Information on "Shames"

[AudieMurphy]

Need more info on "shame" guns....Seems there quite a few that pop up every so often. Is this a catagory? condition? or just an opinion? for example OP shows their latest find and others chime in with the usual posts. You know the drill...."shoot it!" "give us a range report,later" BUT then there's that one poster...."Its been reblued, whats a SHAME". why is it a Shame? seems a frequent dig on someones property....

 

[THE PILGRIM]

That's usually because the poster thinks that gun with original finish is more desirable as a collectible than it is reblued.
And quite often the reblue is often less than well done.
Did you ever see a 100 year old gun with a new looking shiny finish and badly worn grips?
Wow! A sock drawer gun , barely shot or carried, but the grips wore out!
Here's a reblue where previous people apparently decided the original grips looked so shabby it would be appropriate to just thrown on some new ones.
And that 4 inch Pre 29? Pretty rare gun. I don't think I've ever seen one!
Need Cokes? No problemo! Plenty of those around.
Throw down some Benjamin's!

 

[Doug M.]

The people who say that are collectors, not what I would consider serious users. A firearm is first and foremost a tool. It might be a tool for defense (the use I value most of the time) or hunting; maybe some kind of competition. I bought a used K38 from a member some years back; while it could be used for defense or hunting, it really exists in my world to make me look like a decent shot.

 

[LVSteve]

It's a big deal in milsurp collector circles. Steaming out the dings in a stock and slapping on the Tru-Oil are seen as destroying the history. Then there are those who believe polyurethane or yacht varnish are the ideal fix to make a gun look "nice". Reblueing is a major blasphemy.