platypus gun? I show, you tell...

[Elnathan]

I don't know where the extremely weird term."platypus" came from and prefer to use the term "transitional composit" gun.All in all the gun illustrated by Spence appears to be a very nice gun.

Tom, I think Spence coined it to describe a modern gun put together with a mish-mash of features from different schools or time periods. The term isn't specific to guns built fifty years ago.

 

[jdkerstetter]

I think we may be getting to the root of the cause of those perpetual flame wars.

Spence

I'm glad we are getting somewhere....and this thread is going in, what appears to be, a civil manner.

I wish I could look at the second slide show you posted but I'm at work and this computer won't allow it....and our I.T. kid isn't very helpful.

Suffice to say, I agree, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Some obviously HATE Mike Brooks' aging of his guns but the historical architecture of his guns is beyond reproach.

To me, and I'll get flamed for this, a TC Hawken is no more a Hawken than a modern in-line but there are allot of dead animals to testify to it's effectiveness.

I don't have a problem with what anybody chooses to own or use until they try to pass it off as something it's not. Heck, I own some allot of guns that wouldn't pass muster....I just don't try to convince anybody they will.

J.D.

 

[jdkerstetter]

For the origination of the application of name "platypus" as it refers to architecture of a gun I direct you to this thread from earlier in the week:
http://www.muzzleloadingforum.com/fusionbb/showtopic.php?tid/269082/

I think you will see it was meant in jest...but it does seem to fit for these purposes.

J.D.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I'm glad we are getting somewhere....and this thread is going in, what appears to be, a civil manner.

Well we can't have civility so I'll fix it......I think you guys all stink like old goats. There, argue amongst yourselves..... :rotf:

 

[jdkerstetter]

Hey, who let you out of your box!!!! :blah:

 

[Capt. Fred]

Hmmm, interesting conversation for sure. Maybe the beauty of a gun and the historical correctness are unconnected. But, to me, the aesthetics of the gun overlap with the historical correctness of the gun. I understand that it's a very personal line though. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. But- if we are interested in historical correctness, then don't we also have to accept that the preponderance of examples do show certain aesthetic characteristics? And, just because there are examples of clunkers out there, we can't just say "oh well, since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I once saw a Lancaster that was clunky, then none of the aesthetic aspects of a gun matter", can we?

I think the thing that makes it such an interesting topic is because everybody draws these lines in different places.

I am not offended by where anybody else's line is, but for me, the aesthetics do matter, and are also a pretty big part of the historical correctness of any gun, from any school, or no identifiable school at all for that matter.

Maybe this is more of a semantics thing? When I think aesthetics, I am thinking of the "flow" of the gun from butt to muzzle.

 

[Robby]

Capt. Fred, I think were pretty much on the same page.
Mike, I smell like a lilac awash with the morning dew on a fresh spring morn :grin: , but then I'm not in anyone's box that I know of, so it must be you or jdkerstetter! Must be dark in there. :idunno:
Robby

 

[George]

I cannot,however,tell whether the rear forestock is slab sided but suspect that it is not so made.

I don't know what you mean by the term 'slab sided', Tom, other than to think it refers to a flat area. If you can educate me on that I'll see if it applies to the gun.

Spence

 

[jdkerstetter]

Because thats my skill set??? :shocked2: I don't know that you would JD :hatsoff:

Brother, I'm a rookie builder like you.

I don't have a problem building clunky guns though....I have been know to take too much off, I just don't know when to quit.

You're doin' just fine, I've seen your posts. Keep up the good work.:hatsoff:

Well, back in the box, J.D.

 

[George]

BTW the Johnson City,TN gun mentioned was probably made by either Louis Smith {decd.} or Leroy Fleenor who still lives in East Tennessee and whom I saw a year ago at the Norris show.

Tom, the gun shown in the second slideshow I posted was that gun, and it was made by Louis Smith. Trying to find out it's history, I contacted a long-time gun builder in Johnson City, TN, Donald Davison, and he knew everyone involved. He learned his gun building and engraving from Lester Smith. He said Louis and Lester Smith were not related but that they worked together for a long time. Another person in the area, Buck Fleenor, was an expert at inlays, and he also worked a lot with Louis Smith. When I sent him pictures of the gun he said he had little doubt that it was built by Louis Smith, inlays were put on by Buck Fleenor, then the engraving was done by Lester Smith.

Spence

 

[jdkerstetter]

I don't know what you mean by the term 'slab sided', Tom, other than to think it refers to a flat area. If you can educate me on that I'll see if it applies to the gun.

Spence

If I may, Tom....Spence, you nailed it!

Take for example the lower forestock, from the lock panels to the entry pipe, that area in most cases should be shaped like an accorn...ever so slightly curved up the sides....and not left flat.

Same can be applied to most of the surfaces of the gun....but not always an accorn obviously.

Even on a "V" shaped upper forestock. The "V" has a slight curve to it...not dead flat.

Hope that helps, J.D.

 

[lonehorseman]

I retract my earlier post, Spence...YOU are better at starting and argument that I gave YOU credit for. Great Thread!!!

 

[Bruce Bogart]

Comon Mike your a chicken guy what do you know about how an old goat smells like (and you maybe right :rotf: )

 

[Okwaho]

I don't know what you mean by the term 'slab sided', Tom, other than to think it refers to a flat area. If you can educate me on that I'll see if it applies to the gun.

Spence

If I may, Tom....Spence, you nailed it!

Take for example the lower forestock, from the lock panels to the entry pipe, that area in most cases should be shaped like an accorn...ever so slightly curved up the sides....and not left flat.

