Woodjack, there is no need for anyone to consult the dictionary (unless you would like to learn how to spell the word "scenario) but you do need tune yourself on reading comprehension. While you are at it, see if you can find where I used the word "did". You said he "may" and I said "if you think he would consider anyone a fool for their opinions, you are sadly mistaken" and that is a valid statement then and now. You need some correction also when you call me your friend. I don't not know you, nor have never seen any of your posts before but your manner makes it difficult to count you as a friend. Now if you feel the same way about me, I consider that a blessing.

Quite honestly, I've never examined a checkering pattern or inletting job on a best-quality custom rifle that was 100% flawlessly perfect.

I've seen some jobs by Curt Crum, Richard Hodgson, Phil Pilkington, Gary Goudy, Monte Kennedy, Jerry Fisher, Monte Mandarino, Maurice Ottmar, James C. Tucker, and Duane Weibe that were as CLOSE to perfection as I've personally seen, but there was always some little, tiny, miniscule flaw that you'd inevitably find if you looked hard enough and long enough.

And I wouldn't have it any other way. These stocks were made by human beings, not machines, and despite a minor flaw once in a while, the sum total of the effort is far more precise than any machine that's yet been devised could possibly reproduce in wood.

There's always some fence-stitter standing around in anonymity, criticizing from the sidelines, but ask the same critic to step up and produce a better effort, and most of the time you'll find that the lights might be on, but nobody's really home after all.......

AD

There might be a bit of over-reaction in this thread....from all sides. Maurice is likely having a good chuckle.

Jeff, it's not an optical illusion.......and Chic would be the first to say so. On the other hand, Chic's point is well taken on viewing checkering at arm's length. This is an intricate pattern that looks very good and achieves the desired effect.

Allen's post about minor flaws in any checkering....regardless of artist......is also true. Not many of us have the opportunity to examine multiple works of many stockers up close. However, if you have the chance to peruse a copy of Ron Toews' book on Contemporary American Stockmakers, you can see multiple checkering patterns under a macro lense. Many of the stockmakers are those that Allen mentions in his previous post. It's wonderful stuff.

Phil Pilkington assisted in this book, and told us he thought Monty Kennedy's work was consistently the best he'd seen. My personal eye-opener was the checkering of the engraver Winston Churchill......presumably when he was with Griffin & Howe. His stocks are rare, and the checkering is awesome.

Ironically, there is also an Ottmar-stocked BRNO .270 on page 165 of that book. Same pattern as the one in this thread.....dead-nuts perfect.

GV

Imperfection is everywhere you look - sometimes you have to look harder . I personaly prefer a plain jane stock on hunting rifle as I would probably cry or die if I scratched or damaged a fine rifle like the one pictured !

quote:

Originally posted by laredo kid:
I personaly prefer a plain jane stock on hunting rifle as I would probably cry or die if I scratched or damaged a fine rifle like the one pictured !

Nah......

Don't use it as a walking stick, or to hold down barbed-wire fences while you cross. A little honest hunting wear gives it character.

Chic and SDH hunt with their own creations.......and they each know how much work was involved in making them! They may have taken inventory of the mars and scrathes, but I doubt there's a whole lot of remorse involved. The guns are meant to be hunted with.

GV

Grandview

Do you know if that Toews' book is available anywhere.

What does Phil Pilkington do these days?

Back in the 1970's, when I was single, I used to travel around a bit and visit famous stockers (among others in the gun trades)...one year for instance, I visited both Jerry Fisher and Monte Kennedy at their homes in the Kalispell area. This checkering shown above looks pretty nice to me, but then, I am always over-awed by multi-point, wrap-around checkering anyway.

I prefer borderless checkering, but then I also prefer 5'-7", 19-27 year old female red-heads with green eyes, milk-white skin, a few freckles, and a WARM smile....but there's nothing wrong with a tall, willowy, sexy Brunette either...or with this stock.

