I guess I'm just ignorant, but I'll never understand why with firearms many collectors prefer a firearm in scarred, beatup, and rusted condition, ("Because it's original!") to a lovingly restored firearm. With cars, a restored 1957 Chevy Belair is far more valuable than a junker. However, a car that has been put in a barn and not been maintained, is through the years, really nothing more than an "original" piece of junk. Now with coins, a mint condition coin is far, far more valuable than a circulated coin. But how often do we find a battle rifle that has never been to battle, or at least be used to train battle? How often do we find a battle rifle that has never, ever, had an armorer work on it for a repair, or to replace a part? Firearms are machinery and meant to be maintained. As such they require regular maintainence. Does that mean if I acquire a 50 year old rifle, remove the rust, extra varnish, accumulated oil or cosmoline or other "non-original" material that I have ruined the collector value of the firearm? I'm thinking no.

There are many, many firearms that have been brought home after a conflict that have not been maintained as they should. Put in barns, storage sheds, or hallway closets and forgotten. I'm thinking that to "restore" or clean the firearm is just a matter of course and expected. Hell, they are even restoring "Old Glory" at the Smithsonian Institute. Is somebody going to tell me that it is of less value because of that? I think not.


Some of us don't mind a firearm that has been restored to it's original, armorer performed condition, yet this somehow "destroys" the collector value. It seems to me that this is a matter of perception and not actual value. It seems to me that some collectors put false value on firearms that have been properly maintained as it is "not original." Well, the rust or oil that has accumulated over 50 years plus is not "original" either.

It seems to me that this perception of "original value" has be foisted upon us by the collector elite. The value of a firearm is deceided by its "originality." If it is mint (like a mint coin,) it's value is (and should be) very high. As the condition degrades of course it's value decreases. Again, as it should. However, because some people attempt to forge or replicate a firearm pertaining to its condition, many collectors tend to snear at all firearms that have been "restored."

It seems that there is a viable market in restored firearms that otherwise are not a rare or superior firearm. As long as it is not displayed as anything other than it is, there should be no problem. And, anyone "worth his salt" can tell if it is original or not. And to be frank, there have been instances of world renown collectors passing off forgeries. So where is the line drawn?

But like I said, I'm guess I'm just ignorant.

http://www.sandygunworks.com/articles/a003.htm

Restored Arisaka Type 38

regards,
Eric

Nice result

Thank you. I take pride in my work.

Respectfully,
Eric

quote:

Originally posted by Eric:
......I'll never understand why with firearms many collectors prefer a firearm in scarred, beatup, and rusted condition, ("Because it's original!") to a lovingly restored firearm. With cars, a restored 1957 Chevy Belair is far more valuable than a junker.

I think there's a problem with your description of absolutes. An older unrestored firearm doesn't necessarily equate to "scarred, beatup, and rusted".

A firearm, well maintained, with honest wear and worn bluing.......particularly one with an interesting or rare provenance........will be worth more as is than if it were reblued and refinished.

A well maintained 1957 Chevy Belair with 23,000 original miles is likely worth more than that same car with a ground-up restoration. Mostly because it's a helluva lot more rare. There are hundreds of 1957 show room restorations ......likely thousands.

What you say is absolutly correct. I was not however really refering to the well maintained firearm. If you reread my post you will see that I have attempted to address the matter of the "well maintained" firearm.

"The value of a firearm is decided by its "originality." If it is mint (like a mint coin,) it's value is (and should be) very high. As the condition degrades of course it's value decreases. Again, as it should."

Possibly I have not made myself clear. I have talked to, heard, and read the words of "collectors" that say that any firearm that has been "restored" is worth less than if it had been left "original." I disagree with that. If you looked at the link I posted you may have seen the Ishapore 1A I restored. A rifle such as this is hardly rare. A pristeen example is probably quite rare. So, by restoring the rifle to a better than normal condition a better than normal example is available.

Yet, I have been told that I have "ruined the collector value" of this piece. Let's see. There are hundreds, if not thousands of examples available. Of that number there are only a handfull that could be considered excellent, and probably far fewer available for purchase. So, a rifle that is in "scarred, beatup, and rusted condition" is preferable to something that looks like it is worthy of battle?

