Period correct, quality refinishing - why does it kill collector value?
- Thread starter pangris
- Start date
rhmc24
Absent Comrade
This "restoration thing" gets a lot of exercise, mostly from those with a "anti-restoration" mindset. The fact remains that some guns are so scarce that one in any condition merits respect. I am a restorer specializing in early pieces 1500-1800 and have a few collectors and dealers who give me their work. For the old piece the goal is to return it to its latest "use period" condition rather than be like new.
For recent times the restoration of later guns, say from the advent of cartridge weapons, has been to restore as close as possible to new condition. I do that too, but only to enhance my collection and my estate. See my 1905 Colt auto above.
As for those who decry restoration in general I observe that people who condemn antiques restoration might do well to review their own behaviors. There are those who accuse restoration of being fraud or deception. These same people renovate their houses, refinish their furniture, have nose jobs, cosmetic dentistry, hair implants, repair fender-benders, etc., etc.
Leaves one to wonder where the line should be drawn - or if it should be.
For recent times the restoration of later guns, say from the advent of cartridge weapons, has been to restore as close as possible to new condition. I do that too, but only to enhance my collection and my estate. See my 1905 Colt auto above.
As for those who decry restoration in general I observe that people who condemn antiques restoration might do well to review their own behaviors. There are those who accuse restoration of being fraud or deception. These same people renovate their houses, refinish their furniture, have nose jobs, cosmetic dentistry, hair implants, repair fender-benders, etc., etc.
Leaves one to wonder where the line should be drawn - or if it should be.
Regardless of your position on refinishing or restoration, the overriding principle is that a firearm be accurately represented or described, particularly, when being offered for sale. In that way, the prospective buyer(s) can judge its value based on their view of this issue.
I purchased a couple of first year 44 Magnums that were later engraved by S&W and refinished. I am more than happy with the result, but if I ever decide to sell them, I will describe them accurately and let the buyers decide if my asking price is reasonable or not.
Below is a photo of one of them. It was originally shipped in May 1957 and developed a very cloudy or milk appearance in the finish. I had it engraved, inlaid with gold (by Wayne D'Angelo) and refinished by S&W in 2003 in anticipation of the 50th anniversay of the 44 Magnum in 2006.
Bill
I purchased a couple of first year 44 Magnums that were later engraved by S&W and refinished. I am more than happy with the result, but if I ever decide to sell them, I will describe them accurately and let the buyers decide if my asking price is reasonable or not.
Below is a photo of one of them. It was originally shipped in May 1957 and developed a very cloudy or milk appearance in the finish. I had it engraved, inlaid with gold (by Wayne D'Angelo) and refinished by S&W in 2003 in anticipation of the 50th anniversay of the 44 Magnum in 2006.
Bill
Last edited:
I heartily agree with you Bill, the spuriousness is most often associated with greed, and the lack of complete disclosure. Unfortunately, this is often the objective at the outset of the work and is initiated by the firearm's owner and not the restorer.
Lovely .44, I'd call it factory custom!
Lovely .44, I'd call it factory custom!
deadin
US Veteran
If a restored gun is sold with the seller knowing it is a restoration and not mentioning the fact and the buyer isn't expert enough to spot it, then I say there is fraud or deception being practiced.
If the restored gun is presented as such and the buyer still wants it, then it is merely a matter of what he is willing to pay.
rhmc24
Absent Comrade
I agree with disclosure. The dealers I do restorations for seem to practice disclosure - some of their clients have inquired details of me. Disclosure may only be a one-time thing - me telling a buyer what I have done - not that I'm actually a seller. Next time it changes hands may be a different story.
I put my logo and date on an early 1500s wheellock at the owner's request. It was a priceless piece and he wanted it known that it had been restored.
The pieces that I restore, engrave or do major repairs to in my collection I engrave or stamp my logo on. It is a registered trade mark. My pre-1911 Colt automatics and my S&W .44 DA top breaks some time the guns will change hands. Rework is usually obvious to the knowledgeable buyer but in any case, the marking is there.
Bottom line is the buyer should either be knowledgeable or consult competent advice such as in these forums.
I put my logo and date on an early 1500s wheellock at the owner's request. It was a priceless piece and he wanted it known that it had been restored.
