Early

[Bill/Ms.]

The "early" and "late" descriptions are so subjective that the only way they could really be applied would have to be in reference to a particular region, area, or maker- for example, a late Dickert rifle certainly looks different from an early Dickert.
TVM has chosen to call one of their offerings an "Early Virginia" rifle. This is no more wrong than Thompson Center calling one of their rifles a "Hawken". Some of us are not interested in being in any historically correct time period. What TVM offers as an "Early Virginia" is a really good, reasonably priced flintlock muzzleloading rifle that functions exactly as flintlock muzzleloading rifles did 250 years ago. So, Roundball, enjoy your "Early Virginia' rifles, and I will continue to enjoy shooting my halfstock Tennessee flintlock.
Be Well,
Bill Ridout

 

[texcl]

I always thought that the term "early" refered to pre-revolutionary weapons, rifles in particular. The more I learn the more I realize how subjective it all is. I have been sending my wife to the library lately with a list of books to request on loan and have been really enjoying them. It seems that the early guns are pretty hard to nail down since most were used up or restocked and many were un-signed and undated.

 

[tg]

It can be a complicated issue, an early Bucks County gun could be circa 1785, some kind of probable dating range would really clear things up and be a good guide for anyone looking for a gun from a particular period and as for builder specific guns from parts sets it is to the builder to make it fit the description, with out the correct carving or detail a Dickert or Haines rifle is just another rifle, I doubt that many of these from parts sets really reflect the builder as they should, it is established that some do not care what the gun is called or if the term is justified but for those who do some help is needed and it has to come from the source not from anyone outside trying to do detective work to validate what someone else names a gun I would think.The problem with the current terms being ok for the masses is that it often becomes a very unreal representaion when history and these terms try to come together and a slugout starts when the "in the know folks" point out the reality of the application of these terms to periods in history at times as not being correct, such as I got my new *&^* EV rifle for my F&I persona and the gun clearly not having anything to validate "that" early of a manufacture and we come back to the old "proove it isn't correct" who's on first? routine. with guns given a reasonable date time frame much confusion and dissagreement could be avoided, just something to think about.Again this is not a bash at any particular buiders or saying they are not providing good quality products just looking at how many do not add anything in the way of help on the early/late issue and untill this is delt with it will not matter what a handfull decide is early or late in particular guns if the masses are not a part of the process.

 

[Mike Brooks]

Some of us are not interested in being in any historically correct time period. What TVM offers as an "Early Virginia" is a really good, reasonably priced flintlock muzzleloading rifle that functions exactly as flintlock muzzleloading rifles did 250 years ago. So, Roundball, enjoy your "Early Virginia' rifles, and I will continue to enjoy shooting my halfstock Tennessee flintlock.
Be Well,
Bill Ridout

I was trying to avoid bring any commercial dealers/builders directly into this thread, I don't think the thread is about them. The thread is about american colonial rifles and how the word "early" is applied to them. How Roundball is supposed to enjoy what ever "reasonably priced" rifle he owns more or less is not a part of the subject. :shake:
You antic PC guys just ought to cool it for a while and let the rest of us educate each other about some of the stuff we're interested in.....

 

[Mike Brooks]

By the way, I have a tremendous "early" rifle coming off the bench in a week, some of you are really going to enjoy this one. :thumbsup:

 

[roundball]

You antic PC guys just ought to cool it for a while and let the rest of us educate each other about some of the stuff we're interested in.....

You constantly do yourself further continued disservice by name calling other members.

Nothing I have said has been anti-PC...just the opposite...I asked a specific question about the difference between early and late Virginias and it has yet to be answered with any clarity and credibility.

You claim this shouldn't be in the historical section, yet you just now claim/imply nobody else should dare get involved because "your" thread...up here in the open general discussion area for all members...is just for "you and serious students of history" ?

And is new build you just referenced going to be for sale too?
And will you be posting pics of it here in this thread like the others?

PS:
I thought you told us all in a huff a few weeks ago that you were leaving ???

:shake:

 

[tg]

"...I asked a specific question about the difference between early and late Virginias and it has yet to be answered with any clarity and credibility"

I think that with most schools that have any length of history say from the 1760's and on will have some similar generalities for early, the wider buttstocks, straight buttplates,heavier wood in general, maybe a bit larger of bore, width and dept of wrist ratio, carving style and detail and there will be some differences based on English or German inflence like lock sytyle, cheekpiece, furniture which can vary not only from time but place the later guns being more slim more apt to have inlets, thinner buttstocks and curved buttplates, these are generalities applied to most any area some areas will have more defining features from either "period" it does take more than the generalities to put a gun on the early side be it Penn or Virginia, these "details" can be seen in some of the books such as Schumways RCA1&2 I am just stating that there should be some of the "details" shown in guns from any area that are termed early not just the generic stuff and a time frame should be given even a decades worth, some builders held onto the some of the older ways into the late federal period but mostly there was enough "new" to be able to put them in a tme slot, (type of lock,furniture or carving detail) Virginia and lancaster are the ones usually picked for the 'early" treatment because they are longtime established gunbuilding areas and the current terminology has come forth to basical supply the thirst for the F&I and rev war period, it would seem like a buyer would like to know more about the gun being purchased even if not a reenactor but many do not but such info would be helpfull to many, for those who do not care about why their gun is early and how early this thread is really of no importance I would think, again it is not about the value or quality of any particular product.

 

[longcruise]

Mike Brooks said:

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

and in another post said:

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.