Is not the pursuit of improvement, the consideration of the use and user a paramount worthwhile life goal? The individuals who dedicate their lives and their product to both use and use emubue their products with mexquisite functionality and beauty.Is that not a noble idesl?

I find these kinds of critscim lacking. I think that there is no machine which can add or provide the unique human touch that these individuals provide. They provide a unique perspective and consideration of the specific use; they know the heighth, weight, conditions (weather, environment, etc), geographical region, or specifc life conditions associated with the purchase, e.g. that an individual has saved his entire life to do this specific thing and this may be the last hurraah.

No machine no matter matter how precise the machine is, it cannot fathom the unique human needs. In the end, we have exchanged money for not only a weapon or boots, but also have recieved a portion of a man's life who built these things for us. A man's life is finite, so we make not only an investment, but receive a gift....Consider if you will the gifts of the great artist whose works have long since been paid for and still catch our eye...

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
Do you know if that Toews' book is available anywhere.

I have not seen a copy for sale in ages.......and it likely would be pricey. I did hear a story that a good portion of Toews' inventory of copies were destroyed somehow. Perhaps someone can add more.....

At the time I attended Pilkington's 1983 class, Toews was present and selling his book at a favorable price. I previously had purchased a copy, but I wish I'd bought another.

quote:

What does Phil Pilkington do these days?

I have no idea. And I've made several inquiries of people in the industry to no avail. I believe he still resides in Oklahoma, but I've seen no mention of any recent work. There used to be quite a few products from the Pilkington Gun Company for sale through Brownells, but I believe all that's currently available is the stock finish and rust blue. I have a set of his beefy checkering tools that I really like, and I still use his stock finish and rubbing oil.

He was a gifted stockmaker and an intelligent, interesting man. However, he was less than enamored with the custom gun industry. It was an attitude that was a rather strange dichotomy.....as we were attending his custom gun seminar.

GV

Grandview

Well, lets put it this way. If you didn't own a copy of the book, what would you pay for a used copy of it today?

quote:

Originally posted by 22WRF:
Well, lets put it this way. If you didn't own a copy of the book, what would you pay for a used copy of it today?

Well, I imagine I'm a bit more "over the edge" than a lot of people........I like to collect "paper". And custom guns is pretty high on my book list.

I think I paid $75 or $80 for the book in 1980. I might expect to pay as much as $200 for it now.......and likely would if I didn't have a copy.

BTW.....Steven Dodd Hughes book is of the same genre, and a very interesting and complimentary work of custom guns 20 years hence.

GV

Customstox you must be getting a little long in the tooth,taking life to seriously(you must have know the term "friend" was tongue in cheek.)
By the way,if you stop analising my spelling with a loupe and look at it the same way as you do Mr. Ottmars work, you will notice that it is as perfect as his checkering.

quote:

Originally posted by Woodjack:
Customstox you must be getting a little long in the tooth,taking life to seriously(you must have know the term "friend" was tongue in cheek.)
By the way,if you stop analising my spelling with a loupe and look at it the same way as you do Mr. Ottmars work, you will notice that it is as perfect as his checkering.

you probably meant "analysing" rather than anal-ising (there's a different meaning)




jeffe

JEFFE!!!!

With one notable, and forgettable, exception, I am inspired by these reflections, speculations and comments on perfection.

To me, what Maurice Ottmar merely attempted, not to say what he miraculously achieved with this work of art, is perfection.

As for anyone who doesn't or is so aesthetically challenged as to be unable to appreciate this feat, I say find a hole, jump in, and ask to be buried, for you are well and truly dead.

quote:

Originally posted by snowcat:
JEFFE!!!!

<bill clinton fake voice>

wha-did-i-do?

Just pointing out that when you inspect something you analysis it... woodjack said the other word!!!

damnn, it's hard to even try an innocent look

jeffe

Did anyone ever ask Marice personally about what he thought about his own work?

No artist is ever satisfied with his own work.

Jeffe-
I'm just a little upset you beat me to it....esp. as "perfect" spelling is apparently paramount here--good catch.