Period correct, quality refinishing - why does it kill collector value?

[pangris]

Greetings, gentlemen.

By no stretch am I as "serious" a collector as many on this forum, but I do have a... decent collection of a variety of firearms, many of which are unique or custom, and several of which are early examples of S&Ws.

I've often considered the purchase of a gun in decent, but not exceptional shape - good enought to be collectable, but not good enough to make you drool - and thought about restoring the gun to its original glory.

That said, I know it destroys the collector value.

Why???

Why does having a gun reblued by a master who can re-create that deep, fall into the gun blue kill the value?

I have a friend who bought a 1914 Luger that looks like it just came out of the factory - perfectly redone - but he got it for $500. Supposedly that particulary gun would have been worth several times that at 90%.

I don't get it. I totally understand alterations and original parts, but I look at finishes like the paint on house. It wears, it needs to be redone, it gets redone.

What say you?

 

[PattonTime]

Quality Refinishing

I have to agree, while I am very aware that it kills the value, I often buy guns to shoot that are "holster worn" then have them restored to their glory.
I have a Model 19 4" that is a real favorite, I bought for $200.00, had a guy re blue it , put in Target hammer and trigger I had bought used and put on
a nice set of S&W combat grips.
I know it has been redone , but most who look at it would never,ever know.
Why ? because it was not that bad to start with. Re blue gets a bad name when you take a gun that is worn out and try to make it into something it is not, a new gun. People redo Semi-Autos all the time , because of modifications they do why not revolvers ? I only do it with common models and never, ever try to hide what I have done. But if you don't over polish
and it looks great, what really is the problem ? I mean on a gun to use , like my 19 ? You just can't ever think you have a new gun, it is what it is .

 

[pangris]

I'm wondering why it kills the value of the uncommon ones.

Why is a 80% gun worth more than a mechancially and cosmetically perfect gun refinished to look factory new?

 

[Andy Griffith]

Cultural thing- Europeans see rebluing/refinishing as something good- if it's needed.

Also the fact is a very, very small percentage of reblued guns are done well, and even a smaller percentage are done professionally. How many bad reblues have you seen done?
How many very good reblues have you seen that were done very well, but used the wrong bluing method which resulted in the incorrect finish?

The fact is, to get a finish that can't be distinguished from original, be willing to shell out big $$$$. The people capable of doing such will usually mark their work discreetly.

 

[pangris]

I've heard $250-$300 for a quality reblue, which is in line with the effort that goes into such a thing.

Believe me, I've held butchered guns that made me shed a tear to see that some "gunsmith" ruined forever. I'd never send a classic gun out for such treatment.

I'm speaking specifically about the type of finish that couldn't be distinguished. I would never send a classic, never to be made again gun to anyone other than the factory or a recognized master artisian.

 

[MAG-NUM]

I am also confused about this. By comparison, you restore an antique car or motorcycle and repaint it, you take a vintage tube radio and refinish the cabinet, would you rather have an original Coke machine with faded paint or a fully restored one? I know I am comparing apples and oranges but why is it acceptable in one hobby and yet not another? Bob

 

[pangris]

I don't think it is apples to oranges. At all.

Look at this old horse -

Collector's Firearms

That gun has a decent finish for closing in on 100 years old, but if it were going to live in my safe, I would like it to look NEW.

I think the old car analogy is very good, actually. I'd like to have a Porsche 356 cabriolet some day, and I want it to be perfect. Not near perfect, not original paint, perfect.

If I drop $4,000 on a pre-war registered magnum, I want it to be perfect. I would happily spend $300 or more to have it reblued to like new.

The irony being, as I understand it, if I were to do such athing it would suddenly look perfect but be worth $1000 or so, maybe $1500.

I don't get it.

 

[JudgeColt]

The market and tastes of the collector community dictate what is most desirable.

While the comparison to cars is said not to be the same, in a way it is. An original car in as-new condition is worth more than a restored car. An original gun is worth more than a restored gun.

The comparison to cars goes further. Most of the collector cars one sees now are better than they were when new. Mass-produced cars had orange peal in the paint and the like that a collector restoring a particular example would not want today.

By contrast, guns from the major manufacturers mass-produced during the "Golden Age" between the wars were made to a quality standard not possible now. Only a few "restorers" can get close to the quality today, but I do not think any can equal it.

A perfect copy of a Rembrandt painting is still a copy. A true collector wants the original. Same with guns.

 

[murphydog]

This is not the official or only explanation, but here goes...

Collectors of guns, antique or modern, value originality and higher condition. Refinishing may "restore" the condition, but the originality is lost for good. Guns are also different from cars and vending machines in that if you look hard enough and have enough money, you can find nearly any gun made in the last 150 years or so in unused condition or nearly so.

The more recent and/or common the gun, the more likely you will spend more to refinish your worn gun than you would spend to buy one that is NIB. As Andy G. noted, making a gun look like new to an experienced eye is expensive. I don't think anyone objects to a factory correct re-do, and this may be worth close to a new gun, but how often is this seen outside of Turnbull and a few others?

As I have had guns refinished and "destroyed" their collector status, I don't necessarily subscribe to all the above. It isn't a rational thought process but neither is most of gun collecting . Perhaps others can explain it better.

 

[Andy Griffith]

I've heard $250-$300 for a quality reblue, which is in line with the effort that goes into such a thing.

I'm speaking specifically about the type of finish that couldn't be distinguished. I would never send a classic, never to be made again gun to anyone other than the factory or a recognized master artisian.

