A Review - Early Rustic Arms "American Fowler"...

[DGeraths]

Mike,

Seriously... let it go. :shake:

 

[Mike Brooks]

Since you havn't told me to go take a flying leap yet..... :winking:
I think this gun looks spectacular just the way it is. In fact I can't get enough of it.
I like the color and the architecture, both are superb in my opinion. The only thing I don't care for are the casting lines on the trigger guard.
In my estimation that gun is an excellent representation of a 1770-1780 fowling piece from Conecticut. You couldn't get a better gun for 2X the anount you have in it
I'd hang on to that gun if I were you. you won't find a better one.:thumbsup:

 

[DGeraths]

Those casting marks are bothering me as well. :hmm: I might try to at least clean those up a bit. I don't know... it is not really noticable until you are right on top of the gun.

decisions... decisions....

Dana

 

[Mike Brooks]

Mike,

Seriously... let it go. :shake:

Good Lord man! I never "had a hold" of it! :haha:
Seems I've been the only civil one in this exchange! :relax:

 

[Rebel]

If it were mine, i would leave it as is.

 

[rabjr]

I agree with Rebel...leave it alone, use it and enjoy it. :thumbsup:

 

[Stumpkiller]

We've slipped down this path before.

What did not exist cannot be proven because we don't have every example then present cataloged and dated. We can be pretty sure what did exist from well documented pieces and partial pieces from the archeological record (artifacts, excavations, dated pattern books, etc.). Debate is welcome and how some people learn, or prefer to learn, or great sport for others.

Let's not get into the "you are a so-and-so because . . . " mud slinging that occurs when we get personal. Debate is one thing, name calling is a lower order of business.

I'm sure Mike Brooks is not simply book educated. Groups like the CLA have meets and events where ideas and antique rifles are presented and examined. No one can learn on their own, and book knowledge has limitations.

I like Rich's comment that those examining his piece occasionally looked up to judge his reaction. We lack that benefit here. Facial expressions and body language (and spoken inflection) are half of our verbal communication message. The written word is open to interpretation and the bias of the reader. We should all remember that before we start simmering here.

Let's keep it civil.

You never finish a truly authentic reproduction firelock, but at some point you stop working on it and say "it's finished." Perhaps what you have is a 50, 75, or 90% authentic copy or an impressionistic piece based on design interpretations or whatever. Nobody gets it 100%, but the glory is in trying. When you think you're there someone will pipe up "but the original had growth rings that showed two draughts in the ten years before the three was harvested".

How you react is up to you. You can say "pi## off", or "thank you - but I did not want to create a forgery", or "By gum you're right, I never noticed that."

If someone builds a play house for his kids of an Apollo space capsule the burden of authenticity is less than someone creating one for display at the Smithsonian. There shouldn't be a figure of Elmo in the mission specialist's seat in one, and it don't matter in the other.

 

[bnail]

DGeraths, for my two cents, I'd leave it the way is, as I do not have the skill to refinish it properly. but I don't believe in antiquing, if an 18th century citizen were to carry a two hundred year old looking piece, shouldn't it be a matchlock?

 

[DGeraths]

DGeraths, for my two cents, I'd leave it the way is, as I do not have the skill to refinish it properly. but I don't believe in antiquing, if an 18th century citizen were to carry a two hundred year old looking piece, shouldn't it be a matchlock?

Well, if I thought it looked 200+ years old I would for sure refinish it. But at least to my eyes, it looks like it is supposed to represent a gun that has seen a few seasons on the frontier.
I will very probably leave it alone... One of my concerns however are people mistaking the look of the gun for poor firearm maintenance on my part.

Dana

 

[weirdjack]

If you had this gun, would you restore it to a new condition or would you leave it as is?

I think you should rid yourself of this gun as quickly as possible. It has caused you enough grief already. Being the big-hearted soul that I am, you can just send it to me and be free from this troublesome burden.
No need to thank me....I'm always glad to help.
Jack

 

You might take into consideration my 25 years of in depth study into the field before you write me off as some bumbling idiot. Especially when it's obvious you havn't studied 18th century fire arms in depth.

I have never said that I have studied them Mike...

Your information is not the issue here. It is your superior attitude that you convey when you are delivering the information.

There are experts, there are arrogant asses, and then there are both. Which one do you think you are coming across as?

Let it go man, don't make this worse. This was just a simple review of the gun and how well it was built, nothing more. We all get it, you are the gun master. :master:

Cheers,

Dana

Mr. Geraths, I humbly ask you to step back and look at your own statements: it is you who are coming off as the "know-it-all" and who is resisting knowledgeable input. Your ERA gun is a beauty and I wouldn't hesitate to use it for Rev War reenactment. Congrats on a good buy. As for F&I War period, there is much arguement and misunderstanding about what is an appropriate gun and many reenactors therefore choose the "safe" totally documented arms. But many get away with less and most probably don't know enough to question your fowler. The point is, how much do YOU care about the authenticity? If it is good enough for you, fine. But if you really want to know, then research it further. Mr Brooks was trying to help you and for that he got abused. I personally would listen to him. Someone pointed out the book showing collections of supposed Rev War items as if it were authoritative, but many knowledgeable folks point out many problems with the dating in that book. There are books and there are books. Ideas evolve, opinions change, interpretations differ. There are some people out there who make a serious effort at knowledge about the old guns and to blow them off because their answer isn't what you want to hear is not the best way to learn.....there is a commercial on TV now that says "there are two groups...those that say that they can do it and those that say they cannot; both are right...which one do you want to be?" This quote can be paraphrased to fit the question of knowledge.

