What exactly is a "Collector"?

Dave T

Member
Joined
Nov 18, 2002
Messages
2,537
Reaction score
1,718
Location
Mesa, Arizona
This question was brought to mind by a couple threads lately and my own not so clear understanding of what qualifies as being a "collector".

By most standards I see talked about here, real collectors go for the pristine guns, with little or no wear or signs of use and preferably with the original box and tools. Original paperwork seems to add to the value and desirability. Add to that guns of proven or historical provenance too.

There have been a couple of discussions about re-finishing, cutting barrels and otherwise altering guns and many seem to think this destroys the "collector value".

I've pretty well come to the conclusion I must not be a collector, maybe an accumulator or just an enthusiasts. I can't stand the idea of not shooting a gun so I avoid the pristine ones...can't afford them anyway, LOL. And recently I've decided, having a gun the way I want it rather than the way it was shipped from the factory is not a great sin, particularly since I'm not going to be chopping up, re-barreling or re-bluing any of those "as new in the box" examples anyway.

Not looking for an argument and not knocking anyone's approach to their gun hobby, just bringing up a subject I've been giving some thought to and wondering what others here have to say.

Dave
 
Register to hide this ad
Seems like collectors "specialize." I once saw 124 "variants" of the Browning P-35 and the guy who put them together said that wasn't all of them. Most I had never seen, can't imagine what rare P-35's look like. There's a guy around here has quite a few nice .44 magnums. Other end, I met a guy about 15 years ago that traded a substantial collection for 1 Colt SAA with provenance to a "legendary lawman." Had an entire display table around that 1 gun. Guess he qualifies too. Joe
 
I'm sure there is a lot of subjectivity to the answers any of us would offer, but I'm also sure there would be pretty universal agreement that unfired prewar old guns in the original boxes and with original accessories are collector pieces in the sense that they are investments whose value is expected to increase at a rate faster than the less perfect specimens of the same model.

Some models are so rare that they are "collectors" even if they have been shot -- and still are in the hands of some. I'm almost ready to say that any K-32 is a collector's item because there are so few out there, and any prewar K-32 is really a collector's item because major collectors are lined up to jump when one of the few dozen known examples becomes available. Similarly, almost any prewar Kit Gun is (to my mind) a collector piece regardless of its condition -- though of course, better condition makes a better collectible than lower condition.

The ones that are on the fence for me are things like unfired postwar non-model-marked N-frames. Yeah, they are nice and they are pretty, but there are more of those in the same or almost the same condition. Are they really collectibles. I guess the answer is that if I don't sell them off, they are collectibles to me.

Maybe that's the generalized answer: If I want something enough to pay somewhat more to get it than others would, it's a collectible; and it achieves the same status if I would prefer to hang on to it rather than sell it to fund another acquisition. I'd never dump a nice prewar Kit Gun to get an equally nice RM, for example. There are more RMs than there are Kit Guns, and I would have more opportunities in the future to score the big N-frame than I would another nice Kit Gun.
 
To me, if you are buying a gun to own and keep, rather than buying to sell in hopes of turning a profit, then you are "collecting" them, which makes you a "collector". It seems a little like infighting to me to say that only those who own the most rare or mint examples are "collectors".

The idea that a gun has to be rare or mint to be collectable is usually only found on boards like this one, and the many other gun boards on the net. When talking with fellow gun enthusiasts at the range, their idea of what constitutes a "collector" is very different from what you will find on the many gun boards, especially those that cater to one brand like S&W, Ruger, etc.. Many of them feel that if you own older guns (and/or) lots of them, that you are a collector, regardless of their vintage of monetary value.

I tend to fit into that class I guess, because I could care less about having the biggest collection of the rarest guns which simply sit idly by. Guns were meant to be shot, or else they wouldn't have a hole in the barrel, so I prefer to use them for what they were designed for. I simply get far more enjoyment from them in doing that. I also believe that you can shoot a fairly "collectable" gun without any remorse as long as you take care of it while at the range, and use proper cleaning techniques, especially if it was fired at some point prior to you buying it.
 
Last edited:
I'm just a "gatherer". "Collector" sounds like someone with much more money than me :) LOL. Seriously, collector is a relative term in my opinion. Some collect based on trends, standards, conditions and values whereas others determine their own criteria for their "collection" based on their own ideas of what appeals to them.
 
To me, if you are buying a gun to own and keep, rather than buying to sell in hopes of turning a profit, then you are "collecting" them, which makes you a "collector". It seems a little like infighting to me to say that only those who own the most rare or mint examples are "collectors".