Unfortunately, $300 is about 1/10 of a professional restoration as similar to factory new as possible. (Should have added that earlier)

For a pre-1913 Colt SAA for example, will run roughly $3000.

Take a look at what one of the top fellers in the country charges:
Doug Turnbull Restoration, Inc. - Careful polish work, hand checkering and rust bluing are just some of the key steps in restoration work.

This is more than a just a reblue- all the factory writing restored, metal polished correctly and anything else mechanically put right if need be.

Also, not mentioned except rarely...bore condition is typically of lesser concern on an antique. However, sometimes this can be the best giveaway to restoration. Friend of mine bought a beautiful 1886 carbine- older restoration about 90%+, but the bore had three rings in it and never realized until he got home and paid big $$$! He was heartbroken and moped for days.

 

[SDH]

A gun is only in factory "new" condition once, for the most part everything else is just a reblue. It wasn't too many years ago that automotive collectors felt the same way, and some still do.
Only recently collector's have begun to approve of Turnbull quality restoration. It has been done for a long time but to extemely valuable guns and much was spuriously represented as original finish. Doug Turnbull has been greatly influential in restoration coming out of the closet. I know of a rifle he restored winning an NRA convention award for condition that was rescinded when he revealed the restoration.
As demand for vintage guns increases and the available guns disappear high quality restoration will be more acceptable. There also needs to be an increase in those able to accomplish it and those willing to pay for it.
I've done quite a bit of professional firearms restoration and believe me you are not going to get a "factory new" quality reblue for $300.
While this is not truly a restoration, it is an example of what can be done to ratty old S&W's.

 

[Andy Griffith]

That, my friend is beautiful!

 

[KEN L]

The Answer is Simple.......

I, on the other hand, have never been able to understand why people don't understand the loss of value when a gun is re-finished. It is because it is no longer in "original" condition. It has been changed. Though it may look original, it is not. It is not the same as when it left the factory. It is now a facsimile of the original. Therefore, it can never be worth what an original in like condition is worth. I know of at least one refinisher of Lugers that puts a special mark on the gun, unobtrusive but there nonetheless, so that experts can identify it as a restoration cause he's that good. Any restoration or re-finish must be identified at the time of sale. As long as the buyer knows what they're getting its okay. Its those unscrupulous types that ruin the hobby for all. Nuff said!

 

[srgvaz]

I have had one gun refinished by the factory the price was right around the original price of the gun in the early 70's. I see it as worth the money as it will be handed down one day as it was to me. I have 1 s&w revolver, and 1 s&w cylinder I would like to get refinished but I know once I do I would probably not want take them out to play. It's your gun do what you see fit just don't try and cheat someone in the process.

 

[okie john]

I see it as being less about appearance and more about rarity, which is the real point of most collecting. Most guns get used, so one that didn't is more rare than one that did, with a NIB example being the rarest of all.


Okie John

 

[m-1911]

It scares me to know that there are people on this forum who would destroy a $4000 RM with a $300 reblue, thereby rducing the value to less than half what it sold for, and destroying it for future generations.

 

[pangris]

It scares me to know that there are people on this forum who would destroy a $4000 RM with a $300 reblue, thereby rducing the value to less than half what it sold for, and destroying it for future generations.

Fear not, after reading turnbulls page, I stand corrected on the cost.

I remember reading on this forum years ago there was an excellent reblue being done and the going price was about $300. If that is not the case, and the least that a like new refinish can be had for is $2,000+, I stand very corrected.

Furthermore, for those that have mentioned it, it has nothing to do with intended resale. There are countless investment vehicles that far exceed firearms, even if one were to be unscrupulous. Beyond that, without being a "big name", they wouldn't allow enough volume for a true investor, nor is deception a viable long term business model.

I do find it interesting that there appears to be a crack in the door that accepts that maybe, possibly, a new coat of paint isn't from the devil

That said, the cost of said paint is a bit high, so for the time being it remains a moot point.

 

[fyimo]

S&W will reblue a revolver for around $300 if you want to restore a well worn S&W so that it looks great and you want it to look at or to be a shooter but it is no longer an original S&W and if at any point you want to sell it it should be stated that it's been reblued. When you do in most cases the buyer will want to pay you quite a bit less then one in the same shape and original.

That's why we tell people that unless they plan on keeping the revolver for a long time that they will lose money on getting it reblued.

 

[Cooter Brown]

Seems to me that there is a difference between a "restoration" to as close to factory as possible, and a "refinish" to help protect the gun.

The British don't think twice about this sort if thing--they regularly send Purdeys, Hollands, etc. back to the factory to have the finish refreshed. The purpose, after all, of bluing or blacking is to protect the metal.

I would see a using gun as more of a candidate for this kind of work. A decent condition old piece should in my opinion be left unmolested unless a full blown "restoration" is undertaken.

There's a guy in north Georgia who has done some nice work bringing old Fox shotguns back to life--these are fine old things that are meant to be used, and most of the ones he works on are in the field once more.

Of course Turnbull has put a lot of effort into recreating the old finishing methods of different manufacturers.

And I've seen (in magazines etc.) some SPECTACULAR work done by our own SDH. It's great to have him on the board. He knows whereof he speaks.

 

[gunlovingirl]

Personally, although of course I prefer high percentage originals, I also like the looks of "well loved" pieces. I find them interesting, and always wonder what stories they could tell.