The pieces that I restore, engrave or do major repairs to in my collection I engrave or stamp my logo on. It is a registered trade mark. My pre-1911 Colt automatics and my S&W .44 DA top breaks some time the guns will change hands. Rework is usually obvious to the knowledgeable buyer but in any case, the marking is there.
Bottom line is the buyer should either be knowledgeable or consult competent advice such as in these forums.
Again, like most discussions, there are always two sides. That is why they make both chocolate and vanilla ice cream.
I think that most folks that don't favor restoring older guns believe in several things:
1) As time marches on, there are fewer and fewer older guns that are in original condition. Every time one is restored, there is one less in original condition.
2) S&W felt strongly enough about the subject that they marked and dated those guns that had been sent back to the factory for refinish.
3) Many sellers DO NOT ask the restorer to mark the gun so that future buyers will be aware of its non-original condition.
4) Those non-marked guns may be known as restored or refinished by the first purchaser but what about the first buyer down the road or the second. What about the buyer that buys from one of our widows and has no idea what was done???
You mention repairing fender benders as an example. One of the reasons many folks now ask for a Car Fax report before buying used. As far as nose jobs, cosmetic dentistry, hair implants are concerned, I don't think that many of us are trying to sell ourselves to someone else as a collectible. Home renovations, which I do for a living, are documented at the town building department. This is done for two reasons, 1) to show that the work was done properly according to current building codes and 2) to let future buyers know who was responsible for the work. Again, most homes are not collectible or antiques and don't fall into the same category as firearms. IMHO
I think that most folks that don't favor restoring older guns believe in several things:
1) As time marches on, there are fewer and fewer older guns that are in original condition. Every time one is restored, there is one less in original condition.
2) S&W felt strongly enough about the subject that they marked and dated those guns that had been sent back to the factory for refinish.
3) Many sellers DO NOT ask the restorer to mark the gun so that future buyers will be aware of its non-original condition.
4) Those non-marked guns may be known as restored or refinished by the first purchaser but what about the first buyer down the road or the second. What about the buyer that buys from one of our widows and has no idea what was done???
You mention repairing fender benders as an example. One of the reasons many folks now ask for a Car Fax report before buying used. As far as nose jobs, cosmetic dentistry, hair implants are concerned, I don't think that many of us are trying to sell ourselves to someone else as a collectible. Home renovations, which I do for a living, are documented at the town building department. This is done for two reasons, 1) to show that the work was done properly according to current building codes and 2) to let future buyers know who was responsible for the work. Again, most homes are not collectible or antiques and don't fall into the same category as firearms. IMHO
EvenStephen
Member
Great discussion. I too thought of the collector car comparison immediately. With rare exception, perfection counts more than originality. I understand the idea that a gun is only original once. But it seems like a restored gun is only worth half as much as an original gun in 100% condition and that seems like to severe a penalty.
deadin
US Veteran
Compare the value of a concours condition restored car to the value of a concours original condition car. (If you can find one.
) Check refinished antique furniture vs. original finish furniture. Some things are considered OK to restore, some aren't. I feel that the rarer the original condition items are, the more "acceptable" restorations are, but originals are always going to be worth more. (Cars being a good example.)
To me, restorations are better than replicas, but if someone decides they absolutely "have to have", say a Colt Walker, what choice do they have?
) Check refinished antique furniture vs. original finish furniture. Some things are considered OK to restore, some aren't. I feel that the rarer the original condition items are, the more "acceptable" restorations are, but originals are always going to be worth more. (Cars being a good example.)To me, restorations are better than replicas, but if someone decides they absolutely "have to have", say a Colt Walker, what choice do they have?
rhmc24
Absent Comrade
Value of restorations is something like beauty depending on the beholder. In a sense one can be glad that restored pieces are valued lower. Otherwise some people couldn't afford them. People do pay max numbers for restorations. Have a look a Turnbull's website. Having a piece restored can be an emotional thing for an individual wherein cost is not at issue.
Restoration is a many faceted subject. With due respect to the reasons people disapprove, responsibility, fear, distrust, paranoia, etc., there is a responsible side of restoration that nobody is likely to criticize. One example is a fowling piece (shotgun) documented to the American revolution, one of Washington's staff members. It had been well used and well cared for but 'modernized' in the 1800s. I restored the barrel length, the wood fore end and reconverted it to flintlock, all finished to harmonize with the rest of the gun. That gun was lent by the owner to a display in a national historical site of the Revolution. It was there for years and may still be. Unfortunately I did not document that one with a video record I generally made of my major jobs.