The idea that a gun has to be rare or mint to be collectable is usually only found on boards like this one, and the many other gun boards on the net. When talking with fellow gun enthusiasts at the range, their idea of what constitutes a "collector" is very different from what you will find on the many gun boards, especially those that cater to one brand like S&W, Ruger, etc.. Many of them feel that if you own older guns (and/or) lots of them, that you are a collector, regardless of their vintage of monetary value.

I tend to fit into that class I guess, because I could care less about having the biggest collection of the rarest guns which simply sit idly by. Guns were meant to be shot, or else they wouldn't have a hole in the barrel, so I prefer to use them for what they were designed for. I simply get far more enjoyment from them in doing that. I also believe that you can shoot a fairly "collectable" gun without any remorse as long as you take care of it while at the range, and use proper cleaning techniques, especially if it was fired at some point prior to you buying it.

These are my feelings as well. I have "collected" many things....guns, prints, fishing equipment, and as a kid, I thought I collected coins. Very few of these collected items are pristine, some are very well used or downright junky. But, it is my "collection" and I am proud of it.
 
In addition to what has already been discussed - I think of a collection as having a "theme" or topic that it follows.
Then I must have several "collections" and they seem to be a montage of themes and topics that just ramble and wander on with no real rhyme or reason :). Several "pods" of themetrical and topically varied items all to my liking.
 
If you have two guns, are proud of them, and want a third, then to me you are a collector.

I had a friend who was a Smith collector. He had every model and configuration he could find made since 1955. That is like a Model 10 in all 6 barrel lengths if there were 6.

I have a neighbor who is not wealthy. He has 4 guns, including 2 fine L. C. Smith shotguns. He is probably more proud of his collection than my friend was.

Only in America.
 
S&W Collector

I was told that you have to own at least one RM in order to be a "collector";)....

Just kidding - I am an "enthusiast/hobbyist" who has a safe full of Smiths that I enjoy. I very much enjoy learning from other enthusiasts and sharing the small amount of knowledge that I have acquired.
 
I tend to agree with Armadillo in that a "collector" acquires firearms primarily to fit a specific pattern, topic or theme. As opposed to an accumulator that makes more random selections based on what interests them at the time or has practical use.

There are infinite possible themes to pursue. For example, one of every variation of a particular model such as the P-35 collector mentioned. Military weapons used by all major combatants in a specific war is popular. And I suppose, NIB revolvers does constitute a theme.

I like to think I collect pre-war .32 caliber semi-auto pocket pistols. Mostly satisfied with finding one model of all major manufacturers of the era.

I accumulate S&W and Colt revolvers. Buying anything that interests me at the time and is reasonably priced.
 
As usual, I'm the odd man in the bunch. I have a few S&W's and I shoot some and not others. I like to find a NIB (or nearly so) example of a revolver, maybe even a common one, and leave it that way. If I want to shoot that model I'll buy another one that's got some wear for a "shooter" and keep the first one new.

I like old coins. In their day they too were made to be spent. I don't lay down a Morgan dollar for a Coke.

I have a few Case knives with stag handles. They were made to skin a deer. I use a $15 knife I bought at Wal-Mart for that.

I think some people have an appreciation of a revolver for it's beauty, condition and the timeframe it represents. Either in the manufacturing of a bygone era or a time in our lives that we remember and want to hold a piece of it in hand. Lately, the guns I don't shoot I enjoy more than the ones I do.

I like to have different finishes, calibers and frame sizes of the best condition revolvers I can find, at the prices I can afford. I consider myself a collector, and I bet I have as much satisfaction cleaning a gun that's never been shot as much as one I'm cleaning because I've put a hundred rounds through it.

GF
 
IN A NUTSHELL: Collecting is usually a self-enriching cultural and social pastime, but it can become a self-destructive, anal-compulsive obsession.

In answering the question, "Why do you collect ?", many collectors would probably simply say, "Because it's fun." But there's always something behind what we find fun.

Collecting is more than just collecting. Its origins go way back. As a species, we have a deeply ingrained need to hoard to survive the next winter or the next siege, to safeguard the future. Some of us, like Noah for his ark, collect one of each type. Others collect many of a smaller number of types. Still others collect many of many types, amassing huge numbers of coins. Much about coin collecting is equally applicable in other fields of collecting.

In his 1985 book American Pewter, J. B. Kerfoot's mentioned that other animals also collect and suggested that the hobby of collecting is a "human superstructure raised upon the foundation of an instinct. In other words, that which, in the squirrel, is an inherited mechanism of self-entrenchment has become, in the collector, a subtle technique of self-expression, self-emphasis, and self-extension."

In his 2003 book Ancient Coin Collecting, Vol. 1, Wayne Sayles talked about coin collecting starting not as a hobby but instead "as a packrat mentality to accumulate anything useful.... Cave inhabitants were certainly accumulators if not collectors."

