Plainly stocked or extra fancy?

[tg]

Most who want to learn will listen to ya, and there was a lot of history that rusted and rotted and examples of the same also survived, it is a stretch to assume thta a whole "type" of something has no remaining surviving examples because folks in thepast did not deem them suitable to be kept for the future generations to study or that they were just used up because they were not as pretty as other items, if one really looks at the photos of surviving guns the "plain" ones of the time are there when one compares all the levels of decoration used on the various survivors.

 

[Stophel]

If I come off as a jerk here, that is not my intention. I know people that do present themselves in a jerky manner all the time, and they can sometimes be VERY knowledgeable and lots can be learned from them...if you can get past the attitude. I never want to be like that, though. I would never dream of walking up to someone and tell them "you're wrong", or whisper (loudly) to my buddy about some "farby" thing that somebody else is wearing as they walk by. Nor would I make smart--- comments or jokes about those I deemed more in the dark than me. But, when a subject is up for discussion, I will state my position and defend it. :wink:

Besides, I don't know how much can really be "learned" from me! :haha: I do have strong opinions based on what I have studied and learned from others, seeing existing artifacts, and reading period references.

I used to be of the "surely they thought of it" camp. It seems reasonable on the face, but once you really start thinking about it, and studying items and period writings you see that it is an untenable position, used to justify whatever you want, and is not good for proving that something was actually done.

I think scholarship on 18th century material culture has advanced quite rapidly in recent years, and things that used to be unknown are now widely understood, and some things that used to be "common knowledge" are now considered farby reenactorisms. I'm sure it's mostly because of the internet. SO much is so readily available now. Things that 10 years ago were only known by a handful of people here and there are now freely visible on the internet. Libraries are accessible, archaeological finds are available for the world to see, information can be easily shared now. One oblique reference to some item which might have caused confusion and head scratching a decade or two ago, now has dozens of other references to back it up, and there no longer is any question about said item.

The thing is, even though it's all available, you still have to LOOK for it. I am not the serious librarian that some are, so I leech off of them... :haha: It's actually pretty easy to find interesting stuff on the internet just by googling. :wink:

Wow, I'm seriously wordy today! :haha: I'll step away from the lectern now!

 

[tg]

You generaly have something worthwhile to say when you do talk, that in itself is a worthy trait on most forums, if I want to ask something about the german culture/influence I look at you as one of the "go to guys" here, I hope I am not making your head swell, I know how you hate breaking in new hats :grin:

 

[gizamo]

OK, ....

What have you done to the real Stophel, and who the heck are you... :blah:

 

[Elnathan]

I like a moderate amount of decoration, but it depends on the quality of the decoration. A lot of heavily decorated modern guns, as well as some originals, tend to look garish, while others, just as heavily decorated, look very good. The difference is that decorations on the good ones either contribute to overall flow of the architecture or are subtle enough that they don't immediately catch your eyes, or both.

On the other hand, I also tend to gravitate towards more folk-art type decorations these days. Sometimes the slightly awkward nature of some of these carvings lends a kind of warmth that perfectly executed classical designs lack. This is a function of design and composition rather than execution, I think - shoddy carving looks bad in either case.

 

[Shine]

Then there is this gun I owned for about 2 days.I sold it made money from a gentleman that loves the bling. It was made as a showpiece for the defunct JP gunstocks. It was signed J Searles.

 

[kenhulme]

I'll take beautifully grained wood well displayed on a functional design over bunch of brass or silver doodads and thingies any old day

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

You have to look past the decoration and see the design and proportion. If the design and proportion are bad, no amount of well done (?) decoration or naturally beautiful wood are going to make up for it. They saw it then and we do now as well.

 

[Elnathan]

You have to look past the decoration and see the design and proportion. If the design and proportion are bad, no amount of well done (?) decoration or naturally beautiful wood are going to make up for it. They saw it then and we do now as well.

I am talking about the design and the proportion of the decoration itself. I think that if you have to look past the decoration to see the design of the gun itself then something is wrong with the decoration. Ideally, when you look at the gun, the first thing that you see is the overall architecture, and you notice the details of decoration only with further examination.