 

[DGeraths]

:shake:

What part of "let it go" are you having trouble with? It is a moot point anyway since my persona is focused around 1760-1780! ::

Geez man, give it a REST!!!!!

 

[rich pierce]

:shake:

What part of "let it go" are you having trouble with? It is a moot point anyway since my persona is focused around 1760-1780! ::

Geez man, give it a REST!!!!!

I guess folks are going to have a hard time deciding the right time to let it go is after you've had your licks in and called people names. That comes across sort of like sucker punching someone then saying, "Let's not fight, OK?"

I think we'll all let it go when you acknowledge that you asked for information, got it, then reacted like a (your choice). Then folks ask, "What's up with that?" and you play the victim.

 

[Mike Brooks]

:shake:

What part of "let it go" are you having trouble with? It is a moot point anyway since my persona is focused around 1760-1780! ::

Geez man, give it a REST!!!!!

:snore:

 

[bnail]

Didn't Chicken Little's dilemma all start with a misunderstanding over an acorn? :hmm:

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

Mike,

M. Brooks is using the same reference that everyone else has... a book. I fail to see how his experience as a gunsmith gives him any more of a "professional" edge when his entire argument is based on someone else's published works. A work BTW that is countered by others works...

This is where we get into problems. Since some have books that say one thing and he has books that say another, he seems to think that his experience as a gunsmith somehow factors in. It doesn't, not in this case.

If this was a discussion about how the grain on curly maple reacts to certain finishes or what is the quality of brass sand casts from some supplier, than Mr. Brooks' experience would be of great value. But what is being discussed here is a matter of research, and his research in this case is being gleaned from a book, just like everyone else.

Rich is correct. At this point, the inclusion of the Acorn is questionable AND debatable. I doubt this particular question could ever be set in stone. Working for years in paleontology has taught me to listen to theories, not to blindly follow them as fact.

Look, I have no doubt that Mr. Brooks is a skilled gunsmith and I am sure that his work is respected and admired by many. But to come into this discussion as some grand master of the acorn is making him look like an ---, especially when his entire argument is based on no different method of research than all of us little people.

Some of us out here are more than just hill-billies trying to figure out which end the ball comes out of. I personally have been working with museums and designing and building exhibits for them for the past 25 years and have done my fair share of research. I have also seen hundreds of historical "experts" make total asses of themselves when they were to arrogant to admit when they are wrong or when their grand research was called into question by their peers.

Mr. Brooks referenced a book, as did others on this subject. I fail to see how his experience as a gunsmith factors into it. I respect his opinion... it is the attitude with which he delivers it that I question.

Now, this was supposed to just be a review of a gun, a gun that I did not make BTW... If Mr. Brooks has an issue with the historical description regarding this firearm than I suggest he contact the maker.

Cheers,

Dana

In your initial statement you forget one important thing: As a very respected builder of correctly styled reproductions, Mike has not only read voraciously every book and/or article on the subject of early firearms including oiginal source material, he has networked extensively with collectors, historians and curators in order to build them right. That doesn't just mean that he is a great carver and finisher (he is!), it means that he knows what is correct in form as well. Dana, as a builder of museum grade models, you should appreciate what Mike has done and take his word (as well as that of others here) for more than just a grain of salt. When you ask a question, you should expect answers that don't always fit into your neatly pre-prepared little boxes, otherwise the questions have no purpose. As an historian, I assume that you have a lot of research time under your belt, certainly more time than you have spent building the models shown on your website - otherwise you would not have any historical viability at all. Give Mike and others the same credit that others will give you since you are successful in your field. They deserve no less than you expect for yourself. They will give in return as well and all will benefit. Otherwise, :yakyak: to no avail.

 

[thomas]

Why don't you stop with the ganging up on this man. He has done nothing wrong & in fact was trying to something good for us all.

You & your clique need to take your pills & give him a break. :relax:

Thomas

 

[DGeraths]

I think we'll all let it go when you acknowledge that you asked for information, got it, then reacted like a (your choice). Then folks ask, "What's up with that?" and you play the victim.

I didn't ask for the information, it was volunteered... and then that information was questioned by others (not me BTW)...

Everyone else is done... why aren't you?

 

[DGeraths]

When you ask a question, you should expect answers that don't always fit into your neatly pre-prepared little boxes, otherwise the questions have no purpose.

Oh man... :shake:

I didn't ask the question to begin with... no one did.

Can the Moderator just wipe all of this acorn manure away and let the review remain for what is was supposed to be?, a simple review for people who were curious about the construction and overall quality of ERA firearms.

Geez man... some people. ::

 

:huh: