Historically correct?

[FL-Flinter]

Disclaimer to this post:

** Don't take this post the wrong way, I cannot do the work myself so this is nothing more than a question of curiosity and is by no means an insult to anyone. Being an absolute beginner and with the realization that my physical issues will never allow me to even reach 10% the quality level displayed on this forum, I pose this question purely for the curiosity factor. **

Any of you folks get the latest copy of America's 1st Freedom from the NRA? They have some nice pic's of a crown model LC Smith. Looking closely at the pic's, I see several boo boo's, small they are but there nonetheless.

Obviously the engravers of old didn't have the mega-view microscopes, cobalt and titanium gravers and high-tech sharpening machines, they were likely happy just to have some sort of half decen light source. Since taking a real sincere interest in graving, I have looked very closely at numerous high-end guns and I've yet to find any without some flaws in them. Some are harder to find than others but they are there. I'm talking custom one-of-kind guns built by Merkel, Drillings, Mauser, Winchester & Colt as well as quite a number of original muzzle loaders. The common denominator on all of them is that they were built and graved pre-1950.

When I look at the work you folks are doing, I can't seem to find the normal variations in cut depth and width as is seen in the originals. Strait lines of today are strait while the old one have a little wander to them. Today's cuts are perfectly symetrical while the old cuts show a little more bevel on one side than the other.

These are just some things I picked up on as a true beginner so now I have to ask, in a kind way, when one puts emphasis on building a "historically correct" gun, where do we draw the line at cutting off the modernization and doing the work in a more historically correct manner as well as in a historically correct theme?

 

[ED DELORGE]

Hello FL, You are very correct in your observations. First let me preface what I am about to say with the fact that I consider myself an intermediate engraver, far from beginner, still far from many of the masters whom I share this forum with. When I first began engraving it was likely ten years before I could cut what I would call a perfect circle or oval with hammer and chisel. Todays beginners are doing that after a week using the new tools and equiptment. I think the primary reason engravers of today using power assisted tool learn and excell so quickly is because they are now putting the graver in the right hand. Hammer and chisel requires you put the tool you are engraving with in your non-dominate hand. So it takes many years usually to become proficent engraving that way.

I don't feel bad when I recognize deficencies in others' work. I know how hard it is to do it execelently.
Good Luck to you.

Ed Delorge

 

[Marcus Hunt]

Flinter, in days gone by the engravers were not 'artists' as such and often just knocked things out as fast as possible as that is what the gun companys wanted. Many of the lesser grade guns had virtually nothing spent on them by way of engraving and this is often evident by the quality. There were also some quite hokey engravers anyway which leads me to one of my beefs with the so called 'reproduction' guns such as the new Fox's.

The engraving on a lot of the old guns was, let's face it, crap! So why one earth one would chose to go through the trouble of building a new gun and replicate the dreadful engraving beats me. If the engraver had originally been of a better standard clients wouldn't accept the stuff they are now doing on a new gun. To my mind the gunmakers are wrong and should be putting the best they can afford on new production guns. Just my personal opinion, that's all.

 

[Cody]

I think we owe it to ourselves to do the best we can do. I believe the gunmakers/engravers of old did their very best and be that as it may, that's what we see. Therefore, if we are to be "historically correct" we should build and engrave them just like the makers of old did, that is, by doing our very best. To puposefully do shoddy work just because someone 200 years ago was unable to do better is cheating yourself and living a lie IMO. Now, that's all regarding the "quality" of the work. Where "historically correct" plays an important role is in design. A "Mckenzie scroll", while very attracive has no place on a reproduction of an 18th century longrifle.

 

[LRB]

Marcus, I guess it is much the same to a purist, as having modern engraving and carving, on a flintlock. It just don't look right for a gun that represents an earlier time. I do understand your position though, looking at it as an artist. The artist wants his work to be the attraction, while the gun purist want the entire gun overall, to be the attention getter. I don't know if I explained that well, but perhaps you get my drift. It might surprise you, if you knew how few people, outside the engraving realm, can differenciate between great engraving, and just average, almost poor, engraving. It the old "casting pearls before swine" thing, in many cases. I have heard people marvel over cast in engraving, and don't even care about the difference if you show them. They just like what they see, and know no better. Ignorance can indeed be bliss for some.

