Been slow around here so how about we share some checkering from one of the relatively unknown makers of the pre-war to early post war era. This smith spent most of his career working for others and as such I have yet to find an example of his work with his name on it anywhere. They are just some quick cell phone pictures but I think they show the quality of the work. One thing that has always been a challenge for me in my checkering is the partial diamonds where the border of the checkering is not formed by the checkering lines, such as the rear corner of the grip and the top line of the forend. Getting these half or 1/4 diamonds shaped correctly is hard to do, and 99 percent of the people looking at it will never even notice. You can see in the grip picture below that this maker took the time to cut his lines to full depth all the way to the border to shape up these partial diamonds. Maybe this can get some discussion stated about checkering and then I'll disclose who the craftsman was on this rifle.

I thought about putting this in the Checkering folder but I don't think that folder gets much traffic. If the moderators want to move it there that is fine.

Regards,
John

Good topic. It's a very nice vintage job. As you say many of the part diamonds are well formed, which is not easy to do well or quickly.

There is a slight wavering in the diamond rows in the vertical plane indicating slightly imperfect spacing, but still very good spacing. Lots of small nicks and bumps where the spaced lines form the borders, though. Leaves me thinking the checkerer had the skills to do better, but was probably pushing the clock working piecemeal and had to punch the jobs out whilst still producing work of a suitable standard. As you say, most people wouldn't even notice and plenty of stockmakers cannot checker that well. He or she knew what standards to keep and what they could or could not sacrifice for expediency and still make a good job - that is a skill unto it's own.

I don't get the exposure to the American makers work where I live. Most of the vintage jobs I see are British. Unless noted in the ledgers, the name of the craftsman is effectively lost to time. Even looking at slightly lesser guns and rifles (early BSA Lee Speed patent No1/2 Sporters are a fine example) the quality of checkering is often very good. The people doing the work would never have kept their jobs if they didn't make the minimum standards, and the UK must have had a fair few of them. People worked hard and took pride in their work back then. I think that is probably more rare today.

I see a lot of modern checkering jobs with a poor finish to the facets of the diamonds. Partly I suppose this is due to the prevailing kilned and/or steamed walnut around nowadays, and/or relatively porous walnut being common. I struggle to get a really good finish with the carbide tools I've used. They are great for removing the bulk of the job with little wear to the tools, but do not give me the smooth facets I seek. HSS leaves a far superior finish, but good HSS tools are now more difficult to buy. I found carbide to be more grabby no matter the wear stage, whereas HSS just cuts. Looking at the diamonds in this job, the person doing the work had free-cutting tools and the texture of the blank was also acceptable for the job at hand.

Great post John! Really good Checkering is a sight to behold!

Having done a fair bit of checkering myself, I am in awe of the masters. I have pointed out little details (like your partial diamond topic) to people I thought would be interested and they typically look at me like a cow watching a train go by. I guess unless you’ve done it you can’t be truly amazed by it?

Thanks for bringing some action to the forum!

I agree with Bryndon, unless you have checkered you don't know what makes a really good checkering job.
I checkered for nearly 50 years and enjoyed it. I only stopped because of arthritis. Even after all that time, I never thought I completely mastered the skill, and am still in awe of really good checkering.
I'm pretty sure that the OP's pictures are from a Harvey Rodgers stock.

quote:

Originally posted by yellowdog1:
I agree with Bryndon, unless you have checkered you don't know what makes a really good checkering job.
I checkered for nearly 50 years and enjoyed it. I only stopped because of arthritis. Even after all that time, I never thought I completely mastered the skill, and am still in awe of really good checkering.
I'm pretty sure that the OP's pictures are from a Harvey Rodgers stock.

That is correct, it is Rodgers. I really like his work. You will also notice that his diamonds have a little longer ratio than most, nearly a 4:1. Also the ratio remains very consistent even to the edges of the pattern. So often the diamonds will get longer as the checkerer gets further from his master lines, and gets up into the point rows which causes him to allow his lines to start getting a curve to them.

Rodgers spent a good portion of his relatively short career with Hart Arms. His boss, Arthur Hart was an accomplished competitive rifleman having shot at Perry for many years and made several international teams. As such, he catered to the competitive shooters and much of Rodgers work will be found on target rifles. Target rifles are generally very utilitarian, but not in the case of Rodgers work. His artistic ability and craftsmanship are fully evident even in his target rifles stocks. I have 4 marked or otherwise confirmed Rodgers rifles, and another 4 that I suspect are his work but can not prove. 5 of those 8 are target rifles. Yet even on these rifles there is no mistaking his work.

Last two photos credit Michael Petrov.

Just a closing remark: That's damn nice checkering and super critical doesn't change that.

Perfect diamonds are a piece of cake,...that is...if working on a flat surface of suitable plastic!

Throw in curves, parabolas, grain structure, becomes a little different ball game