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

My own opinions on the believability of various accounts have been heavily influenced by reading a few classical-period historians and also by my own experiences.

I forget the names at the moment (CRS, grin) but one of the old historians was quite factual as it turned out, and in his writings he used such phrases as "With my own eyes I saw..." and the corresponding "I was told....", whereas the other old Greek (or Roman or whoever) merely related his descriptions as fact with no details, and has long been deemed a Munchausen.

In addition when I was foreman of a union-labor crew my daily work diary was subpoenaed into court on 2 separate occasions, and I got a quick education by the lawyers on the comparative weight of various written and spoken records. In both cases my written record was considered to be the most factual account, FAR more so than ANY of the spoken testimony or depositions.

Reasons? 3 of 'em: I was an eyewitness with no 'stake', I wrote the account(s) on the same day(s) as the events occurred and I recorded ALL the events of each and every day, not just the unusual ones.

The lawyers emphasized to me that one of the most telling factors in the judge's evaluation of my record was the amount and detail of my 'incidental' accounts. IOW the relating of incidental small & seemingly unimportant details was one of the standards by which the accounts were judged.

(Y'know, details like speaking Italian in a German shop just for grins and giggles......)

Verbal and written testimony long after the fact by the participants with a 'stake'? Well, let's just say that the judge looked kinda bored.....Testimony after the fact by bystander witnesses? Admissible and important, depending. Testimony by non-witnesses? Not admissible. Newspaper and other journal accounts? Not admissible. Written government records? Admissible if shown to be consistent with other entries. Assumptions made upon the absence of evidence? Don't even go there!
Regards, Joe

I took some time this morning to read all this over again and to read the new comments. There seems to be a lot of discussion about eyewitness reports versus published reports.

As I said before I have spent some time before his name came up here on the bulletin board looking into the background of Jules La Bantchni. When I read some of the statements here I will admit that I had some preconceived ideas about Jules.

I was also fixated for years on the fact that I just did not believe his last name was real.

I am just now trying to put together a little more in depth information on him and it will take some time. Normally I only research and write about prewar custom gunmakers so what he did before the war is a little more interesting to me.

Let me tell you some of the sources that I've used for some of the opinions I have formed. Both his parents were Austrian this comes from the 1910 in 1930 Census records. Another record shows his parents as German/Austrian.

When and where his first retail shop was opened I got from the newspaper article (1952) and from the American gunsmiths Guild bluebook (1946). the 2202 Pico Blvd in Santa Monica, CA as �Jules�s Guns� I got from numerous sources including one customer who sent me an bill of sale from that address.

I talked with John Lachuk who wrote the book on Frank Pachmayr and asked him, on the phone, what can you tell me about Jules La Bantchni.

I talked with one of the gunsmiths who worked at Pachmayr's in the early 70s and ask him what can you tell me about Jules La Bantchni.

I e-mailed and talked at length with his stepson who lived with Jules for about 10 years. Both he and his mom worked in the store. I believe both his daughters are now deceased but I don't know that for sure I'm still looking for them. I do have a note from Julie written to someone back in 1986 that includes a stack of his drawings for engraving which are very interested.

The articles that have been written about him to date contain almost no personal information.

I have made my share of mistakes in what I have published. But all of the mistakes were mine and they certainly were not by repeating what others had written.

One year while visiting my sister in the lower 48 I made an appointment with the son of one of the most famous prewar American gunmakers. I spent several hours with him and tape-recorded our question-and-answer session. When I got home I looked over all my notes and listen to the recording and I then started to verify what he said. About half of the information he gave me was just flat wrong and I am thankful to this day that I did not publish it.


I am just now trying to put together a little more in depth information on Jules La Bantchni and it will take some time.

I think all of history is a subjective recording of the past. There's a lot of muck to wade through, but we'd loose so much if it had to pass legal scrutiny. Not trying to be contrary at all. I have books that I value that discuss things that no one today could corroborate, but are just inferences by the author. Some, not all, are still good stuff though.

Everday in courtrooms at Bench trials and in Jury proceedings a judgment is made as to the credibility of a witness. This is one thing and is fallable, evidenced by the number of releases re: capital and felony crimes as DNA has come onto the scene. People are just that they are people. One thing about an old census, ships manifest, phone book, city directory, advertisement, and on and on as it has no axe to grind. Someone was trying to collect facts and or conduct commerce. Several years back I started converting a large gun collection into what I really wanted pre-war sporters. Not long after I met Michael Petrov. His help,honesty,integrity and advice have helped me avoid a many a mistake. He has neither asked nor does he need me to defend him. But, he is my friend. To my larger point, I have tried to put together a representative collection and have gone a long way towards that. I do have many maker holes to fill (when I got to G&H I stayed to long). Point being that in the "forum" and "email" age we will not have, Mr. Niedner's correspondence,Townsend Whelen's notes (I have been fortunate enought to see the boxes, and boxes and boxes). If we truly care about the perpetuity of this knowledge we will support all efforts to document, link, and substantiate any claim. So it is in this interest that phrases like "Pete and RePete" sort of offend me. We all have our sensitivities,I would just plead that we all when we can try to add, to the best of abilities, factual information as to perpetuate our interest. I will leave my collection to my Son and Grandson. I would hope that this generates and interest. This is the common ground. Michael is in the ceter of that ground on a little hill. I would like to help him in his efforts.

