doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com Do you really want to know?

To be a bit blunt on the subject at hand, I feel that all of the people who would be personally affected or offended by a full expose of an early custom gunsmith's weaknesses are long gone. A full airing of the sources of such an expose would take much of the "blame" from the author. Go for it Michael. By the way, I would go farther than across the street to hear the Niedner tape. Murphy

I prefer to see the old Masters humanized. Flesh out the bio's and make them real. Like others have said, when describing the man's warts use tact and compassion but don't leave the warts off of the portrait.

i often amaze at how tolerant we are of each other. not to mention forgiven. but for the grace of god goes me.

Good question,Mike.

In my work as a furniture restorer/conservator,and during the seminars,classes,and professional gatherings which that process has entailed, there have been many memorable characters in whom ego and near megalomania seemed to nearly overrun the real talent that lay beneath the human crust.

Competitiveness, inability to relate to other people, poor social skills, just plain ol' nasty person, substance problems, big fish in little pond, fanatic belief in one's own superior and unique abilities, over-exalted pride in one's own craft skills, and on and on -- the whole catalog of flawed personalities with whom we are all familiar in one context or another.

Are such things interesting? In a clinical sort of way, they may help round out the picture of a person and their achievements. Do I feel a need to know of other people's feet of clay? Prob'ly not - unless they are my competitor!! ;~`) & LOL.

I would say that for whatever reason, individually motivated people who practice a skill requiring a limited amount of human contact are probably doing just that, because they are comfortable in that context. A file is either sharp, or it isn't. No argument, no nuances, no negotiation -- it cuts suitable to the task or it doesn't. Chisel, scraper,sandpaper and the results are quantifiable. People are not.

However, given all of the above, in my profession I have met very few craft folks with whom it's all bad, all the time. There can be common ground if you are willing to look for and cultivate it, but that is generally in non-monetary uncompetitive terms. Then, there are individuals who are like some little mountain fice dog that just natcherlly gotta hump yer leg, so ingrained is their inability to cede any recognition of another's skills.

I guess that in answer to y'r question, warts are publishable, for the purpose of illuminating the person's career, skills, and output. I know that you would use such background no more than necessary, and in good taste.

Now, an anecdote. Some years ago a very important American wing chair went to auction and fetched in some millions. A prestigious museum facility received the contract for conservation and 'detachable' museum upholstery. The question of "what was the original upholstery layout?" brought together in one room, some twenty or so of leading experts, museum staff, and others of the chattering class.

After considerable examination of the multiple overlaying tack holes, and speculation, it seemed that about all of the group was leaning toward one conclusion. Across the exam table was one man, well known in the longrifle community, with landmark publications about Southern furniture. His work is strongly based on the tell-tales of work marks and techniques that a craftsman leaves on his work.

The argument see-sawed for a while, and finally he cried out in exasperation to the 'consensus', "Can't you just SEE it?". To him, the evidence was right there, and easily readable to his exceptional eye and mind. As my witness of the incident related to me, "There he was on one side of the table, and there they all were on the other side. I'd say it was just about an even match."

To such a person, from whom I have taken a carving course, and listened to in some few lectures, I am willing cede a great many foibles, short of drunken sociopathy.

A neat anecdote, but it would be so much more interesting if the story could be attached to a person - Bivens I'm guessing. But that is the problem. The details that really stand out are almost always anonymized (to coin a term). Your story looses so much without the name.