While it doesn't have to, and in the vast majority of cases it doesn't, collecting can become self-destructive, an anal-compulsive fastidiousness or an escapist obsession.

In an earlier article, in the February 1996 Celator titled "Is Coin Collecting a Form of Escapism?," Sayles wrote, "The danger arises when a collector loses complete touch with reality and allows the hobby to dictate all other aspects of one's life. Every dealer can name collectors who would spend the rent money to buy a coveted rarity ... who neglect their health, their families and their social responsibilities to satisfy their compulsion.... Much like drug addiction, alcoholism or gambling, chronically compulsive collecting can be devastating.... It is probably a manifestation of some disguised emotional problem." Sayles balanced this by talking about healthy collectors and healthy collecting.

In his 2001 documentary film Vinyl about record collecting, Alan Zweig profiled among others an extreme example of collecting pathology, a social recluse who refused to leave his record-lined apartment, where each time he used the bathroom it took him several minutes to relocate the records in front of the bathroom door. As with coin collectors and coins, the record collectors profiled in the film found many ways to appreciate records and regarded each as a small piece of history.

In 2006 a British accountant was sentenced to a one-year prison term for embezzling from his firm over a two-year period the equivalent of more than $120,000 to buy coins. He had previously maxed out numerous credit cards that he had obtained for the same purpose. He received the jail time despite paying back what he stole partly by selling off his coin collection.

The difference between being a passionate collector and a fixated eccentric depends in part on whether other, more important aspects of life are neglected. Does collecting enrich your life without impoverishing other aspects of it or the lives of those around you? Much also depends on how much control you have. Can you pass up a buy, or have you reached the point where you can't stop yourself?

The deeper motivation of some collectors may be to gain greater control, with their types and classifications, of a larger world that seems out of control. In his 2003 book To Have and to Hold: An Intimate History of Collectors and Collecting, Philipp Blom described collecting as a "philosophical project" that attempts to "make sense of the multiplicity and chaos of the world, and perhaps even to find in it a hidden meaning."

There's unquestionably a psychological component to collecting. In his 1968 paper titled "The Psychoanalysis of the Numismatist," Jean Mazard wrote that coin collectors can get into trouble if they let themselves sink into egoism and isolation. He also provided balance by talking about how collectors become numismatists when "the joy of learning overtakes the [joy] of acquiring and possessing."

In his 1993 book Collecting: An Unruly Passion: Psychological Perspectives, Werner Muensterberger wrote that obsessive collecting derives from "depravation or loss or vulnerability and a subsequent longing for substitutes."

Freud believed that we go through psychosexual stages in our development and that if we don't progress healthfully through them, later psychological repercussions will ensue. In Freudian terms, perhaps the urge to collect, to acquire and hold, is sometimes anal-compulsive in nature and the urge to complete, to fill holes, is sometimes phallic because of incomplete development.

Jung believed that our behavior is influenced by archetypes, universal symbols deeply embedded in our collective unconsciousness. Collecting coins and completing sets no doubt have as their archetypal antecedents the hoarding needed for survival by early humankind.

We no longer need to squirrel away seeds and nuts. But having beautiful old Guns to pull out and admire when we feel like it can truly be a pleasurable thing.
 
Hi
To me collecting gun's is a Personal thing and the focus is set to each collector. Condition is everything and finding ones unfired or still like new is very hard today as so many are out there grabbing them up, because as we know most of the Cream is Long gone and all ready in serious collectors hands so it drives the prices sky High to a Point where a modest collector like myself can not add certain models, nor would not pay what the seller thinks his gun is worth.


Many years ago, I had started collecting Model number revolvers, but have moved all of them to now have Pre-Models and mostly 5 screw other than my 4 screw Model 48's which were never offered as Five screw models to begin with.The ones I have kept are 90% and above and that is what I look for when purchasing gun's to add to my collection, but it limits adding new ones as I said, The New In Box ones are very deep in older collectors hands.



One thing that has always frustrated me is the mention of refinishing that seems to offend serious collector's. I have seen many refinished in serious collectors hands, but they tend to live with it so long as the factory refinished them. I feel if a refinisher does a good enough job, any gun qualifies for a good pick whether or not it was the factory that did it, they are all still refinished, so why is it all right to the serious collectors if the factory did it ?



I have also seen Factory refinishing that is not of the best quality with weak roll mark's and stampings as the older stamp's and tooling for making these stamps and roll marks are long gone, yet it does not offend the serious collector so long as there is date code stamps on the gun, which seems silly to me as they are still refinished no matter who did them and not very eye appealing to me that way with weak stampings.