I have also seen posts from some collectors that feel the WW II Mauser 98's that have been coming from Russia are essentially wortless as a collector piece. I most sincerly disagree with that. Here we have a rifle that was used in battle by the Whermacht. Captured by the Russians and arsenal rebuilt for battle again.

What? Because they weren't rebuilt by Whermacht armorers they are junk? I hardly think so. To me they are another fascinating piece of firearms history.

My intended point was that there is a niche for every firearm and just because it has been rebuilt, restored, remanufactured does not mean that it is not worthy of collecting.

Regards,

Eric

quote:

Originally posted by Eric:
My intended point was that there is a niche for every firearm and just because it has been rebuilt, restored, remanufactured does not mean that it is not worthy of collecting.

I think that's true. Whether the piece is worthy of collecting is only the beginning, however. Of what respective value is it?

In all these cases, the collector sets the value by what he is willing to pay. As a body, collectors, through patterns of buying and selling, establish values on a class of firearms. And I must admit there are examples I don't understand either.......but there they are.

For instance, why is it more acceptable to restore a Parker shotgun to original than it is for a Winchester rifle? Mostly because the collector market has said so. They are the people setting the value by their pattern of buying and selling.

Fortunately, if we happen to own one of the "desired" pieces, we get to establish its value to ourselves. Or.......we get to unload it to someone who has a more inflated value than our own.

Conversely, one of these pieces may be valued a helluva lot more when you want to buy it.....than it ever will be when you own it. Kinda how the game works....

well has my point for long time well said an example i bought a win 1905 reblued for a fair price and i have people tell me it lost value well maybe but maybe if kept in poir condition it might of ended up as rusted junk but now it is being kept and maintaned proper so the refinish might of added years to the rifle who knows.

quote:

Originally posted by Eric:
I guess I'm just ignorant, but I'll never understand why with firearms many collectors prefer a firearm in scarred, beatup, and rusted condition, ("Because it's original!") to a lovingly restored firearm. With cars, a restored 1957 Chevy Belair is far more valuable than a junker. However, a car that has been put in a barn and not been maintained, is through the years, really nothing more than an "original" piece of junk. Now with coins, a mint condition coin is far, far more valuable than a circulated coin. But how often do we find a battle rifle that has never been to battle, or at least be used to train battle? How often do we find a battle rifle that has never, ever, had an armorer work on it for a repair, or to replace a part? Firearms are machinery and meant to be maintained. As such they require regular maintainence. Does that mean if I acquire a 50 year old rifle, remove the rust, extra varnish, accumulated oil or cosmoline or other "non-original" material that I have ruined the collector value of the firearm? I'm thinking no.

There are many, many firearms that have been brought home after a conflict that have not been maintained as they should. Put in barns, storage sheds, or hallway closets and forgotten. I'm thinking that to "restore" or clean the firearm is just a matter of course and expected. Hell, they are even restoring "Old Glory" at the Smithsonian Institute. Is somebody going to tell me that it is of less value because of that? I think not.


Some of us don't mind a firearm that has been restored to it's original, armorer performed condition, yet this somehow "destroys" the collector value. It seems to me that this is a matter of perception and not actual value. It seems to me that some collectors put false value on firearms that have been properly maintained as it is "not original." Well, the rust or oil that has accumulated over 50 years plus is not "original" either.

It seems to me that this perception of "original value" has be foisted upon us by the collector elite. The value of a firearm is deceided by its "originality." If it is mint (like a mint coin,) it's value is (and should be) very high. As the condition degrades of course it's value decreases.

http://www.sandygunworks.com/articles/a003.htm

regards,
Eric

Different people have different values. I used to own 2 lee enfields both made in 1916 ,both served in WW1and WW2. One of the rifles came with a well worn barrel which was fitted at the factory in 1916, it's shootable but it's best days are behind it,it's profusely marked and has a history which can be traced. The other was refurbished at the close of WW2 and had all new wood and barrel ,sights and minor parts, it has lost it's history ,to me it was a boring rifle. I collect for the rifles history ,scars and all.