Brent

Thanks for all the feedback, I found it all interesting. Many things to consider after reading all the post. The Linden letter is very interesting but not sure how much if any I should publish. I do not believe that anyone should re-write history so maybe the place for all this is in my files where folks in the future who have an interest can find that information. I’m at an age where I understand that others will be looking at my research files someday and I think about how it will be used. They way things are now I have about 2-3000 words to get out the information I feel is important about any given maker and his work. On some makers such as Niedner I have a full filing cabinet drawer of information.
Years ago I was as guilty as anyone of hero-worship regarding some of the better know custom makers and as I got older and learned more than most about them I found they were just human with all the good and bad that go along with it. I have on tape, where one maker (not Niedner) is saying another maker murdered someone so you can see how far out some of this stuff can get.
About Howe, I have been chasing James V. Howe all over the country, the guy just could not stay in one place very long. I have found no evidence of him not getting along, more of him having to get along to someplace new. The grass is always greener Howe.
If his last words were “Tell Mr. Smith I’m sorry I didn’t finish his rifle” I might publish, if his last words were ”Please bury me in the black sleeveless dress” I might not ;-).

“I would go farther than across the street to hear the Niedner tape”
Murphy, You need go no farther than your mailbox and if other’s want to listen to the Niedner tape you can send it to the next one on the list and then back to me. Back in “BC” (before computers) I put together a slide show that hit the road and returned to me about a year later. When I learn new stuff I like to share it so send me you mailing address.
John. Believe it or not I made a decision to share what I learned after watching a program on public TV about an American Chair expert that folks from all over the country consulted with when they wanted to identify a chair. He had a loft in NYC with chairs hanging everywhere, one of the last questions the interviewer asked him was what he did for a living and his reply was he made sandwiches in a deli. He said no one cared what he did for a living they only cared about what he knew.

Michael,

A very provocative thread; a question with no easy answer but to use common sense and to follow the golden rule, above mentioned.

As I read JohnM's chair experts story I also immediately heard, and vividly envisioned too, John Bivins as the single voice across the table. I would love to know if BrentD and I are correct, and in this case, I feel no harm would be done to identify him specifically. In fact this is just the sort of tale, if true, which brings to mind and allows us to remember fondly for a moment a too sadly missed talent, teacher and friend. If he is not that person, knowing who is corrects those of us who so quickly saw John as that person, and accurately credits the true hero of the tale.

I was fortunate, like many others, to share a lot of time and experiences with John. Someday it would be wonderful to swap some of my stories with others who knew him well. For instance, I was privileged to assist him when we had the opportunity to completely disassemble and photograph the Marshall Rifle in detail.

Bob

Sounds like your discretion serves you well. Possibly, things not printed will speak volumes. It'd be a shame not to mention long happy marriages and good neighbor ways if the shoe fit.

Gents,

Wish that I had taken lessons from J.B., or met him more than just the one time at Friendship. I had spoken with Bivins by phone about various problems, and found him to be a helpful and courteous man. As well, I could tell during face to face conversations with Jim Chambers, how much he esteemed and misses him.

However, since I see no harm in it and you asked, the craft scholar in question was Wallace Gusler, then of Williamsburg. He and I roomed at the same motel and ate dinners at a southern diner outside of DC, when he was teaching a class at the Smithsonian's Conservation Analytical Labs. Pretty interesting, to just listen.

Also, learned a bit of the philosophical motivation in his approach to the recreation of historic rifles, as compared to other makers. No right or wrong: just different. He also emphasized in his historic furniture lectures, the idea that the clean chisel work -- toolmarks -were historically the final finish of carved elements, rather than further refinement of the surface.

I am no expert or scholar here, just relating a few incidental things which I found insightful or amusing. I have found very few of the fine craft or scholar folks I have met or studied with, to be really stuffy. Ego or pride might show a bit in the context of interpretation or execution, but nothing very much more than 'campfire chat' level.

It is within the furniture conservation field and the restoration community that I have found some folks analogous to the 'crusty gunsmith' or 'disregardful of a client' or 'jealous of others achievements' -- the stuff of gossip, or good and meaningful enmities. ;~`)

I suppose that while the characters of Mike studies might be entertaining, and maybe the incidents illuminating somewhat of the man, it doesn't make too much difference to me. Maybe a story or two accompanying each 'smith might be illuminating, and as long as the guidelines Mike mentions are in effect, it adds a bit of interest to the 'read'.