Maurice Ottmar, RIP.

perfection?? draw aline running vertical through the uncut outside diamond and line it up with the bottom point of that outer diamond(on the edge of the shadow), then see how the opposite point of that diamond as well as the points of the inner uncut diamonds,both wood and metal, do not line up by quite a substantial margin.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:
perfection?? draw aline running vertical through the uncut outside diamond and line it up with the bottom point of that outer diamond(on the edge of the shadow), then see how the opposite point of that diamond as well as the points of the inner uncut diamonds,both wood and metal, do not line up by quite a substantial margin.

Flamed indeed. You do it.

spiffy!
- mike

I've examined this pattern before......long and hard. The diamond escutcheon plate was of course inletted in the wood before the checkering pattern was developed.

I'd have to guess that the checkering pattern is cut with pretty careful attention to symmetry. The outer raised diamond is created by that checkering. Unfortunately, the escutcheon plate isn't exactly in alignment with the checkering that forms this outer diamond.

The inner checkering is finer, and a bit more forgiving because of that. However, the escutcheon plate has to have a consistent border around it, because an uneven border would look really bad.

The only thing available at that time is to fill in the area created by the outer diamond....and the inner diamond framing around the escutcheon plate. And that little bit of checkering isn't perfectly symmetrical because the escutcheon plate isn't exactly on the center plane of the forearm.......or at least the generated outer checkering. Off by about 1/52nd of an inch.

And no........I couldn't do it better.

GV

Sure is "pretty" to me. No way I could hunt with it, because I feel sure I'd wham it against something the first time out.

I can't even begin to understand the "patience" someone must have to be able to do such beautiful work.

quote:

Originally posted by mrlexma:
Flamed indeed. You do it.

What he said.

Mr woodjack, to me anything done by Mr Maurice Ottmar, is perfection. Maybe a small flaw but hold one of his guns and then make comment. Or better yet, show us some of your work

No custom work is perfect, including the best like Maurice Ottmar. My gunsmith says the ability to hide mistakes and imperfections is one of the marks of a really good smith.

perfect enough for me, looks great, thanks for giving us a look see.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:
perfection?? draw aline running vertical through the uncut outside diamond and line it up with the bottom point of that outer diamond(on the edge of the shadow), then see how the opposite point of that diamond as well as the points of the inner uncut diamonds,both wood and metal, do not line up by quite a substantial margin.

More than likely from photographic distortion. If this photo wasn't taken with a view camera that corrects distortion, which I am almost sure it was not, there is no way to tell which lines do not line up. Its kind of like looking at a photo of railroad tracks. they seem to get closer and closer together as the distance gets greater, even though one knows that in reality they are the same distance apart. Or another example would be to take a photo of a tall building with a regular camera. it will look like it is narrower at the top even though in reality it is the same width.

I wouldn't comment on Mr. Ottmar's work from a photo.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:
perfection?? draw aline running vertical through the uncut outside diamond and line it up with the bottom point of that outer diamond(on the edge of the shadow), then see how the opposite point of that diamond as well as the points of the inner uncut diamonds,both wood and metal, do not line up by quite a substantial margin.

I see your point but who's to say that the line of bore is perfectly horiziontal in the photo? Seems to me that the stock might be angled a bit down to the left. In fact, here's the same photo which I rotated 2.5Ëš clockwise with Photoshop.



Everything lines up about "perfect" and the taper of the stock is apparent which it was not in the first photo.

Recoil Rob

taking the photo's distortion into account, all of these lines are withing .005 to .010 or so of true.
the stock is at a slight angle up and the picture was taken at slight other angle (looks down and left of center)

it's so close to perfect to be outside of consideration of "slightly flawed"...

I could NOT reproduce this today, unless i had a 4th axis cnc machine and this was about my 5th attempt.. 4 planes/curved surfaces to align into a 3d object that has to APPEAR to be flat and in alignment from a single POV.

to anyone that would think "it could be better",
to perhaps help with understanding how tough this is, one could take a week and a pencil and try to draw this on a forearm blank, and have it align at this degree. and then perhaps understand that this is a vastly complex surface that can only be seen to be square from one POV.

jeffe

Be aware of one very important thing. The checkering on the inside is cut at a finer lpi that those on the outside. The diamond shaped ribbon has to be a multiple of the inside and a different muliple of the outside lpi. You are most likely looking at 24 (4x6) lpi on the outside and 28 (4x7)lpi on the inside.