 

[VTdeerhunter]

Back to gizamo's original question....

ALL GUNS ARE GOOD! Never met a gun I didn't like...I spend lots of time in the woods with some of mine that are plain iron and wood...but also love to pull out the "fancy" ones and admire the incredible skill it took to bring them to life....my only requirement is that they shoot, and get used...buy them, fix them, shoot them (I even shoot my great grandfathers spiral twist welded double barrel...VERY light loads) :youcrazy:

 

[ApprenticeBuilder]

There are folks reading this board that do read your posts and do appreciate the fact that your willing to take the time to try an educate.

You as well as the other few that try to keep the fiction from slipping into fact are a true resource.

I for one do appreciate the time.

As far as wood, like others have said, matters not as long as its done correctly.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

You have to look past the decoration and see the design and proportion. If the design and proportion are bad, no amount of well done (?) decoration or naturally beautiful wood are going to make up for it. They saw it then and we do now as well.

I am talking about the design and the proportion of the decoration itself. I think that if you have to look past the decoration to see the design of the gun itself then something is wrong with the decoration. Ideally, when you look at the gun, the first thing that you see is the overall architecture, and you notice the details of decoration only with further examination.

That is exactly what I said, so we agree. :hatsoff:

 

[Stophel]

I think the Boutet guns from the early 19th century are incredible pieces of workmanship, extremely well executed in every way. I also think they are absolutely hideous. :shocked2: But that's because I'm not crazy about neoclassical Napoleonic era decorative arts. Now, give me a rifle from the shop of J. C. Stockmar (please!!!) decorated to a comparable level, but in a mid 18th century Roccoco style and I would be in heaven! :grin:

 

[hanshi]

IMO fine wood is seldom out of place on a gun; roundball's stocks are a good example. What can really be a turnoff to me is what some builders do with inlays and such. Too much is dimply too much.

 

[Va.Manuf.06]

IMO fine wood is seldom out of place on a gun; roundball's stocks are a good example. What can really be a turnoff to me is what some builders do with inlays and such. Too much is dimply too much.

Decent wood is fine but when the design of the gun is poorly executed nice wood is no cover for it though many seem to feel it is, pine is sufficient for a poorly executed design. And remember I am not talking about inlays or carving, I mean badly done or inappropriate stock shape or configuration - think clunky or course.

 

[hanshi]

I thought we were talking about fancy vs plain wood and not good vs poor gun building??? ff

 

[aeatwood]

Once again an excuse to post:









16-bore Christian Springs by Steve Zihn. 38" swamped Ed Rayl barrel, cuts 1 hole at 75 yards w/ 150gr of Goex 2F, .018" PRB, and .658" ball cast from range scrap.

 

[Mark Swanson]

For myself, I'm a middle of the roader.
I like the middle grades of curl/figure. The figure doesn't overwhelm the carving like the extra fancy woods can and it adds interest in the plainer areas of the gun.

I guess I don't really trust the fancy stuff, as I have seen the grain violated through the wrist area just to get that figure !
Now I admit that my stocking experience comes mostly from the high end cartridge gun world (bolts and single shots) where they are nuts for fancy Walnut.
When I look at a piece of wood, I look for grain structure before I bother with the curl/figure.

Make a few self bows and you'll learn about grain structure.

Mark

 

[MSW]

I don't hold to the PC/HC thing (although I'll defend someone else's right to do so, as long as they don't demand that I do it, too) so I guess I'm free to say that bling is good, unless it's being used to try to cover weak architecture, in which case it's not so good.

just one guy's opinion...

 

[tg]

" I mean badly done or inappropriate stock shape or configuration - think clunky or course."

I think most who know their way around the building of or have studied the appearnce closely of the orignal ML's would agree but I suspect that the vast majority would not know "bad architecture" on most guns of most styles if they saw it, I am included in this group with many gun styles as most of us have only had reproductions to learn by.