Same can be applied to most of the surfaces of the gun....but not always an accorn obviously.

Even on a "V" shaped upper forestock. The "V" has a slight curve to it...not dead flat.

Hope that helps, J.D.

True indeed J D, this resulted from not having access to old guns and looking only at the two sides shown by Kindig and other authors prior to Shumway. Some refer to the areas forward of the lock and side plate panels as being apple shaped in cross section.In the Soddy school of South Eastern, Tennesee one often sees along with the narrow elongated cheek pieces the wrist and forestock being diamond in cross section.
Tom Patton

 

[jdkerstetter]

I'm home and have a had a chance to look at your latest slide show.

Do you do your own photography? It's very good.

Another very good representation of a late flint period rifle. The engraving is better on this one but still keeping the spirit of the originals. Too many today over do it and loose that.

As in many late period guns it borrows attributes from all over. The roman nose butt of Berks County or the Upper Susquehanna Schools. Very rare to Western PA.

I like it. And you know how to pick 'em.

Today the maker would be criticized for leaving too much wood along and up the barrel sides but all the surfaces that should be curved appear to be so. Not slab sided as Tom and Mike pointed out was common when this rifle was built.

I particularly like the cheekpiece. Nicely done.

I can't figure out for the life of me why the buttplate was left proud at the toe and the lock nails square.

Is the patchbox release hidden under the toeplate? Nicely done.

Do you happen to know who made the lock?

You have one fine rifle here. Thanks again for going to all the trouble of posting all these pictures for us. I can only imagine what the quality of the rest of your collection.

Sicerely, J.D.

 

[jdkerstetter]

Thanks Tom.

I had not heard "apple" shaped but I can see where that makes more sense on some guns than the accorn.

That "diamond" shape can be hard to pull off and keep flowing through the butt.

J.D.

 

[Okwaho]

BTW the Johnson City,TN gun mentioned was probably made by either Louis Smith {decd.} or Leroy Fleenor who still lives in East Tennessee and whom I saw a year ago at the Norris show.

Tom, the gun shown in the second slideshow I posted was that gun, and it was made by Louis Smith. Trying to find out it's history, I contacted a long-time gun builder in Johnson City, TN, Donald Davison, and he knew everyone involved. He learned his gun building and engraving from Lester Smith. He said Louis and Lester Smith were not related but that they worked together for a long time. Another person in the area, Buck Fleenor, was an expert at inlays, and he also worked a lot with Louis Smith. When I sent him pictures of the gun he said he had little doubt that it was built by Louis Smith, inlays were put on by Buck Fleenor, then the engraving was done by Lester Smith.

Spence

Spence,I had forgotten about Lester Smith and Leroy Fleenor bein g called Buck.Leroy made a lot of guns for Turner Kirkland.I don't remember the volume of FOXFIRE but there was some information about some of these makers along with Hacker Martin of Southwest Virginia. There is a letter from Hacker to,I believe, Lester Smith asking him
to come back and work with him {Hacker} because of the demand for guns.If you see that letter read it very carefully between the lines as to why and what Hacker had in mind.Nuff said!
Tom Patton

 

[dave_person]

Hi Spence,
The problem concerning HC or PC in the context of your question is that neither term is based on any defining criteria except in the broadest sense (barrel made of some metal that existed during the time, stock made of some material used during the time, ignition system from the period etc, etc). Within those basic sidebars, period smiths could have made any of the guns you showed. The problem with terms like HC and PC is that they are all about context. I think one reason why there are so many useless debates about HC is because participants argue from very different contextual perspectives. For example, if you were to represent the gun as an "18th century Lancaster", "Lehigh", or some historical maker's work, then you actually have precise documented criteria to uphold. Even then, in my opinion, HC does not matter because you are entitled to refer to your gun any way you want. That is, unless you intend to sell it or pass it off to others as some sort of historically accurate representation of a school or region of work. This brings me back to your original question. Few folks offered any specifics about the HC nature of your gun because in the broad way you framed the question, there are few precise answers. Your gun could loosely represent something made by any reasonably competent rural smith working in many parts of central and western PA (probably other areas as well) during the first 3 decades of the 19th century. In that broad sense, it is historically correct. Does your question get at any precise meanings or criteria for HC? No, because your question lacks precise context.

dave

 

[George]

Is the patchbox release hidden under the toeplate?

Do you happen to know who made the lock?

Yes, it is. The entire first section of the toe plate pivots at the level of the screw, pressure on the thumb shaped blob releases it.

I don't know who made the lock, but would like to. I had thought it might be an early Siler. Have a look, all ideas welcome.
http://s881.photobucket.com/albums/ac20/Spence_2010/Smith lock/?albumview=slideshow

So, no fatal flaws about this rifle, either? An acceptable interpretation, no major problems? No flagrant mixture of early and late characteristics, no jumble of assorted schools, no anachronisms?

I'm beginning to think most any reasonable gun can be acceptable, even with some warts, so long as it isn't said to be in a certain school but is obviously not, and so long as the overall package is consistently of a certain time period, whether early or late. Am I getting warm?

Spence

 

[jdkerstetter]

Well, the two guns you gave as conversation starters are much better than "reasonable".

Thanks for the extra info....and pictures. Not a Siler. Somebody else will have to identify.

I think we've about nailed it down....the HC/PC thing. Often if we just let the guns speak for themselves they're fine.

But, as has been mentioned, if we try to label them or pass them off as something they are not then we get in trouble.

Thanks again, J.D.