As you see from the replies above, this is the kind of question where you can argue the proper answer square or argue it round.

I paid big bucks for an Austin P.D. Heavy Duty and was happy to get it. I was born there and have fond memories of family members who lived there. Owning that gun is a way to connect with a part of my childhood that is pretty small in comparison with other parts. I probably would not be equally as interested in a service revolver for another agency, but I wouldn't think the agency marking detracted significantly from the gun. I would expect any unrefinished agency gun to have been a tool and I would not expect to see one in NIB condition, or even particularly good condition. But how much value can you take off a shooter just because it has some extra numbers or letters mashed into its frame or sideplate? Not much. How much value can you add to a worn and utilitarian gun that has strong emotional associations to some individuals? Quite a bit, in many cases -- maybe even most.

Statisticians call the lower limit an absorbing boundary, but there is no limit to the upside. I would expect a descriptive statistical report to show that insignia and initials create at least a little value kick for the average gun (though not for every gun) and a huge value kick for the guns that saw service in charismatic departments. I don't say those who wouldn't buy a retired department gun are wrong; they are just driven by different collecting principles and will be outbid on agency guns by those who see things differently. That too supports the pressure for higher prices on surplussed and de-accessioned agency firearms.

Short answer then: in the market, they are worth more.

__________________
David Wilson