 

[Marcus Hunt]

Ahh, there you have it Cody, you summed it up well. If something is a historical reproduction I agree with you. Likewise, if you are restoring another engravers work things have to be done correctly and if this means having to replicate shoddy work that's what has to be done. However, there was some absolutely beautiful engraving done centuries ago and I mean stunning. It may have been quite simple, in fact a lot of it was what we term 'open work', that is the inside work of the scroll doesn't touch the spine of the scroll and there was no cutting away. Just look at the French Boutet (I think that' how it's spelled) pistols and rifles of the Napoleonic era.
http://www.artfund.org/artwork/7050/enlarged/1/double-barrelled-flintlock-sporting-gun
http://www.littlegun.be/arme francaise/artisans a b/a boutet fr.htm
(remember this stuff is over 200 years old!)

They are just a tad different to your average long rifle of the same era and that's because they were designed for different things. The long rifle was probably a working piece whilst the Boutet was for the wealthy client and hence was adorned and embellished for a different market i.e. to show off one's wealth.

I must disagree in that 'all gunmakers/engravers did of their very best' as you put it. I know from experience that not all gunmakers know about engraving and I know some that regard it as a 'necessary evil'. Indeed, look at the work done by some of the factory engravers of some of the big name gunmakers and tell me honestly that you believe they are using nothing but the very best engravers.
All they are thinking about is budget and only if a client wishes for something special will they give it to an outworker. In the past things were often the same and they'd give it to any old engraver (and yes, there were some bad ones) to work on their guns often as cheaply as possible.

LRB, I think you sum it up quite well also in that outside of the engraving realm few can differenciate between good and bad engraving. That's why we, as engravers, must all strive to give of our very best because only when the general public see good engraving continuously will that be what they desire. Sites like this one and the Lindsay forum as well as the efforts being made by GRS to promote engraving as an artform can only be to the good of engraving as a whole. I also agree that you wouldn't put modern engraving on a flintlock but again, look to the really good examples of the past and whilst the designs may differ slightly the cutting is no different to that of today. The modern repro shotguns I was alluding to are not what you would term as 'historical' reproductions and indeed, at the same time the originals were made there were some fantastic engravings being done. It's just they used a poor craftsman and as you say, sadly, the majority of the public can't tell good engraving from bad.

 

[FL-Flinter]

I think I perhaps overshot my question a little .... maybe a lot?

I wasn't questioning the "quality" of the work in the manner that the engraver did not do his best work. My question should have been more deliberate as in: "At what point of historically correct does one put away the computer generated/assisted graphics, microscope and power tools and just break out the pencil, a piece of plain tool steel and a hammer?"

That's why I was leery about asking in the first place, I didn't want this to be taken in the wrong context. Yes, I understand that normal off-the-shelf guns were not given the same attention to quality as custom guns, that's why I used the examples of only "custom" guns that were built-to-order.

 

[Marcus Hunt]

Well Flinter, if you want to go back and do things exactly the way it was done in the past there is nothing stopping you but then you have to work out if the engraving was hand pushed or done by hammer and chisel. All the air assisted tools of today do is help the graver pass through the metal easier. And the scope helps with vision and posture. None of the modern assistance is necessary to engraving, it just makes life easier. In the past you'd have had to stop working when it got dark, would you turn off the electricity to be historically acurate? Graver geometry will also affect the performance of the graver through the metal and it's doubtful the old time engravers would have used a parallel heel very often. As for mistakes, look at the beautiful Persian carpets and you will always find a mistake or imperfection. Why? Only God is perfect!

 

[KCSteve]

Interesting question FL-Flinter

How far should one go for historical accuracy? Using proper 'period' designs seems obvious, as does not violating the style of the day by doing inlay or other work that wouldn't have been done at the time.

But should you try to adjust the execution of the design to the pieces you're trying to match? The folks who know what they're talking about seem to be in full agreement that you should always try to match the quality of your engraving to the quality of the existing engraving when you're doing restoration work (even if you have to rent the blind monkey to do it). But if you're working on something fresh, how far should you go....

No answers here, but I'm watching the discussion with great fascination!

 

[LRB]

I would say, if a new piece, do your best, but be careful to not use an inapproprate design for the period the piece will represent.

 

[chris]

hi
everyone i beleve 90 percent of all the engravers today could not do what they did without your scopes try it an see they did what the could under time pressure from there bosses some shotys had to be out the next day try rushing it you have perfect light and conditions they never and time an scopes , engraveing was ment to look at and enjoy with the naked eye not ment to be put under a microscope and picked the monaleaser might look a bit ruff under a scope mabee leanardo shoud have painted under a scope chris

 

[FL-Flinter]

I do have to stop working when it gets dark because of the inundation of bugs. I also moved my work area into the natural light because I can see better with it than I can with the daylight lamp.