My restoration work was among other things an escape from stress as an airline executive. In my younger days (1950s) I could rarely afford a collectible piece so I bought distressed pieces and 'repaired' them. Over time I learned the difference in repair and restore and acquired a following of serious collectors and dealers. In old age I still do some work for my few long time clients.
I have a couple other dog and pony stories about historical guns I have worked on. Perhaps more significant for the future collecting fraternity is the dozens of pieces that I have restored to desirable collector pieces, returned as I like to think, "from the brink of oblivion".
Restoration is a many faceted subject. With due respect to the reasons people disapprove, responsibility, fear, distrust, paranoia, etc., there is a responsible side of restoration that nobody is likely to criticize. One example is a fowling piece (shotgun) documented to the American revolution, one of Washington's staff members. It had been well used and well cared for but 'modernized' in the 1800s. I restored the barrel length, the wood fore end and reconverted it to flintlock, all finished to harmonize with the rest of the gun. That gun was lent by the owner to a display in a national historical site of the Revolution. It was there for years and may still be. Unfortunately I did not document that one with a video record I generally made of my major jobs.
My restoration work was among other things an escape from stress as an airline executive. In my younger days (1950s) I could rarely afford a collectible piece so I bought distressed pieces and 'repaired' them. Over time I learned the difference in repair and restore and acquired a following of serious collectors and dealers. In old age I still do some work for my few long time clients.
I have a couple other dog and pony stories about historical guns I have worked on. Perhaps more significant for the future collecting fraternity is the dozens of pieces that I have restored to desirable collector pieces, returned as I like to think, "from the brink of oblivion".
Last edited:
deadin
US Veteran
rhmc25,
I agree that there is nothing wrong with restorations, especially to "save" an historical significant firearm.
However, I thought this discussion was based on the question "Why is the monetary value so much less on a restoration than if the piece were in a comparable original condition?) I think this question might be partially answered by another question: "Why isn't a quality replica worth as much as an original?"
This beggars another question as to why would a seller ask the restorer to not mark the work. Could it be that they are planning to try to pass it off as original?? Ethically I would think that a restorer should mark the work in some unobtrusive way to identify a rework.
I agree that there is nothing wrong with restorations, especially to "save" an historical significant firearm.
However, I thought this discussion was based on the question "Why is the monetary value so much less on a restoration than if the piece were in a comparable original condition?) I think this question might be partially answered by another question: "Why isn't a quality replica worth as much as an original?"
This beggars another question as to why would a seller ask the restorer to not mark the work. Could it be that they are planning to try to pass it off as original?? Ethically I would think that a restorer should mark the work in some unobtrusive way to identify a rework.
rhmc24
Absent Comrade
Difficulty staying 'on point' seems common to discussions. I recall the same during staff meetings way back when. So back to the subject ---.
As for the value of original vs restored, the restoration seems to wash away the mystique from the old gun even though a properly restored piece is better than it was in as-is condition. Supply and demand is a factor in that most any gun can be restored while those still original are few. It's and exercise in emotion in any case, the reason for wanting old guns in the first place, with something in common with relative value of a diamond vs a zircon.
I have a S&W revolver factory restored in 1925 that is in every way absolutely new except for its S&W restoration markings and a police property ID on the butt. I bought it for about 40% of what the same in mint condition would have been priced. I like it better than I would have a mint one because of its affordable price. Emotion again - mine.
Replicas are a subject I remember well. Just after WW2 I was exploring the possibility of having a replica Colt '51 Navy made in Spain. The subject here in the US brought most severe condemnation from gun collectors when I tried to discuss the subject. It would be counterfeiting. Nobody could grasp the idea of a replica. When others started importing them the same people feared de-valuing of their collected piece because people would buy the new fakes.
One can imagine that restorations may one day become respectable. All that said, nothing will affect the situation of people who practice deception, scams, etc. that exist everywhere.
