Early

[CrackStock]

Mike,

I like the discussion.

Early and late are hard to figure. What is meant by an early Vincent and an early Dickert would be very different. Late Virginia would be even harder, because a lot of Virginia was carved off.

I think that the idea of some sales people was to get across the idea of the wider butt shapes as generally being of earlier production, but purchasers have accepted these terms as though they are truly titles that have meaning beyond a general concept.

I have always tried to use time line events such F&I period, Pre War of US Independence, during that war or following that war. The people seem to like the Golden Age which is more defined by style changes or enhancements and might be useful.

I wonder why date ranges are not used more often. It could be because many are not certain.

I look forward to further discussion.

CS

 

[Josh Smith]

Early is flintlock.

Late is centerfire. :idunno:

:blah:

 

[tg]

"
I wonder why date ranges are not used more often. It could be because many are not certain."

I am not Mike but would bet that they only are not certain but might not know where to start to get it right , I have often said there are many good builders and many good gun history students but few who are both. since the big deal with the F&I period to get a correct rifle for the time would be a matter of a lot of research to support the speculative end product and a retooling of parts and staying vague is just easier for both the builder and the casual buyer who wants it right but does not care to do the homework

 

[Vaino]

Seeing I'm not a student of the history of the American LR, could someone explain the progression of the Lancaster, seeing it seems to have the most documentation? For starters, I imagine that very early on there wasn't a Lancaster "style", even though LRs were being made in Lancaster and this could be said of many "styles", early and late? Sticking w/ the Lancaster from it's first recognizable beginings and then progressing to say 1860, what are the specific changes?.....Fred

 

[Mike Brooks]

To me the 1700's are the hayday for flintlocks anything after 1800 is late, anything prior to 1700 is early :thumbsup:

:thumbsup: :haha: As good an explanation as any! But, any flintlock in colonial america before 1700 is definately early and more importantly rare. More common before 1700 were dog locks, english locks and match locks. There were flintlocks, but the older locks hadn't disappeared yet. Interesting to me is it was probably trade with the NA's that brought the flintlock to prominence prior to 1700's. The NA's were crazy about flintlocks as they fit their lifestyle so much better than the more archaic locks.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Early Lancaster and Early Virginia are most commonly heard. In this case, what does it mean? Earlier than what?

You asked the question to start this thread.

Here's your own answer right back at you:

Buy Books, Read !!

:wink:

Just trying to help you out. I figurer you have about as many EV's as a fella needs and it may be time to expand your library. :wink: Hopefully this thread will help you along your way to understanding how all this stuff fits together.

 

[longcruise]

I see the terms "early" and "late" as modern terminology that does not have much meaning in most discussions of old guns. Maybe they are just handy for builders as marketing terminology?

Maybe it would be better to describe a gun as "circa 1770" or whatever approximate period it is meant emulate.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Seeing I'm not a student of the history of the American LR, could someone explain the progression of the Lancaster, seeing it seems to have the most documentation? For starters, I imagine that very early on there wasn't a Lancaster "style", even though LRs were being made in Lancaster and this could be said of many "styles", early and late? Sticking w/ the Lancaster from it's first recognizable beginings and then progressing to say 1860, what are the specific changes?.....Fred

Good question Fred. Early on, there was no identifiable school charicteristics in and around Lancaster. the first identifiable stuff I'm familiar with is the Dickert guns in Shumways book. I general terms, and I'm sure you know this, the "early" lancasters have wider butts, larger breeched barrels.(which makes for a larger gun) By the end of the ML period the butts are 1/2 as wide, the calibers are tiny and the barrels are straight with cap lock ignition. carving has disapeared as well as quality of craftsmanship.
This could be said for all schools of gunmaking.

 

[Mike Brooks]

I see the terms "early" and "late" as modern terminology that does not have much meaning in most discussions of old guns. Maybe they are just handy for builders as marketing terminology?

Maybe it would be better to describe a gun as "circa 1770" or whatever approximate period it is meant emulate.

I gotta agree that using dates to describe guns is far more effective. Problem there is we all can't come to agreement on dating some guns.... :wink:

 

[Mike Brooks]

I suppose that this problem of termanology is due to marketing. When you are selling guns you have to call them something. I may be just as guilty as others when it comes to this. I'm sure you'd find the term "early Virginia" on my website somewhere....probably more than I would care to admit to! :haha:
Although I have never taken the time to study in depth Kettenburg's site, he seems to give alot of education about what he builds and his opinions about them. Maybe all builders should take the time to do this sort of thiong, probably clear up some of this stuff.....or maybe we'd find out alot of builders don't know beans.... :haha:

 

[tg]

"maybe we'd find out alot of builders don't know beans.... "

Bingo!, from many of the discriptive writings given with various guns this may be the case, I think it worked much better for many of them before the internet made the sharing of gun history more accesable, and a more knowledgeable or knowledge seeking customer base developed I thik this applies more to what many call semi custom builders like the ones allreadymntioned and these are not "bad" guys,just offering much less than theycould/should on the historical side of their product.

