very fine jaeger can be had for what the wallet of a beer drinking, 40 hour week aficionado can stand. Squirreling $$ away for a few months/years(?) may be required but not overly long.

 

[Ray-Vigo]

If Louis XIV were to own a Jaeger, this would be it.

 

[dave_person]

Hi,
No Louis would have a gun made with much more skill.

dave

 

[Thom77]

Brian LeMaster was a very young builder in 1992. Today he is a very fine builder and restorer.

Thom

 

[tecum-tha]

I am not impressed by this rifle. Maple stock!!!
Too long of a barrel, rather short caliber, does not even have a flip up sight.....
It looks more like my G.L. Jones American Jaeger rifle, but with more bling added. I don't think it is aesthetically correct.
I guess G.L. Jones would charge about 4500-5000 for a rifle like that, max.
Before I spend 11k, I buy me 4 originals in almost perfect shape and use these. More guns and a better investment.

 

[Rifleman1776]

I am not impressed by this rifle. Maple stock!!!
Too long of a barrel, rather short caliber, does not even have a flip up sight.....
It looks more like my G.L. Jones American Jaeger rifle, but with more bling added. I don't think it is aesthetically correct.
I guess G.L. Jones would charge about 4500-5000 for a rifle like that, max.
Before I spend 11k, I buy me 4 originals in almost perfect shape and use these. More guns and a better investment.

Your tastes, notions and budget are not typical of most here, I'm sure.

 

[Monty369]

Got a Pedersoli in .54. Hell if the early Mountain men like Jeremia Johnson considered the .50 cal. big bear medicine then I'm happy with mine. Beautifully done and picked it up new for just under $1,000. Haven't had a chance to shoot it yet, but it sure looks pretty hanging!

 

[Stophel]

Many people seem to think talent and hard work are worthless. Many others seem to think it is priceless.

I hate to offer criticism of a gun where the smith is not present nor asked for criticism, especially since I am not capable of making a $11,000+ rifle myself, BUT, I feel I must say that this particular rifle simply does NOT look like an 18th century German rifle. AT ALL. Not even close (something I can say for a great number of modern built "Jaeger rifles" I have seen).

Now, not about this particular gun, but in general:

I have seen many contemporary guns by makers who obviously are skilled, and do very neat inletting, polish their parts perfectly, finish the wood to glass smoothness, do flawless engraving and carving, etc, but seriously miss the mark of what a real 18th century flintlock rifle looks like and feels like. How it is shaped, how it is styled, how it is finished. They are technically proficient in workmanship, but sometimes utterly oblivious to the artistry, craftsmanship and forms found in 18th century guns. Sometimes even the very basics seem beyond them. Often, the gunmaker will use modern design elements, styles and forms and stick them on a flintlock rifle, do a technically superb job of it, and sell it for zillions of dollars to the undiscerning wealthy, and while I admire their ability to cash in the big bucks, I still find their work to be soulless, uninteresting, and unattractive.

I've probably said too much! :haha:

 

[azmntman]

If I had $11K for a gun I am pretty sure it would be for an original in excellent shootable condition (thats just me though?)

 

[Marc Adamchek]

I know I'm coming late to this party, but I'll throw in my 2 cents: I'm a relative neophyte hen it comes to the world of Jaegers. I only have one I bought a couple years ago, a real little beauty by Roy Stroh, not for 11K.

That said, this one at TOTW just doesn't give me a jaeger vibe or feel. It sure is pretty, which makes me wonder why he spent all that time on those wonderful engravings and then included those lousy impressions on the face of the lock.

THAT should never have been included, it's from another world entirely, and NOT from the world where people spend more than 10 grand on their flinters.

 

[tecum-tha]

I would recommend to the people who like this rifle to do a serious surfing through the auction catalogues of hermann historica and to check the bolk antiques website. On these pages you will see originals in the typical forms and often good function/mint condition. Then you will get my criticism of this "jaeger". And since I am German, I have studied these guns much closer in a lot of museums than probably most Americans will ever be able to do. Thus I don't give much about articles written about the subject in American publications.

 

[Rifleman1776]

Thus I don't give much about articles written about the subject in American publications.

Opinions allowed here. atriot:
However, the article in the 1971 issue of American Rifleman that I have saved is, in MY opinion, excellent. I will e-mail to anyone who PTs me asking for it.

 

[tecum-tha]

Your opinion is fine with me.
Still, originals in good working order can be had for about 3K what the auction site clearly shows. Everything in the II+-(II-III)is usually very shootable or better. Why should one spend 11K for a "wrong" Jaeger, that is: wood, decoration, barrel length, sights etc. Caliber for best performance was designated as being around 1.5 Loth(weight unit) with a loth to vary between 15.0 and 17.6 grams depending on jurisdiction. That makes calibers between 0.60" and 0.65" the ideal rifle caliber by the gunsmith guilds definition. I tried that on my original Austrian jaeger barrel and it is exactly 1.5x Austrian imperial loths=0.65 cal. Spot on.
I also highly recommend the book on Jaeger rifles from DWJ and for the English only audience the translation available from Jim Chambers.
This book is a wealth of good information and some serious "gun p.rn".It is not cheap but worth the price.
I would be interested what Ron Scott delivers for 11K in comparison.

 

[bpd303]

I have always thought the original Jaeger's were utilitarian hunting rifles, not works of art.

 

[Col. Batguano]

You know more about Jaegers than the guys at Track that priced this thing obviously. But I would still be willing to bet you that it sells right around that price. the stock market is nearing an all-time high, and that has more than a little to do with sales of luxury and frivolous items.

Track still has probably the best marketing and name recognition out there, and they know more than most of the guys that buy (rather than build) contemporary-build rifles.

 

[tecum-tha]

@Col.Batguano: I respect TOW for their marketing efforts. But everyday someone gets up to get stiffed by a clever marketer.

@bpd303: Yes and no. Jaeger rifles or actually correctly called "Jaegerstutzen" or only "Stutzen" which are guns with the shorter barrels more suitable in very dense woods and in the mountains, also for having it on the back on horseback.
A "Jaegerbuechse" is generally a gun with a slightly longer barrel (probably 28" to around 36") "Stutzen" and "Buechsen" are rifles, a "Flinte" is a smoothbore. A "Flinte" can be more in the form of a Jaegerbuechse, but mostly it is made for waterfowling and is then built mostly on a half-stocked Jaegerstock.
As these weapons really started to take off during the barock aera, a certain amount of carving was almost normal and expected. Depending on your wallet, you wanted to show your status and a way to do that was the adornment on a gun.
Let's say, you are a normal craftsman (with your own shop) you would usually be able to afford a basic model "Stutzen" (for personal defense and recreational shooting only)with brass furniture and very light carving.
Now let's say you were of lower nobility or a medium to higher civil servant to the sovereign of the part of the country you lived in, then you may upgrade your "Stutzen" with a better grade of furniture most likely German Silver. The price increase was already around 25-30% over the basic gun. Now, let's say, you were of higher nobility or even the sovereign of a part of Germany back then, depending on your wealth, you paid one or several gunsmiths a yearly allowance. This yearly allowance usually made them build you a rifle per year, but you were not obligated to buy it. If you like the rifle, then you would probably pay the gunsmith a generous amount of money. If you decided it was not to your liking you may pay him not generous and put it in your armory or you let him be stuck with it and he would try to sell it to someone else trying to get some money out of it. If your rifle/rifles/pistols were well liked, the sovereign often gave you the title of a court supplier. That was a status symbol like it is still in Great Britain today, with the difference, that there were many more sovereign courts in German Territories than in Great Britain. When money and titles win, competition is fierce. That's why you find the highly decorated rifles. To cite out of a master thesis about a 18. century German gun shop after the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation was no longer existent: "The King of Bavaria complained to his brother about the price of a pair of pistols his brother had built as a present for Napoleon as being ridiculously expensive and he as the King had to pay for them."
"Jaegers" or "hunters" were actually employed by the sovereign to
1.) Protect the hunting ground and wild game from poachers. Only high and lower nobility had the right to hunt and only specific animals depending on their class.
2.) Supply the courts with wild game
3.) Organize and or support the hunting of the sovereign and his guests

To be considered for employment, you had to be a pretty good shot with your "Stutzen" or "Buechse" which you supplied yourself. Often probably paid for by a loan from relatives or an heritage.
If you were employed, it was a pretty decent position and the Jaegers were often used also during wartimes as couriers or as light reconnaissance. After their years in service, they were often given an annual retirement allowance.

 

[Col. Batguano]

Wonderful synopsis. Thank you for posting.

So, assuming that this Jaeger were done correctly, caliber wise etc., according to your description, to which class of gentry would it be most appropriately go? Ignore the rather austere engraving, which should have been fleshed out with more detail, shading, etc, which of course, is more time, and money. Please just grade it (or maybe classify it is the right term?) for what it is (class of people ).

Yes, there is a certain amount of caveat emptor in every transaction isn't there? A fool and their money are soon parted.

 

[tecum-tha]

Well, hard to say, because the decoration is a little untypical, especially so much silver wire inlay. Silver was expensive and you would find rather the lock plate being really decorated with chisel cut deep engraving than sparsely decorated locks and a lot of other bling and hardly any carving.
I would say lower nobility +.
As a very good example check out: http://www.hermann-historica.de/db2_de/aktuelle-auktion.html

Click the right catalogue and go to Lot number 1743: This pair was sold for Euro 12000, roughly $16500. Now, these are originals and I would not hesitate to shoot one of these guns.
But you should get the point about:
Engraving and carving are tasteful, barrel is fireblued, silverwire inlay in barrels and the guns are "twins". Also check out the cock of this gun when it comes to "relief" chiseling of the metal. This gun is decorated, but more in the way it should have been done.

Also, check out lot 1747:
Do you see the "stag" on the lock and how tastefully and "playful" that lock is engraved?
Compare to the contemporary piece offered....
When you look at the sight, you can still see the sighting in marks from the gunsmith.
A nice hunting scene when you pull the cock back.
Huntress shooting at bedded stag most likely using a crossbow. Often this was depicting "Diana", the goddess of hunters in greek mythology.