Thanks to all. Merry Christmas.

Gary

Hear!

Well said.

Nicely stated Gary.

Gentlemen:I have stated previously that research is a good thing. I have also stated that "Independent" verification is good, YOU WILL NOTICE I SAID INDEPENDENT! I have stated Mr. Petrov's overall body of work is a good thing and is to be much admired. What I have had a problem with and so do some others among the gun collecting fraternity, is that it is felt that Mr. Petrov holds OTHERS to a much higher standard when dealing with them and their guns, than he does himself or his guns. A good example, is his telling of finding his "MINAR". He bought it out of the old Shotgun News, received it as a 1903 Sporter and immediately recognized the possibility it could be a Minar, [none are known to be marked and although never having ACTUALLY seen a Minar rifle in situ, there is one at the Bufalo Bill Museum in CODY WYOMING] and he proceeds to verify it genuineness by accepting from a rank stranger, that a particular rifle is O'Connor's Minar without [at least without citing in his writings] his verification of this from the O'Connor family [Bradford is still alive and active with the JACK O'CONNOR CENTER in Lewiston Idaho or more importantly the serial numbers matching!] In 1949, -50 years- before Mr. Petrov met the alleged owner, O'Connor stated this rifle's condition THEN WAS... the stock had been broken/cracked, the checkering was gone/smooth, the 3rd barrel on it was WORN OUT[presumably not a Sukalle], and a horse had trampled it[the RIFLE].THE RIFLE'S INLETTING WHICH MINAR HAD SO IMPRESSED PETROV WITH, ON HIS OWN RIFLE WAS ABSOLUTELY USELESS IN IDENTIFYING IT AS A MINAR...AND THIS WAS THE RIFLE HE USED TO POSITIVELY IDENTIFY HIS RIFLE...AS A "MINAR!" and has ever since. He purchased an older 1903 Springfield from an auction with white forearm tip and gripcap and OVERNIGHT it became a sporter pictured in a rifle rack next to Harvey Rodgers,with no other provenance or indicators! The point is, I say I saw and knew something and somebody and he wants to check it out... fine! NO PROBLEM! Next book he publishes, let's see if he can get a photo of the Cody Museum Minar rifle and let somebody NEUTRAL report their findings...INDEPENDENT AND VERIFIABLE and agree beforehand, to put their findings in his book! I know the people who support Mr. Petrov unquestioningly won't be affected one bit by my comments, what I am hoping is to reach those, with an open mind. Jerry

I dunno Jerry. Good for you for making a case, but it seems like small potatoes to grind an axe over. Support unquestioningly is a bit strong, but I believe the folks who visit here are lucky as there are very few who'll contribute like Michael P. So disagree, aren't the tidbits and pictures more interesting than stories about my new Savage shoots half a minute.

Whoa! The history and provenance of O'Connor's Minar Springfield...........from O'Connor to John Jobson, to Jobson's widow, to the current owner is pretty well established and documented. Beyond O'Connor's writings about the rifle, Jobson also wrote an article complete with several pictures about the rifle after having received it from O'Connor. With few exceptions, this O'Connor rifle has more pictures taken......and its history of change through the years documented.....than any other Jack owned.

The rifle was on public display at the (2008?) ACGG show in Reno...........unfortunately for just hours rather than the entire weekend.

Your characterization of its authenticity being established by a "rank stranger", just to bolster your agenda of questioning Petrov's opinion on his "Minar .257" is bit disingenuous.

Further........as far as establishing the .257 as indeed a Minar, Petrov included this caveat:

"With bolts, glue and fiberglass used to repair the O'Connor rifle there is not much about the inletting that can be used to help in the identification of other Minars. Pictures mailed back and forth confirm that externally the supect rifle and the O'Connor rifle are by the same hand. It would be very helpful to find another Minar rifle so we can close this case with more than circumstantial evidence."



Your shouting doesn't advance any point you may have. Which, in this case, you don't have.

Petrov believes the Springfield in question is a Minar. He used his experience in comparing stock styles to come to that conclusion. In my experience with the man there isn't anyone more accepting of further research.....either contradictory or supportive.....than Petrov.