 

[Robby]

I don't think I gave any real definition to the term "early", but now that I think about it, I assumed it was anything prior to the Revolutionary War, and always picture them as you describe. Golden Age is another term that different people ascribe to different brackets of time. Its a good idea to give things a definition that can be commonly accepted.
Robby

 

[hoochiepapa]

Early

 

[Zonie]

Yup. I'd call that "early".

Obviously everyone has a slightly different take on what is early but among the things I look for is the wide almost flat butt plate.
The trigger rail stands off of the wrist with a rather large space under it.
The carving (if present) may be incised (cut in) or relief (3 dimensional) but it will be rather simple. It's form on the older guns tend to be symmetrical (Baroque) with shapes mirroring one another. Some of the free form carving referred to as Roccoco was just beginning to come into favor around the start of the Revolutionary War. It is typified by C and S shaped forms although during the 'early' years it was kept fairly simple.

Metal inlays during the 'early' years were not unknown but they too were fairly few and simple forms.

Patch boxes are almost always present and often use a sliding wooden lid.
It is my understanding that metal patchboxes were starting to become popular but these were always very simple. usually made of 2 pieces, the lid and the finial.

 

[tg]

The Shrite gun is a good example nut originaly had a stepped wrist which may have been a common feature of early (pre1760+/-) the only key to this puzzle is to apply a date of some sortwoth the product that is being provided even if not universaly acknowledged one could use the surmises of Schimway/Kindig and some of the contemporary gun gurus to set some standards, that would aply to earlt guns from differemnt regions such as carving style, furniture types, even a 10 year window would help, i cannot count the tmes in the last decade that I have seen people post of forums that they are going to "do" the F&I period and are getting an early Virginia from( fill in any of the mid level supliers) because it is good for the F&I and if one goes to the builders site there is nothing that tells what makes the gun from Virginia or what makes it early or what "early"is, and oftem they choose a set of steel furniture that is a clone of what is available in brass, because they heardthat iron was correct for this period, one can point to the buyer for not doinf their research or getting the "it's your gun do what you want" from the forums, but some responsibilty for good historical information should fall on the builder who is using a term that they will not clarify, thereare lots of "Tulle" trade gun kits our there, EV guns that to me are indistinquishable from guns from Penn that have flat buttplates and wide buttstocks, maybe the wider wrist when compared to depth, these are only scratching the surface when looking for early traits, it seems that is would be to the builders benifit to provide as much information as posible to the buyer, I almost forgot the German locks on French trdae guns, I think the serious buyers will be looking harder at what they buy and those who just want a good quality longrifle will not care if the sceneario changes or not as the definition of early does not matter for those who are into only shooting or hunting, it would be nice if the vendors would fix up some of their write ups though some are really missleading, and one needs more than a casual brush with the gun history books to pick up on it, at times it appears to be what the vendors think the buyers may want to hear.i think that some possible dates and references to originals like Chamber does is aminimum that should be offered for the counsumers benifit, just my thoughts after seeing a lot of people dissapointed after buying with a persona/historical connection in mind then learning about the particular gun type. Not slamming these builders as they fill a needed niche but some more info would be a good thing.

 

[hanshi]

"Early" and "late" as applied to guns are nothing more than a convenient handle for us to use and it works fairly well. Think "Ancient Egypt"; they didn't call themselves that. We do now and it's just a handy tag.

There's a problem with the separation of styles "early" and "late". It was a gradual transition and not a situation, like automakers, where a model is dropped. Many guns (original) would be in the gray area showing characteristics of both "periods".

Using date is certainly more accurate I would think but less handy. It's very likely a Lancaster rifle built in 1770 would not be exactly like one built in 1780, even from the same builder. In retrospect the tags of "early" and "late" work pretty well for the masses; those in-the-know probably do better talking dates.

 

[Mike Brooks]

.

In retrospect the tags of "early" and "late" work pretty well for the masses; those in-the-know probably do better talking dates.

I was hoping we could bring everyone up to the "in the know" level.

 

[Mike Brooks]

The Schriet rifle gives me serious reservations....It was altered when it came from england to be sold to the american collector market. It originally had a stepped wrist and a full blown german trigger guard with finger loops on the trigger guard rail. So, this throws the whole gun into suspicion for me. The engraving looks out of place to me, and I suspicion was done at the time of the triggerguard change. I'm also more than a little uncomfortable with the engraved date on this gun.
I'd be far more comfortable if this gun was in untouched relic condition.

 

[Capt. Jas.]

The Schriet rifle gives me serious reservations....It was altered when it came from england to be sold to the american collector market. It originally had a stepped wrist and a full blown german trigger guard with finger loops on the trigger guard rail. So, this throws the whole gun into suspicion for me. The engraving looks out of place to me, and I suspicion was done at the time of the triggerguard change. I'm also more than a little uncomfortable with the engraved date on this gun.
I'd be far more comfortable if this gun was in untouched relic condition.

:thumbsup:

 

[hoochiepapa]

I agree, but it added fuel to the fire, no? :stir: