doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion Classic & Custom Single Barreled Sporting Rifles @ doublegunshop.com Jules La Bantchni

Somewhere in a Peterson publication,many years ago, there was an article on Jules and it was stated that he did his own engraving. I remember being surprised as I had seen several of his guns in Peterson magazines and never knew that. I remember there was a picture of him also and he looked very suave and continental with his mustache.Somewhere between 1967 and 1972 there are several publications with pictures and text regarding his work and I think most of them were Peterson publications. The "Guns&Ammo annuals come to mind.I am also aware that just because it has been published does not make it fact.Lord,Lord am I aware of that.

Look at it from an author's perspective - there are REAMS of data in those three quotes alone that would have to be clearly verified before anything resembling a publishable account could be written up. Just the Boeing reference needs to be nailed down, let alone the August/Frank axis, then the decades of the 50's, 60's, 70's and 80's are all mentioned...full time or subcontractor? This city or that? And what of Continental Guns? Was he at Boeing (apparently full time) or with Pachmayr's in the 40's? (Both possibilities are attested.) What did he do during the war? Did working at Boeing keep him out of WW2? If you were considering publication or even just the clear preservation of documentary evidence to hand over to future generations, all of this has to be combed out and re-braided. There is no hit at Mr. Lee's very trustworthy first person memories of actually being in the shop on multiple occasions (which is priceless data). Just the bit about the language jokes is a great insight into the inner workings of the shops and the personal ethnic heritages and attitudes of the workmen. (What would we give to put that kind of history with other smiths which are pretty much ciphers to us now?) But La Bantchni's work history seems to be extremely nebulous and there is nothing shameful about insisting that every stone be turned over to put as many dates on paper as possible.

You can't have enough good data. You can't do too much research. And if you don't do it in a hurry, memories that are ascribed to one maker will, with time, slowly shift around until they are ascribed to another man in a different time and place. History becomes legend, and legends don't do anyone much good.

But I DON'T think that 'the jury's still out on that one' should still be true in reference to the question of whether or not he ever worked at Pachmayr's. Jerry's account is first-person-witnessed while ALL the written accounts are what lawyers call hearsay and what any experienced person recognizes as VERY subject to distortion if not downright misinformation. Witness MP's repeated efforts to sort out seemingly-conflicting printed info on other smiths.....

Sure, there's lots of specific date verification to be done yet, but in my own mind I'm convinced that JLB did actually work at Pachmayr's for at least several years. And of course any future article about JLB should include details of this wonderful new eyewitness data, with attribution to Jerry.

Sorry if this ruffles any feathers, it's JMOFWIW.
Regards, Joe

Is there any DOCUMENTED evidence that JLB worked IN the Pachmayr shop?
One of the very first question to come up, remains unanswered.
Personal attacks not withstanding.
Internet BS aside.
Hugs & kisses,
Steve

I think the written piece is important. It can be evaluated, dismissed or accepted, and it won't fade with memory or outside influence. It's valuable for Michael P. to present the actual words for the record.

I'd hope Jerry would consider making good notes of his recollections and the names of others in the shop who still may be around or have direct descendants that might be contacted. Then offer the info to someone who shows not only interest, but appears to be a good steward of records. The time frame in question is still reachable directly, but won't be forever.

I'll bow out of this discussion with the observation that ANY secondhand written account is ALWAYS subordinate to eyewitness accounts when attempting to prove ANY legal case. IMO anyone who unquestioningly accepts any written account, ESPECIALLY any account written second- or third-hand by ANY journalist, is very possibly making a big mistake.

I need look no further than my own father's obituary in our local paper. I gave them a written copy of what I wanted to say, and received assurances that it would be published verbatim as written.

HAH! Instead of showing him in the Naval Reserve for 25 years after WW2 and ultimately retiring 10 years later after 35 years as a full-time civilian USACoE Engineer, the paper showed him on full-time active Naval Aviation duty and barely mentioned his Army CoE Engineering career as being part-time and for the DoD instead of full-time for the CoE!

So much (dismissive snap of the fingers) for accuracy in the publicly-printed word, as opposed to an eyewitness account from someone who actually WITNESSED the events!

When investigating old events it's common to find only publicly-printed info written second-hand with no corroborating eyewitness reports. In the absence of such eyewitness reports this second-hand hearsay written data must necessarily be accepted as accurate to a certain degree, but certainly not accepted as gospel when eyewitness accounts differ or add new details.

Like the Madam said to the Bishop, "You pays your money and you takes your choice!" Politics aside, of course (grin).
Regards, Joe

I don't recall seeing any of his work in Gun Digest but Henry Stebbins seemed to feature a lot his work in Rifles - a Modern Encyclopedia

Tim

Who and/or what do you believe? "Official" published accounts or eyewitness testimony? The official,on file in the Marine Corps records say that a certain colonel received his silver star for blah,blah,etc action on a certain operation. I read it with interest because I was standing right there and no such thing happened. Apparently S-2 decided to "improve" on our after action debriefing...so I can understand the reluctance to count on any one source for accurate accounts of anything.I guess history is written by the winners and,of course, they have an agenda too.

It's not an insult to anyone to corroborate sources and check facts. It's just due dilligence. This topic is important because I think this message board is important, and there must be a free flow of information, and people should not be surprised - even less, insulted - when their personally provided historical information is cross referenced, or when others perhaps have different information or different memories. It won't happen often, but there shouldn't be a chilling silence that stifles historical information coming out.

Getting really theoretical, but both eyewitness testimony and historical sources can be very wrong. Just because someone saw something doesn't mean it happened the way they remember it. Just because it's written down doesn't mean it's fact. Read O'Connor's "The Last Book" for a long dissertation on the amusing things that happen to both memory and the written record as the years roll by.

I recently co-authored a book that included a profile of a prominent historical figure. In his memoirs. he wrote that he purchased a Purdey .375 and a Rigby .318 for a major hunting expedition.

He was in poor health and near the end of life when his memoirs were prepared. Initially, the description of his rifles seemed 'airtight' but further research proved that the Purdey was a .400 and the Rigby a .350. As to the Rigby, the caliber was confirmed in the factory ledgers and by the museum where the rifle is displayed.

Mike, thanks for your diligence.