I know of one other person who has tried this and in the end he said never again.

Maurice did it on a number of occasions and was comfortable doing it. I have laid awake trying to think of where to start.

I’ve never checkered a stock...but have done a few 1911 front straps, and this looks pretty damned good to me!

Trying to lay out a squared up geometric pattern on a rounded, tappered, irregularly shaped object is like trying to herd cats. Add to that trying to include a piece of metal into the design that is also probably less than “perfect†in squareness.

You can find fault in anything, I guess, if you look hard enough.

Woodjack:

I am reminded and remanded to an old saying:

"Speak ye not ill of the dead, lest they speak ill of you." considering where they are, and who may be listening, I applaud all works by past masters.

One definition of a work of art, is that it evokes an emotional response.

This work by master Otmar has accomplished the emotional response. it is beautiful and artistic and who is to say the artist intended symmetry? did picasso? did dali? did michelangelo? as I think on it, I know of few artists that pursued true symmetry, unless the medium was sculpture, brick, or architecture.
Perhaps woodworkers in the level of this master realized the human hand is not symmetrical?

I say thanks for sharing.

And take it hunting.

I sure as hell wouldn't kick it out of my bed! Er, I mean safe.

Once the escutcheon is placed you have to develop the pattern around it. One side of the checkering surrounding the escutcheon actually has one more line of diamonds than the other 3 sides. Getting things absolutely square and centered on a forend is not as easy as it sounds. If there is any misalignment compensations have to be made or things really get out of whack when you get to the top line of the stock. Probably one reason why very elaborate fill in patterns were used by many great stockers as opposed to using multi-point patterns like this one or some of the very complex patterns John Heard used. The fill in patterns only have to fill the space and are not as difficult by any means.

In a work such as this one by Ottmar you have to look at the other nuances of good checkering and accept that there may be compensation made to preserve the integrity of the whole pattern.
I don't imagine he was totally pleased with this either but knew he could do nothing short of reprofiling the fore end and resetting the escutcheon to correct it. I'd love to have some of Maurice's work and I'm glad to see I'm not the only one who has to work around a glitch and come up with a solution that can only be seen by very critical examination.

Such things are not "perfect" because they can be qualified precisely with a straight edge and micrometer, they're perfect because their "imperfections" are lost in their overall beauty.

I'd say that's "perfect."

quote:

gnmkr: I would be quite fortunate to do so well...and Forrest, this 'smith will tell you that the ability to avoid mistakes and imperfections is the sign of a truly Great gunsmith. I should be so fortunate.
SDH

Mr. Hughes, I'd say your work is also as close to perfection as it gets.

Stunning example of Mr. Ottmar's work. It stands as a testiment to his skill, dedication, and commitment. Some people will never be happy no matter the level of skill or precision applied to any craft. The fact that Mr. Ottmar did this more than once truely depicts his mastery. I wish I had 1/4 of his skill.

Chic, I suppose now would be a bad time to ask if you would do something similar. Just kidding, I don't want to be responsible for you loosing sleep.

IMHO,

The ones criticizing are those that can't afford this type of work.

Maurice's work was some of the finest that's every been done by anyone, no question about it.

I've looked over several Ottmar rifles very closely, and I've always been amazed at some of the complex, difficult checkering patterns he was able to execute, and with such utter depth and precision that there was never any question that he knew exactly what he wanted to do, and and that he knew exactly how was going to do it from the outset. He had a lot of confidence, and he took on projects that most other guys wouldn't even attempt, let alone execute well.

Classic, beautiful, timeless work that's an important part of custom riflemaking history..........

AD

Same people complain because the Venus di Milo has no arms or that the left testicle on Michelangelo's "David" is 1/8" smaller than the right.

That stock is pure magic made more so by the humaness of it's creator.

Jeff

Allen, though I greatly respect your opinion on all things blue and wood, I must say your words understate Ottmar's work. I've fondled a fair number of his creations and have a friend that owned 5 at one time, hunted with them as well. There are those that build the consumate hunting tools such as Echols or Miller and I mean no disrespect to their skill, but I've not seen anyone blend beauty and function as well as Mr. Ottmar. A few may equal his work, I haven't seen any that best it.