What really got me started on this whole subject was when I had my wife look at an original side by side with gun built by a modern day builder who is considered to be a “master of the trade”. (It took me at least an hour to find one very minor flaw in his engraving and I’ve yet to find a rough spot on his wood carving despite the fact I have studied the rifle for several days.) My wife, who really isn’t into “bling”, looked over both guns at length with both the naked eye and under the loupe. Pointing to the rifle built by the modern master she said, “This one looks like it was done on some kind of machine. It’s real nice but it looks fake or un-natural, there’s no human element visible in it.” Pointing to the original she said, “Now this one has character because I can see it was done by human hands. The guy that built this one put his heart and soul into it and it shows.”

I studied the original quite closely too because it’s similar to one I am planning on building. 99% of the engraving is hammer & chisel work, some small light cuts appear to have been pushed. The original looks great to the naked eye but when viewed through a 15X loupe, you can see the every spot where the chisel was impacted by the hammer, bottom of the cut is fairly flat but varies in depth. The outside of the turns have some tearing and the edges of the cut are not symmetrical. Of course no one is perfect and there are some spots where the chisel obviously slipped a little and where lines don’t quite intersect. The wood carving was clearly done with chisel and scraper, the edges are nice but not perfectly smooth.

This is what got me questioning the difference between – “doing the best quality work possible using the modern advantages” or “doing the best quality work possible using only the same tools that were available 200 years ago”

 

[beegee]

I often wonder if Stradavari would have made "better" violins if he's had access to power tools. For several centuries now, modern artists have tried to replicate the Stardivari sound, response, projection, appearance and feel and some have come very close. Granting you cannot build true aging into anything, and Stardivari's instruments were not necessarily "perfect" when it comes to symmetry and minute details, AND many have undergone radical reconstruction, a Strad is still a Strad...

 

[ihsfab]

Well I guess Flinter the question that you need to ask yourself are you going to do this for yourself or a customer. If its for a customer give them a choice and charge accordingly. I look at what is done with a h/c and sometimes can't believe that it was done with those tools.

 

[Cody]

I know where you're coming from. Often, work that boarders on perfection has a cold impersonal "feel" to it and it lacks the warmth and charm of old work that shows the 'human' element. However, achieving that 'warmth and charm' through forgery is a skill I think VERY few posess. There's a big difference between what I THINK you are reffereing to and what Marcus is reffereing to. Marcus makes some very good points but I think his comments are concerning the european trade where there were engravers employed by the gunmakers and the best gunmakers hire the best engravers and the lesser gunmakers hire lesser engravers and appear to sometimes be after production over quality. This differs from the american gun makers of the period where, for the most part, one gunsmith (with the help of an apprentice) built the whole gun, carving, inletting and engraveing included. I don't believe engravers were hired to decorate american longrifles and that is why the engraveing on a Manton is so much better than that on a Dickert as example. I do still believe that the makers of american longrifles did the very best they could, they just didn't specialize in engraveing and therefore the outcome was less refined than that from the good european houses. Be that as it may, back to the original question, I STILL say "do the very best you can". However, if you find your work a bit too refined compared to that of the period then lose some of the modern day advantages and cut as they did. Useing a hammer and chisel, hand sharpened, no magnification, only natural light (not lights that can be manipulated as to direction) and engrave the parts on the gun rather than in a ball vice but STILL do the very best you can do. I think your results will be in the same ball park. The closer we can emulate their circumstances the better chance we have of reproducing their work. After all, they were human, just like us (well MOST of us )

 

[Ron Smith]

Well,I personally think there will always be a demand for the old type work and what a man does is up to him. If you want to do something for your own reputation however, you cannot do it by repeating old designs and ideas, as much as I think they are precious. We all had to come through them to get to where we are. Others will do the same, but that commitment to get better keeps driving us onward, not allowing us to rest in our comfort zones. I am an advocate of freedom, and being locked into history doesn't appeal to me. I love struggling with my potential better. I do adore the old and have great respect for it. I think it tends to be relative to what one is capable of doing at the time. And then of course, for economical reasons we make what ever choices we have to. I however, would rather make history than repeat it, but could not always have made that choice. We move in and out of phases as we progress along, and that is part of the engraving experience. Mental adjustments are just as important as the actual work we do, we just don't often make those adjustments until inspired or motivated by other things like better quality. Each will find his own nitch and thank God, but that nitch is constantly dhanging for some of us. Reach as high as you can my friends and revel in the satisfaction that you did your best at any given point in time........And that is my two cents on the subject.......Ron S

Why not create a new age of muzzle loaders with the best there is to give? Make a market for them and make it happen......and.......They will be forced to come along...........It wouldn't harm the purists and their interest a bit. That would continue. Just the rambling of a free mind not bound by preconcieved notions, but rather stimulated by the possibilities.

