This thread started with someone wanting access to a pattern with a feature on it. Someone else had produced a pattern with lots of work into it and offered use of it for a small fee at the duplicators shop.

Then "common knowledge" comes crashing in stating "you can't patent a handle" because they think they are getting screwed if they pay any more than bottom dollar (reasonable amount) for anything related to custom rifles.

And the world wonders why there are fewer and fewer talented people building custom rifles.

James, you are implying that the stock in your photo is an original work of art.

I saying that as nice as it is, it looks just like 90% of every other custom hand crafted stock I've ever seen.

I am not trying to argue, I'm not belittling the work, I am simply asking you to help me understand your position by explaining what is actually original about it.

P.S. You can copyright, license, rent, and even patent a tool. That doesn't make it "art".

Well, you have singers and song writers, and then there's "recording artists". So does that mean a recording is art/artistic ?
Somebody must think so. I don't.

quote:

Originally posted by montea6b:
I saying that as nice as it is, it looks just like 90% of every other custom hand crafted stock I've ever seen.

Post me some pics of ALLLLLL those 90% ers.

I can't tell you exactly what makes a great stock, but I can create an above average stock from a block of wood. To me, I see so many variations between my work and your 90%. I may have an unfair advantage of learning to make stocks from a blank back in Shulin's class at TSJC. If you learned to make stocks using someone else's patterns, it's understandable why they "all" look the same. Creating something from nothing is not an impossible task. It does make it original, even if it's not unique.

James, I think we need to call a truce here because I really don't want to fight with you...

Things I think we agree on:

1. It takes a tremendous amount of skill and experience to hand craft a high quality custom wood rifle stock.

2. Builders at the top of their game deserve to command top dollar for their work.

3. It also takes a certain level of artistic vision to blend common elements together into a pleasing final product.

4. Nobody "owns" common styles like a mid-20th century English stalking rifle, but nobody should have a right to directly rip off the hard work of another without permission and/or compensation.

5. Every custom wood stocked rifle is unique. (heck, the wood grain alone makes this true...)

I'm going to cop out on the challenge to post photos, mainly because I don't currently have a photo hosting site I'm using. The link in this thread has photos of similarly styled, yet very unique custom rifles: Custom rifles If I cared enough to spend more time arguing I could probably search and find a photo of one that has the exact blend of features yours does, but I think I've made my point, and I also agree with you that a quality custom is more than a simple collection of features.

I think our only disagreement is in the definition of an "original work of art", and what differentiates an artist from a craftsman. But it's not worth arguing semantics.

Time to walk the dog, cheers.

quote:

Originally posted by rcraig:
Well, you have singers and song writers, and then there's "recording artists". So does that mean a recording is art/artistic ?
Somebody must think so. I don't.

I'm not sure exactly what your point is, but I would consider the Beatles "artists", (because they created the original work) but a Beatles tribute band "musical performers".

Even if they might be technically better musicians... Now it's REALLY time to walk the dog.

Well...this is an amusing thread...This ground has been plowed and replowed , so maybe just go with the concept that plauergism is the sincerest form of flattery

All I know is I'm never going to ask folks on AR how they like their steaks cooked! Could end in Armageddon based on this thread!

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
... plauergism is the sincerest form of flattery

Too bad John Rigby isn't around to appreciate all the flattery.

If you stop with Rigby, you ignore the memory and contributions of Worthen, Shelhamer, Linden. Howe, Owen and about another thousand stockmakers remembered and lost to history that helped develop the classic form we all admire.

It was not ONE step that changed the form of a Model T to a Mustang...Small increments !

quote:

Originally posted by Duane Wiebe (CG&R):
... the classic form we all admire.

That's really all I have been trying to say here...

And I wasn't stopping with Rigby, more like starting. As you said, every change since then has been incremental and to make a stock in this classic form and claim one's design as "original" is also ignoring the memory and contributions of all the others that came before.

All this arrogance must have been handed down from the Brits, me thinks they invented it..If one is building a gun build it as you like, most are not copied, the originator probably copied it from a spear or whatever..

If you can't build a stock from a blank then you aren't creating anything original.

As far as I'm concerned, you cannot call yourself a Stockmaker if you cannot build a stock from a blank. That is why I lobbied long and hard to keep it as a requirement to become an ACGG Stockmaker.
Shaping a stock from the Blank has been what my summer seminars have focused on for the past decade. Ed Shulin used to say that a stockmaker needed this skill at least to make original pattern stocks.


Students Stock 2021

quote:

Originally posted by SDH:
As far as I'm concerned, you cannot call yourself a Stockmaker if you cannot build a stock from a blank. That is why I lobbied long and hard to keep it as a requirement to become an ACGG Stockmaker.
Shaping a stock from the Blank has been what my summer seminars have focused on for the past decade. Ed Shulin used to say that a stockmaker needed this skill at least to make original pattern stocks.


Students Stock 2021

Nice!