As for the value of original vs restored, the restoration seems to wash away the mystique from the old gun even though a properly restored piece is better than it was in as-is condition. Supply and demand is a factor in that most any gun can be restored while those still original are few. It's and exercise in emotion in any case, the reason for wanting old guns in the first place, with something in common with relative value of a diamond vs a zircon.
I have a S&W revolver factory restored in 1925 that is in every way absolutely new except for its S&W restoration markings and a police property ID on the butt. I bought it for about 40% of what the same in mint condition would have been priced. I like it better than I would have a mint one because of its affordable price. Emotion again - mine.
Replicas are a subject I remember well. Just after WW2 I was exploring the possibility of having a replica Colt '51 Navy made in Spain. The subject here in the US brought most severe condemnation from gun collectors when I tried to discuss the subject. It would be counterfeiting. Nobody could grasp the idea of a replica. When others started importing them the same people feared de-valuing of their collected piece because people would buy the new fakes.
One can imagine that restorations may one day become respectable. All that said, nothing will affect the situation of people who practice deception, scams, etc. that exist everywhere.
As my final thought on the subject, I will quote an old time Mainer that used to have the cabin next to us on a pond up in Maine. He was middle aged and I was a boy.
He stated, " sonny, ya see that there axe over yonder. That axe has been in my family for almost 200 years. Only replaced the handle three times and the head twice."
He stated, " sonny, ya see that there axe over yonder. That axe has been in my family for almost 200 years. Only replaced the handle three times and the head twice."
Here's my argument for restoration: This 1903 Colt was in pretty rough shape cosmetically. I did the initial polishing and the late Bill Adair did some touch up on my work and recut some lettering and reblued it. My cost was around $160. Now I ask you, which version of this pistol is more valuable?
/Users/sidlindsey/Desktop/Untitled clipping.textClipping
/Users/sidlindsey/Desktop/Untitled clipping.textClipping
deadin
US Veteran
Are you just changing the final picture identifier instead of re-entering the entire image string?
For some reason cut&paste doesn't seem to work with image strings. Try starting from scratch on your second picture.
For some reason cut&paste doesn't seem to work with image strings. Try starting from scratch on your second picture.
I'll just observe that I think it a good thing that refinished and restored guns are worth much less than all original guns. Makes 'em more affordable!
I've all shown these before, so bear with me guys, but here's a KC RM that had been been refinished, maybe several times, that Dave Chicoine, Jr., restored for me. Grips are by Keith Brown:
Here's an HE 3rd that was refinished at the factory in the 1950s. Grips are by Dan Collins. I'd rather have it all original, I s'pose, but then I probably wouldn't shoot it and, depending on the cost, probably wouldn't have bought it either!
And this Colt .357 had an inexpensive refinish by Fords. I just wanted this one to look shiney!
And this is my Bowen gun, a 1950s HD converted to 45 Colt. Grips by Paul Persinger and engraving by Dan Love:
The Bowen gun is my prized possession. If I were to sell it, I don't think I would get anywhere near what I have in it, but to me that is pretty much irrelevant. I just wanted something very special for me.
I'm with those who say spend your money as you choose, whatever makes you happy. The guns above all make me happy, though for different reasons! And, to me, that's the point!
I've all shown these before, so bear with me guys, but here's a KC RM that had been been refinished, maybe several times, that Dave Chicoine, Jr., restored for me. Grips are by Keith Brown:
Here's an HE 3rd that was refinished at the factory in the 1950s. Grips are by Dan Collins. I'd rather have it all original, I s'pose, but then I probably wouldn't shoot it and, depending on the cost, probably wouldn't have bought it either!
And this Colt .357 had an inexpensive refinish by Fords. I just wanted this one to look shiney!
And this is my Bowen gun, a 1950s HD converted to 45 Colt. Grips by Paul Persinger and engraving by Dan Love:
The Bowen gun is my prized possession. If I were to sell it, I don't think I would get anywhere near what I have in it, but to me that is pretty much irrelevant. I just wanted something very special for me.
I'm with those who say spend your money as you choose, whatever makes you happy. The guns above all make me happy, though for different reasons! And, to me, that's the point!
Regarding the question as to whether to refinish or not, I used to be indecisive. Now I'm not sure.
Bob (BTW Arlo, those are really beautiful.)
Bob (BTW Arlo, those are really beautiful.)
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
