How far we have come

[herrnusser]

How often do you hear many in the shooting (and non shooting) public profess that engraving is a dying art and that the "best ever" was from a time long ago, never to be matched again? I had the chance to handle and photograph such a piece. View the image, critique it and take a guess to what it is. Most important, compare it to todays best. Any Guesses as to the subject? Post some replies and I'll show the full piece in a few days.

 

[Weldon47]

Possibly the left front view of a sidelock of some kind.

My guess,

WL

 

[monk]

i think engraving is like an oil painting. to be viewed at a certain "distance". a fault we all have is to look into every nook and cranny with our scopes and start shouting. viewed in it's entirety, correctly, all those little flats, and "bad" spots might just vanish to reveal something quite beautiful. our prejudices as engravers would influence our guesses. this truly could be most any subject on nearly any material imagineable, including- but not limited to common celluloid or plexiglass !

 

[finn]

my guess its a shot gun where it bends to put in a new shell

 

[herrnusser]

Any ideas as to the manufacturer?

 

[Weldon47]

Possibly H&H.

WL

 

[Roger Bleile]

Looks like the work of Jack Sumner on a British sidelock, Not a typical pattern for an H&H or Purdy though.

RB

 

[Peter E]

It does look like a sidelock on a shotgun but when looking at the picture magnified, it appears very crudely cut which makes me think it could be something much smaller.

That's my guess,
Peter

 

[Marcus Hunt]

Okay, I'm guessing that it's something like an Atkin/Churhill/Evans because of the bead. It doesn't quite look like a Holland but there again they would sometimes deviate from the norm. I'm willing to bet you're going to tell us it came from the Kell workshop.

Like Monk says though, this wasn't designed to be looked at blown up to 10X the size, the thumbnail is probably a better representation of actual size. It was cut commercially, and a workshop could turn a gun around, on average, in 4 days! No special lighting or microscopes or vices; just cut with a push graver clamped in a hand held peg (similar to a split skittle) and braced against a piece of wood jutting out from the bench. We also have to remember that there is probably nigh on a century's worth of wear and patination.

Okay, so this might not be the 'best' in terms of cuts when looked at through a microscope but guns this age have a real charm about them. Perhaps if something is too perfect it can loose this element. Look at some of the modern 'photographic' type of paintings and then look at a Turner. Likewise, if when constructing a game scene we put every leaf of a bush on it perfectly, that doesn't always work either because a) you rarely see the 'perfect' natural bush and, b) the eye perceives an overall general impression and doesn't look for every perfect leaf.

We have to be careful of being hyper critical of criticising something from a previous age and comparing it with modern methods. Both have their place and, likewise, there was good stuff done in the past and a load of crap too!

 

[KCSteve]

Beautifully designed but yes, on close inspection it's not cut up to the standards of today's Masters.

But as others have said, at the intended viewing distance you can't see the 'flaws' in the cutting.

And, as is also often said, a well done design indifferently cut looks much better than an indifferent design perfectly engraved.

 

[Sam]

As far as I can tell it's a panendermic semi-boloid on a unilateral phase detector. But I could be wrong.

Nice engraving, though. / Sam

 

[Weldon47]

I do like what Marcus pointed out about the work. (No matter what it is on) It served its intended purpose which was to decorate the item and raise it above that of being a plain gun. Also, it was intended to be pleasing to look at with either the naked eye or glasses (if you need them). I believe both criteria were successfully met.
IMHO, With a few (notable) exceptions, most engraving looks better to the naked eye than it does when "blown up" several times life-size. Much engraving (mostly the rather routine work) will look like crap when magnified too much.
In the past, (taking pity on my fellow man) I have saved the viewer a lot of trouble trying to find a magnifying glass: my work looked like crap to the naked eye!

WL

Unbelievable deduction Sam, (was there something in the dye Abigail used?)

 

[Marcus Hunt]

Well said Weldon. Engravers, it seems, always reach for the loupe when looking at engraving. Why? Because we want to see how the cuts work to achieve certain effects. We look at the overall construction of a piece which isn't the way it is supposed to be looked at.

As a follow on to your observations Weldon, a lot of really fine work that actually looks great when blown up and photographed only looks good in those precise conditions i.e. in the exact lighting to make it photograph well. Quite often such fine engraving is lost when viewed in everyday light conditions. IMO this is because the only way to get almost photographic detail is to cut incredibly fine cuts. However, 99% of clients want to be able to see something, without magnification, when they pick it up to look at it. Some of the ultra fine work is only appreciated by a very few connaisseurs who own it and everyone else only when it's photographed.

I agree that a lot of really excellent engraving can look like crap when magnified too much.

 

[monk]

i did a really nice ( i thought ) belt buckle quite some time ago. had a name and scroll engraved on it. the lady came and picked it up, gazed at it for a time and really loved it. she heaped compliments on me for the great job. she was looking at the buckle upside down ! so i guess it really lies in the eye of the beholder, afterall !

 

[Ron Smith]

I personally believe that engraving should be enjoyed at arms length, not to say that there is a lot of enjoyment in looking up close too, but for appreciation sake you shouldn't have to squint. I like bold and visible...........and intensity,............. even in the very fine work................but that is just my opinion and taste.

 

[pappy]

My guess is that it is the sideplate of a muzzle loader, based on the fact of the carving on the wood around the side plate. I really can't guess what type of muzzle loader. It could be quite old, but I don't think it was used much, the wood around the plate looks very nice and crisp. A presentation gun, maybe?

 

[KSnyder]

looks like a picture out of Meeks book.
Kent

 

[Crazy Horse]

Crazy Horse

Garry Owen

 

[herrnusser]

You guys are good!

Weldon47, You hit the nail on head! It is a H&H Royal Ejector 12 Bore, Pre-War. The Puropse of my post was not to to inflate our ego's, nor to degrade the work of others. As time goes on, tastes and expectations evolve, and engraving is no exception. The above photo was truely state of the art at the time and H&H is truely one of the best makers. I just found it intresting that many of todays engraving exceed anything possible previously. Lets continue to evolve and take engraving to the next level!

 

[Roger Bleile]

The engraving on the H&H pictured above is very similar (but not identical) to one pictured on plate #3 opposite page 32 of GUN ENGRAVING by Christopher Austyn. The gun pictured in the book is a 10 gauge SN 16443 made in 1895. This is not the typical "Royal" pattern that I have seen on most H&H Royals which have the lettering most often enclosed within an arched motif above the tumbler pivots and is pictured on plate #5 showing gun #30638 made in 1935. The main difference between the one pictured by hernusser and the one in the book is the portion of the lockplate he pictured in post #1. Other than that the lockplate is almost identical. Apparently the engravers had some freedom in the exact patterns for H&H, at least in 1895. Unfortunatly, Austyn does not tell us who engraved #16443.

Hernusser: Is the barrel of the gun you pictured cut away or is that some kind of reflection on the barrel and do you know who engraved it? Also is the serial number close to #16443?

Roger Bleile