doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com British Engraving, of sorts......

It seems there was a definite time period (or "era") when animals engraved on a fine Britih shotgun or rifle were stylized, one could even say caricaturized.

Now I'm not bringing American guns into the picture ONLY because I am less familiar with fine American guns. Having said that, I'll put my foot in my mouth and add that I am also NOT referring to inept engraving like one sees on some old Parker guns, the classic "flying turnips".

Westley Richards, W J Jeffery,come to mind, some lesser names but VERY fine guns ala Blissett, Dickson, Trulock & Son....

I'm not just referring to muzzleloader era but later, on fine breechlocks as well.

The quality of the engraving on the weapons as a whole can be of a truly high standard, yet the animals are portrayed in a definite "cartoonish" manner. This leads me to believe that this portrayal of animals was intentional, an accepted style, yet I've never come across anything in my reading confirming this. Indeed, I've never come across anything even remotely pointing this out.

Any illumination on this?

Krakow:
I seriously doubt if you will ever find any written enlightenment. However, it may be well to keep in mind that before the invention of wildlife photography, the only references to how various animals actually looked was the animals themselves (dead in museums) or alive (and about to swiftly depart one's company) or... other artistic interpretations. Thus, accurate models were not easily attained. Combine that with the fact that not one in 1000 engravers had any formal artistic training, and you can fairly well draw your own conclusions.

Look at the way racehorses were portrayed in 18th and 19th century prints. Unlike Kensal's rapidly departing game animals, they were available for close study, and the "style" at the time was to exaggerate their features. They have their appeal, but realistic they ain't.

Another example, any of the animals in Currier and Ives prints. They may not be anatomically correct but I think they have their own charm.

Gentlemen - I am in complete agreement with both of you. I appreciate this style exhibited onmy guns as well as others.

The thrust of my question, or what was meant to be, is: was this a deliberate style peculiar to gun engravers for a certain "era", or "period"? If so, does anyone know how long this style was adhered to before changing?

I'm basically looking for confirmation that this was indeed a bonafide gun engraving style, even a movement, if you will. If so, how long did it last?

I personally think it was just lack of talent.

I know this will gain me enemies on this board but I know exactly what you mean. Although American, the first thing to come to mind are LC Smiths....truly the most cartoonish pieces of workmanship I can recall. Sarasquetas of Spain have their very own cartoon style as well.

I think it was stylistically acceptable at the time. High quality etchings and plates abounded in these eras as did taxidermy so this is a case of knowingly engraving "ugly" things intentionally.

For a counter-example, look at old WC Scott guns where the engraved animals seem alive, or for hat matter any drilling looks pretty much correct.

The problem was bad art was acceptable by many people.

jOe...I don't think it was lake of talent...those same guys could knock out some pretty sweet scrolls, flora & nice carved fences etc....I guess the roses & vines didn;t run off, & allowed study;
but you'd think they'ed know what your basic dogs n birds looked like though, wouldn;t you?...perhaps they were stuck in the city factories n didn;t get out into the woods much
With all the striving for perfection for the rest of the Gun, its odd.
Give me nice vegetation on an old Gun anytime,unless the fauna is well done.
I find the Celtic type engraving very pleasing, & would love to own an example
cheers
lads
franc

I am no art historian, but the "style" that you are talking about was not limited to gun engraving. Audubon's prints are another example. I wonder if some of his prints were used as models by the engravers - they certainly would have seen them.

The Germans managed some rather cartoonish engraving motifs - I wonder if the Basque makers were simply copying a style they picked up from the German guns they were duplicating (like the Merkel OUs).

Respectfully, I am not interested in mixing and matching with other mediums.

I am specifically asking about the engraving on British shotguns and rifles (Actually, doubleshotguns and double rifles to be more precise as to my exposure) during a certain period, predominately the middle 'ish 19th century, although pin-pointing it to those years is a guess-timate on my part based on MY exposure/experience, which is admittedly limited.

I had no intention of having comparisons drawn between these engraved weapons and that on branded lithographs, plates, ashtrays, etc. regardless of THEIR coincidental style and timeframe.

After all, purely as an example, I don't expect to see expressionist engraving on guns coming out of Germany and Austria in the first decades of the 20th century, yet that was a major artistic movement in those countries in that timeframe.

Please, let's try to stick to the original topic of the question(s) I asked.

I'm enquiring about British gun engraving. It's curious to me that the phenomena of this type of animal depiction exists when, as Franc has pointed out, scroll and other type engraving was so refined.

jOe, I'm not so sure about the lack of talent being the reason, although it is certainly a valid possibility. That's why I drew attention to the "flying turnip" birds on fine American guns such as Parkers in this period, or part of it at any rate. THAT is a more definite indication of lack of talent to me, or perhaps lack of payola to first-class engravers (?)

Does anyone actually know categorically if this was a deliberate, accepted style for BRITISH firearms during a certain timeframe? If it was, what was that timeframe? And, when did it change and why?

Or can anyone make the case that it was due to either a lack of talent and/or a lack of financing?