And that's what I'm talking about as far as disposing of the terms "early", "late", "southern", etc. Mike Brines throws out the Shreit rifle and a specific example and we get some serious thoughts and considerations on the rifle and it's dating and guess what? We did not have to call it early or late. Just a discussion of it's provenance. Mike Brooks' comments on the prvenance of the rifle were far more interesting and intrigueing than any discussion of whether it was early or late.

Not saying Brooks nailed it cause I don't know that much about the rifle. But, having those remarks to consider has done far more to provoke my own thoughts on the rifle than any banter about early or late.

 

[Mike Brooks]

You antic PC guys just ought to cool it for a while and let the rest of us educate each other about some of the stuff we're interested in.....

You constantly do yourself further continued disservice by name calling other members.

Nothing I have said has been anti-PC...just the opposite...I asked a specific question about the difference between early and late Virginias and it has yet to be answered with any clarity and credibility.

You claim this shouldn't be in the historical section, yet you just now claim/imply nobody else should dare get involved because "your" thread...up here in the open general discussion area for all members...is just for "you and serious students of history" ?

And is new build you just referenced going to be for sale too?
And will you be posting pics of it here in this thread like the others?

PS:
I thought you told us all in a huff a few weeks ago that you were leaving ???

:shake:

Obviously you have a rather large ax to grind for me. Where did I call anyone a name? Anti PC is now an offensive name? If so please excuse me. tg just answered (again) your early/late Virginia question. You still haven't grasped the "school" and "area" concept. School is "Lancaster" and "area" is Pennsylvania. This also would apply to Virginia and it's schools or rifle building.
And no, the gun I want tpo show isn't for sale, it was ordered two years ago. I'll just not post it and instead show other people's work to use as examples from here on out.

PS:
I thought you told us all in a huff a few weeks ago that you were leaving ???

Why is it you are so anxious for me to leave? This is , I thought, a good thread to have something educational to talk about. I'd say it's pretty clear your main problem here is a personal one with me, but I'm not sure why that is.... :idunno:

 

[tg]

What things are there to date a gun by? this can help define a time period for a gun which is a must to determine if a gun is early once that definition is found this is probably the place to start, many locks were only used during or up to or after a particular time, styles of patchboxes are also dateable to so extent, carving can often be dated as the locks are and to particular builders, (ie inverted C scrolls of Issac Haines), furniture style, specific details of architectre like the but plate profile and butstock profile, wrist shape, forestock detail at entry pipe, often the above can be put to someything like up untill 1775 or after 1780 and so on. these can also point to place of origin/builder anyone have anything else or better ideas?

 

[hoochiepapa]

I went to the Berks County longrifle show, and the curator of the museum said that noone was sure of the ages of the rifles and smoothbores in that room, very few had been signed, and architecture and guessed age were contradictory. In other words, some of the rifles that showed great age were of a more modern architecture, and vice-versa. Were the old gunsmiths just doing whatever came to mind? And were some sticking to old architecture because they were either too stuborn or ignorant to move forward? Hopefully some day a gun will come around that will be the "missing link" and clear it up, but I doubt it.
:yakyak:
Mike, I can't wait to see the new gun :thumbsup:

 

[Mike Brooks]

Mike, I can't wait to see the new gun

Sorry, can't post it, Roundball disapproves. :wink:

 

[rabjr]

If he wants to make himself look like an a$$ for continually bringing up the past, which I find childish, and lock horns with you, just ignore it. The fact is many of us find this thread interesting and you posting pictures of gun to further the info of this thread, that your not selling is perfectly within the rules of this forum.

 

[Bill/Ms.]

I hope it didn't sound as if I was bashing Mike Brooks or anyone else, if that's the way I came across, then I do apologize.I have nothing but respect for his and other's ability to interpret historically correct firearms.
Here's the thing, the earliest dated rifle we know of is dated 1761, and according to the experts, that rifle has been altered.Any other "early" rifle is speculation, educated speculation, but speculation nevertheless.
Be Well,
Bill

 

[lockjaw]

...roundball hit the nail on the head...an attempt to at self promotion,,, :nono: :nono: :nono: under the guise of educating us poor schmucks...[early in the thread he equates himself with eric kettenberg and allen martin... :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: )

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

:shake: Sorry, can't agree.

(I had a better, more appropriate rejoinder but it probably would have been considered insulting so out of respect for Mike, I deleted it before posting.)

 

[Mike Brooks]

...roundball hit the nail on the head...an attempt to at self promotion,,, :nono: :nono: :nono: under the guise of educating us poor schmucks...[early in the thread he equates himself with eric kettenberg and allen martin... :rotf: :rotf: :rotf: )

Obviously my time is wasted here.

 

[George]

Obviously my time is wasted here.

It's getting so everyone's time is wasted here. It makes no difference who starts a thread or what the topic is, it will quickly degenerate into a childish, immature bickering match. This was one of the better ones, it took almost half a page for the first seeds of dissension to appear.

Spence

 

[nkbj]

Yep, gettin' so it's like blue gill fishin' from an easy chair. Late February folks must be needin' a thaw really bad.

 

[lockjaw]

Obviously my time is wasted here.

It's getting so everyone's time is wasted here. It makes no difference who starts a thread or what the topic is, it will quickly degenerate into a childish, immature bickering match. This was one of the better ones, it took almost half a page for the first seeds of dissension to appear.

Spence

...it's just that some of us have a keener sense of smell than others...