My opinion, which I posted on the SWCA forum:
"Disclaimer- The following is ALL personal opinion, from a subjective
perspective, and meant to offend NO one in any way. In the spirit of
living in freedom, do what you wish.
To begin, let's define a term: "Restoration". It does not exist for
purposes of this discussion! No gun can be "Restored". It can be very
skillfully REFINISHED, but it can NOT be restored. "Restoration"
would require the impossible- replacing the ORIGINAL finish with the
ORIGINAL finish. "Refinishes" vary greatly in quality, and those that
approach the original factory appearance have come to be
called "Restorations", but they are merely high-quality refineshes.
Collecting is subjective. One collects things one likes for various
reasons. I like S&W Hand Ejectors. I like them like S&W made them. I
do not like them like other people refinish them. I do not like them
like S&W refinished them, even though I have to pull the grips to
tell, sometimes.
In short, I only like original guns. I have not, do not, and will not
put a gun in what I consider "my pile" that has been refinished by
anybody. Will I deal in them? Yes, occasionally. I try to avoid them,
but oftentimes, it is "buy all, or none". Sometimes, like with a Reg
Mag, there are a few bucks to made on a refinished gun alone. (is
that honest enough?)
This means I own, and have owned, MANY guns that are not pristine,
even some real doggies. If a gun's appearance bugs me too much, I
sell it, and hunt a better one.
I have marvelled in recent years at the evolution of collector's
standards. 30 years ago, a refinish was the "kiss of death" for a
gun. Now, here we are discussing it, and many are recommending it, at
the highest level of S&W collecting.
As I said, it is subjective. Each gun stands alone, and "It IS what
it IS". I look at a Hand Ejector, and determine if I can stand the
appearance. If it is a variation I desire to own, it is "keepable".
If it is too ugly for me, I move it along.
A few years back, I stumbled across Ed McGivern's Reg Mag. The gun
shipped to Ed as a 5", and Ed(we think) had cut it to 3.5". I could
live with that- he did it in the course of making it as he wanted it.
It wore most of the original finish. Unfortunately, I could not
AFFORD to keep it, and had to move it along. I had the pleasure of
owning it for a while, handling it, photographing myself with it, and
SHOOTING it. If I could have afforded to do so, I would still own it.
If it had been refinished, I would not have considered keeping it.
Restoration of art was mentioned in this discussion. That is not
exactly the same thing, to me. Were 5200 Mona Lisa's painted?
Using art as an analogy, here is a hypothetical situation:
Let's say a Rembrandt looted from a Dutch home in WW II had been
found. Trouble is, a soldier had cut the canvas from the frame,
rolled it, and stored it in a collasped building that was never
rebuilt or demolished till recently, when the painting was
discovered. A small portion, say 15%, of the paint remained so the
painting could be identified. Since photos exist, it could
be "restored". If I bought it, would I have a Rembrandt? No, I don't
think so. I would have a copy, done on the original canvas. A full-
sized photo would be closer to the Rembrandt to me.
Getting back to S&W's, my vote is leave that Reg Mag alone. It cannot
be put back to what it once was. I would decide to live with it As
Is, or move it along and get a better one. The pic makes me wonder if
it is a suicide gun. I have seen a few, and they are sometimes
spattered with blood in a similar pattern. If YOU prefer, Terry, have
it refinished.
If anyone is thoroughly incensed by now, start again at the beginning
of this treatise with the disclaimer. (;>)"
Currently-
Actually, when I look at the pic again, I came to wonder even more about that strange pattern of rust. A suicide gun is usually not spattered so far back. If it was one, I think blood may have been smeared by subsequent handling. What is the other side like. Can we get more pics?
