... especially as applied to Smiths made within the past 20 years or so. I'm inclined not to list values for Poor and Fair condition for recently manufactured models. I don't think guns often get beat up that bad within their first two decades.

Has anyone actually bought or sold a recently made Poor or Fair condition Smith? How much?

Here are the definitions we use in the book (based on the NRA condition guidelines):

Fair: Modern guns must be in safe working condition, but can be well worn, showing visible repair or replacement parts, or needing adjustment or minor repair. May be pitted so long as pitting does not effect function or safety. Antique guns may have major parts replaced and minor parts missing, may be rusted, pitted, heavily buffed or refinished, may have rounded edges, illegible markings, cracked or broken grips, and should be working or easily repaired. For comparison, one version of NRA Modern definitions suggest “20-60% finish may or may not be original”.

Poor: Broken, poorly refinished, heavily rusted and pitted, or otherwise generally undesirable. Most often valued only as project guns for amateur gunsmiths, curiosities for display, or parts guns. Although rare models in “poor” condition may have some collector value, often the value of “poor” condition guns will be the value the gun would have if it were restored to shootable condition, less the cost of such repair, or the value of the salvageable parts remaining on the poor condition gun.

__________________
Jim Supica

I'm very much inclined to agree with your assessment, but my inclinations arise from what I suppose is a rather small segment of the total market for the book---the lunatic fringe collector----and an old one at that. On the one hand, I have a copy of each of the four editions, so you got my money---but I find myself using N&J and History more than SCSW. That might be an example of old habits die hard.

It will come as no surprise that I figure my segment of your market has little to no awareness of even the existence of fair and poor guns----and especially anything in any condition from the past 20 years------------and wouldn't carry one home if it was given to us.

That said, this forum has exposed me to an entirely different world----those who spend good money for beaters---and fix them up. I would no more do that than flap my arms, and try to fly.

I bought my first "collectible" quality gun in the late 1950's---and never looked back. Actually, I did look back---having initially defined "target guns" as anything with target sights. After about 30 years, and 130 some-odd guns on the shelf, it dawned on me I didn't have a collection of REAL target guns---those at least a quasi-serious competitor would consider using in a match----only an accumulation of guns with target sights that had no real history and told no story.

I sold damn near all of them, and started over---this time ending up with 60 some-odd items---and even then I cheated--having at least one each of all the pre-war N frame targets---never mind I'd seen damn few N frames being used in matches.

Ralph Tremaine

A couple of years ago Sportsman’s Warehouse sold a bunch of fair and poor condition guns from a huge purchase of evidence and duty guns from the Puerto Rico Police. I bought a fair share of them.

The 13-3 was typical of the lot. I paid 285 bucks, cleaned it as best I could, and it sits loaded on a shelf near the front door. It works fine, but still looks doggy. I guess it would be considered “fair” by the definitions above, though the hammer spur is broken at the tip.

Other than that big influx, I rarely see newer guns in such poor condition. I’ll buy an ugly functional gun before a pretty one that doesn’t work right.

Attached Images

IMG_4913.jpg (92.9 KB, 54 views)

__________________
“What you got, ain’t new.”

I think prices are subjective in many more ways than condition, no matter the era. The Gun Bibles seem to give dealers what they want, but maybe not the sellers. Referencing a high-priced gun sale is of no use to me, as the price could be nothing but two people wanting the same gun, then a third person steps in and places an even higher bid.

We all need guides to go by, and military and law enforcement guns may be rough at times, but I've seen them just as great. JMO

Jim I view the buyers and sellers idea of condition as to different things , I understand the standards in which you use , but feel "poor" would be best served as pitted rust in some spots ,along with other handling wear but still useable maybe a new listing of say unsafe to fire....ie parts gun or in need of restoration might be of some use to both buyer and seller...just a thought...Jay....ps...thanks for all your hard work with these great books!!!!

I like your proposal. I think there is value in sticking with the NRA definitions as a standard. I think it is not worth the trouble to include those values in guns less that 20 years old. You might include a note that you do not include those numbers because a buyer should approach newer guns in that condition with a great deal of caution. If what you can see is that bad, what you cannot see may be worse

__________________
Kind regards, Heinz