On the other end of that spectrum, you see those that feel low serial numbers make one more desirable. I agree they are "IF" they are of upper quality not "holster burned" and show high levels of wear to the high edges, which drives down the level of eye appeal, collectibility or over all price of what the gun should be worth to me. I was at a Louisville, Kentucky show a few years ago, and a Man had a Low serial number K-22. It was serial number K-311 if I remember correctly.




He felt it was worth a King's Ransom due to it's lower serial number but at Best it was around a 70% Gun, showing wear on the end of the sides of the barrel, high edges of the cylinder & frame, and had almost no bluing left on the extractor rod due to so much use. He had it priced at $1000.00 and was walking the floor showing it to anyone that would Listen to him trying to market it as a very low super collectible. I saw him leave later with it in hand as he headed to his car, so I guess other's felt the Lower condition was not desirable to add to their collections either...:rolleyes:
 
The problem is, once someone defines another as a "collector," everyone wants to sell that person something "rare." :rolleyes:

A collector/accumulator/investor can be the same person, but doesn't have to be. I personally hate labels- I just buy, keep and use what I like, regardless of monetary gain- however I would like to break even eventually. :p

The worst problem is that many times emotions get involved if a person is passionate about his hobby, and that's when sellers to "collectors" make a great deal of money. There is absolutely nothing wrong with this, and it helps the hobby in many ways- such as attracting attention to the hobby, makes pieces go up in value and more history and facts may come to light increasing interest . On the contrary, it can make pieces go down when items become overvalued and inflated through dishonest conduct of rouges, ruffians and just plain greedy people...what happened a few years ago in the high end Winchester market is an example.

As for an investment- whether it's guns/coins/stamps/plate glass or anything else- they will only increase in value if someone is willing to buy it for a greater price- regardless of scarcity or condition. (Not to be confused with intrinsic value and/or value of use to a buyer)
 
Last edited:
WOW, some very interesting answers. This subject has been debated on this and other forums for years. I call myself a collector and as my header shows, I am a life member of the Smith & Wesson Collectors Association.

I fell into a small gun collection when my grandfather passed. He had a few hunting guns and since my parents had no interest, they became mine when I left home. My dad had a couple of WW2 bring backs and his fathers gun when he owned a store, so he added those to my small collection when I left. I had shown an early interest in guns and shot on the NJ State Champion Smallbore Rifle Team in 1963 IIRC.

After moving to MA, I met a guy that was into guns, gun shows and S&W's in particular and that started me down the slippery slope. Initially I collected about anything that I could afford and at some point after a few years began to focus on S&W.

Although, I strive to purchase the best condition examples that I can find, many in my collection do not have boxes, tools etc., and have varying degrees of finish wear. I do have one that has provenance attached to a former S&W employee as well as one that was awarded as a trophy at a shoot held at the Springfield Revolver Club. Those I consider the lynch pins of my modest collection.

Although my collection has no real focus other than S&W now, I really do prefer 6" blued revolvers without model marks. I just find the quality of these older guns to be far superior to what they are building today. But I mean no offense to those that collect Scandium, Tandium or Candium guns. To each his own.

So all that said, I don't think that you can lump humans into any one category any more than you can lump collectors into one definition. There are more sub categories of "collector" than S&W has models. The main thing is that we are all firearm enthusiasts and we share in one of the greatest hobbies that there is. IMHO.:D
 
By most standards I see talked about here, real collectors go for the pristine guns, with little or no wear or signs of use and preferably with the original box and tools. Original paperwork seems to add to the value and desirability. Add to that guns of proven or historical provenance too.

Tell me this isn't a "collection". Only a few meet the above criteria, none are unfired (by me) and most aren't even close to "pristine".;);):D

SWCollage.jpg


Now these may or may not be a "collection" but rather an "accumulation" as there isn't any real theme other than "Old Foreign Handguns" (Except one.:p)
collage.jpg
 
I refer to myself as an "accumulator" of Fine Old S&W's. I prefer pre-war and antique, but anything S&W will perk up my attention. I own very few "pristine" examples, and have only a few I have not fired, (including the antique's). Honest wear does not detract from honest value in my eye's. I always wonder who may have owned and used a particular S&W over the sometimes 100+ years it has been around. My "accumulation" dates range from 1867 to 1991. No, I own no "IL" guns, not because I despise the lock, but because the mystique of fine old guns is not there. I have small displays of some of my older guns in my office where I can see them daily, and appreciate the workmanship that went into them. In replacing a firing pin on a 1921 safety hammerless, I marvel at the precision fit quality that was all hand fitted. Like a fine Swiss watch.

I like to handle my guns; disassemble and clean and perhaps smooth up an action here or there. Very few of my guns would classify as "collector's".
 

Latest posts

Back
Top