And I'd hunt with that in a heartbeat.

you guys are "looking too closely."

quote:

Such things are not "perfect" because they can be qualified precisely with a straight edge and micrometer, they're perfect because their "imperfections" are lost in their overall beauty.

Well said!

Jameister,and others
I dont recall saying anything ill about his work,just pointing out the fact that perfection is open to interpretation.
Did anyone ever ask Marice personally about what he thought about his own work? I didnt and I bet just about none of you have either. His opinion of his own work could have been vastly different to what we may think of it.While you were praising his work, he may have secretly considered you a fool for doing so,none of us are in a real position to know.Maybe he didnt give ashit whether we liked it or not,maybe he just enjoyed doing it.
Have any of you gone to a SCI or ACGG show and talked with the best stockmakers to get their view on their own work? If not I suggest you do.

"If you go into a cemmetry, the head stones only have nice things to say about people,where do all the bad people get buried when they die?"

I have hed a few of Maurices.Gotta hold one to appreciate it
Nuff said.

It's beautiful. Do you have a picture of the whole rifle.


I'm worried about the fella that is measuring David's testicles...

quote:

Originally posted by JBabcock:
It's beautiful. Do you have a picture of the whole rifle.

Ottmar 35 Whelen

That, friends, is an incredible deal. I, for one, will never be able to afford such a work of art, but considering what many are readily willing to pay for run of the mill "custom" rifles; $6800 for a rifle of this quality and beauty is miles ahead. Hurts like a punch in the gut to know I will never own a rifle of that caliber. Good on he who does.

Even more than the checkering, I like that cheekpiece.

Snowcat

A quarter here, a dollar there, one less beer a week. Who knows. Maybe someday you will own it. Don't be so quick to give up.

quote:

Originally posted by Brad:
Such things are not "perfect" because they can be qualified precisely with a straight edge and micrometer, they're perfect because their "imperfections" are lost in their overall beauty.

I'd say that's "perfect."

I used to use that exact same line (except for the straight edge and micrometer of course) to pick up women!

Woodjack,
I spoke to him a number of times about his work. And if you think he would consider anyone a fool for their opinions, you are sadly mistaken. He was proud of his work and at the same time, one of the most humble person I have ever met. He would not have thought of his work as perfect. He also would not have been happy with any flaw on a stock but he knew when it was time to get on with what was next. He also told me a number of times regarding checkering that it should be admired at arms length. He was not a big fan of the folks you would see at the ACGG show, walking around with a loup so they could get a microscopic view of engraving, checkering or the like.

I have his checkering cradle and stool and also his old MMC checkering cutter but the magic is not in those items, it was in him. His best pattern was what he called a modified O'Connor Broken point pattern. It was a combinaton of a point pattern and fleurs and it ws breathtaking. I had a photo of it that he gave me, but unfortunately I misplaced it.

I didnt say he would consider someone a fool,or that that was that kind of man ,read the post again again without getting emotional.
I am glad you have posted giving us some insight into the man himself,not just his work.

That Whelen is a beatiful rifle with the scarce Lyman 35 sight and by a top maker but $6800 is still a lot considering that there is no engraving. I have yet to see a Cabela's price that I think is reasonable, but others obviously disagree because their guns do get sold.

Was not emotional and I did read it. Are you trying out for the Olympic backpedaling team?

Good, now go to a dictionary and look at the difference between the words "may" and "did"
heres one for you convenience.
http://www.yourdictionary.com

no back pedaling on my part my friend, just your error in reading something I posted or your lack of understanding of the context of the english vocabulary.

Jack,
go read my first replying post on this matter, look at what it takes, how it was done, that the camera is not in the correct plane for you to KNOW that it's off...

Chic has forgotten more about stocks and alignment than the 2 of us together will ever know


as you are well aware, a stock is not a flat, single plane object. It is difficult for a 3d object to be presented in 2d, much less a complex 3d object, in 2 different tapers, placed on a parabola, with the normal x,y,z planes/axis to deal with. Then take into account there's actually 5 or 6 (depends on how you count the depth of the checkering) different depths.....

the last paragragh.. go get a stock out of your safe and try this. Just TRY it. Why do I say try, rather than do?

because you would be months trying to get it just where i would look right in person... then you would take a picture, and it would be distorted unti you had the camera exactly in the right POV.

the best *I* could hope for is quadlaterial symmetry... and that probably is beyound my current skill set... but mine improves (in interesting ways some times) every day

jeffe