 

[KSnyder]

Marcus, I disagree with you. If you examine 18th American flint rifles a good portion of the makers did ALL the work themselves. the 3 to 5 rule is plainly evident and the knowledge of wood working , metalurgy , forging, engraving and all the rest make them true artists imho. American longrifles are a breed unto themselves taken mainly from Germanic origins they (rifles) evolved into something special. From Pennsylvania to Virginia no one even today can explain how the designs of carving , engraving and dimensions progressed with only slight variation with virtually NO communication between builders.
As Flinter mentioned, they had crummy light source many had no or inadequate eye glasses let alone maginfiers and no fancy or even good stones for sharpening their tools. I doubt if held to that standard today many could pass muster.
good day sir,
Kent

 

[Marcus Hunt]

Well Kent, that opens up the debate to an entirely different level. "In your opinion that makes them true artists", now what does that mean? Would the makers of such pieces at the time have regarded them as much? I doubt even the guys working for European makers (like Boutet) would have regarded themselves as 'artists', fine craftsmen yes but artists? Is this a term we have come to bandy about too freely in the late 20th/early 21st centuries? Does something become 'art' when the intent is there? Please don't think I'm baiting you or deriding you, this is just a very interesting observation of yours.

I don't doubt for one minute the American flint rifles of the past were great pieces in their own right. They did the job they were intended for and looked super. But you summed it up perfectly when you say the maker probably did it all. And that means some of the very specialist stuff like embellishment probably wasn't performed to the highest of standards. That's not to say that wasn't the best the craftsman was, himself, capable of. But do you seriously think that if the maker happened to be a superb engraver too he would have just scratched a few coarse scrolls. I doubt it. Personally I think, as you say, he would have done the best he possibly could and that would have been superb engraving if he was capable of it. Now that doesn't necessarily mean total coverage, etc., just what the fashion of the time would have dictated.

Decoration on arms and armour has always been a status thing. It is expensive and totally unnecessary to the function of the piece it decorates. It was a way of the wealthy being able to display their wealth outwardly to the world at large. How much decoration one could afford would dictate where on the ladder of wealth a person was. So to an immigrant to the New World living in the backwoods without many neighbours to show off to what was important was a rifle that worked and embellishment was probably an afterthought. Later on though embellishment became as important to you guys as the rest of the civilized world and hence you have some of the wonderfully engraved old Colts and Winchesters.

Please believe me when I say I am not setting out to deride the builders of the old flint rifles. I think what they built was great and it is wonderful to see such historical pieces. But like Ron says, it was of their time and whilst it can be mimiced why not put some wonderful scroll of today on such a piece? After all, unless it is being made specifically as a historical replica what does it matter if the scrollwork is different or more cleanly cut?

 

[Bama]

Artwork or Workmanship

Flinter I have followed this thread with great interest and there are some very good points made by all. I have been studying the American Longifle for many years, they are a passion for me. There were some builders that were better gravers than some, some better carvers, some better stockers but when it is all said and done above all they were craftsmen that produced a product. Today I build rifles of varying price. The higher the price the more the labor cost and I doubt that it was any different for the early builders. I work in engineering, quality is defined by the customer you are working for and that is the same principal I use when I build a rifle. I allways do my best and try to give the customer what he is paying for and maybe a little extra but I can't give work away either. I think this is how it was done in early America. With that said I have several rifles that I want to build that will be of my own desire and I will do my best to make them a true work of art (in my opinion) reguardless of the tools used and the cost be damned. I use both hammer and graver and a GraverMach. I like the GraverMach because I can do better work with it and it is easier on my hands. Will my work ever be admired like those of old, maybe maybe not, but it will be the best that I could do reguardless and that is all I can do. I was once told by one of the highest reguarded early American contemporary rifle builders alive today that his highest goal was to build a rifle without any glue in it. I doubt that any handmade product is free of flaws for we are not flawless. So my friend strive to do your best for that is all we can do and use the tools you have available to do it.

 

[KSnyder]

Marcus, "the wonderful scroll of today" would be totally out of place on such an arm. That's why. No disrespect intended. I didn't mean to say the old builders were "artists" but artists in their own rights.
Not many, only a handful of folks today anywhere in the world can cut down a tree, season the wood, inlet the stock,gather the iron, make a barrel and the lock from scratch , make all the lock springs and finally carve & engrave the entire piece. The standard of the day was they put there names on these rifles and they did the best with what they had. So yeah, it's MY OPINION that carving & engraving are art no matter who does it or how crude. The intent is there in the decoration.
Kent