I've always accepted the idea that most guns are not great investments. The types that are, I can't afford. Once I watched an acquaintance of a friend spend $150,000 on a Holland & Holland double rifle. After he left us and it was just my buddy and me, we discussed it. He told me the buyer previously had explained his thinking. Common guns generally are not investments. The market for really special ones may be small, but it was steady and more predictable. He liked to say, for that type of gun, "the ducks are always flying."
In spite of that, it's been my practice not to sell except in three circumstances, viz.: (1) I am mad at it/dissatisfied with it; (2) I need the money to spend on something I'm sure I will enjoy/use more; (3) I have a friend who wants it AND I have a duplicate. At my age, I don't see the need for having two or more of the same thing like I used to. One is usually enough. Usually…

(I'm trying to pare them down, little by little.)
And then there is uber-disqualifier #4: If I'm even remotely on the fence, it stays with me.
Since your proposed sale of the revolvers didn't qualify on my three-point plan, and it flatly failed the "on the fence" provision, I think you made a good choice to hold on to them, at least for now. You can always sell. If it was the wrong move, getting them back is a whole lot harder.