What you say is true "Different people have different values." And I understand the thinking of collecting "for the rifles history ,scars and all." It is my opinion that all of us shooters and collectors have a piece or two (or many, many, more) that we wouldn't dream of touching.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that firearms require regular maintenence and service as would any mechanical device. If there is rust or accumulated oil, it should be removed. If the finish is damaged or even totally missing (due to a lack of regular maintenence or care) it should be refurbished or repaired. If screw heads have been damaged due to the use of improper tools or lack of attention to detail, they should be repaired or replaced. If a part is broken, it is replaced. All these repairs are intended to return the firearm to it's "as issued, servicable condition," not with the intention of trying to pass off the firearm as better than, or a better condition than the usual run of the mill firearm. And as I mentioned in my original post, an "unmolested," original firearm is and should be much more valuable than one that has been re-furbished. I guess it just chaps my hide that there are some elitist snobs (my opinion) that unfairly denigrate those who try to restore some firearms back into their orininal as-issued condition (warts and all) so that they too will be around for years to come.

Lately I have returned several Arisaka Type 38's back to issued condition instead of letting another just strip them and part them out. Are they absolutly perfect and matching?
No, how could they be as they were basically un-matching rifles in the first place and I have no intention or desire to make "counterfit" firearms. Yet, should they be more valuable than they were in the condition they were first received in? I believe so as they are now at least good examples of a historical military rifle that are now in the same condition as they were the last time they presented arms for inspection, warts and all.

http://parallaxscurioandrelicfirearmsforums.yuku.com/topic/26592


Eric

quote:

Originally posted by Eric:
What you say is true "Different people have different values." And I understand the thinking of collecting "for the rifles history ,scars and all." It is my opinion that all of us shooters and collectors have a piece or two (or many, many, more) that we wouldn't dream of touching.

I guess the point I'm trying to make is that firearms require regular maintenence and service as would any mechanical device. If there is rust or accumulated oil, it should be removed. If the finish is damaged or even totally missing (due to a lack of regular maintenence or care) it should be refurbished or repaired. If screw heads have been damaged due to the use of improper tools or lack of attention to detail, they should be repaired or replaced. If a part is broken, it is replaced. All these repairs are intended to return the firearm to it's "as issued, servicable condition," not with the intention of trying to pass off the firearm as better than, or a better condition than the usual run of the mill firearm. And as I mentioned in my original post, an "unmolested," original firearm is and should be much more valuable than one that has been re-furbished. I guess it just chaps my hide that there are some elitist snobs (my opinion) that unfairly denigrate those who try to restore some firearms back into their orininal as-issued condition (warts and all) so that they too will be around for years to come.

Lately I have returned several Arisaka Type 38's back to issued condition instead of letting another just strip them and part them out. Are they absolutly perfect and matching?
No, how could they be as they were basically un-matching rifles in the first place and I have no intention or desire to make "counterfit" firearms. Yet, should they be more valuable than they were in the condition they were first received in? I believe so as they are now at least good examples of a historical military rifle that are now in the same condition as they were the last time they presented arms for inspection, warts and all.

http://parallaxscurioandrelicfirearmsforums.yuku.com/topic/26592


Eric

Have to agree with you Eric ,my best loved pieces are the ones I had to do the most work on. I don't go much on the all matching numbers mantra that some of the more dedicated collectors I've read read about and met demand.
At present I'm rebuilding a lee enfield #4 sniper rifle, I started with a barreled action which had the scope mount pads attached,and a scope, picked up the major bits from here there and everywear but it's all the little parts that are a bitch to find, think I'll have to put in an order with sarco or springfield sporters to finish it . The scope bracket is from IMA for $125.00, I'm buggered if I'm going to pay $800.00 for an original one .Anyhow clean and in good repair ,replace broken or missing parts as required or in the case of your stock repair it, would you like another type 38 stock in average cond,? if so pm me and Ill get a couple of pics for you .

cheers
Pete

PM posted.

http://www.bdlltd.com/

Regards,
Eric

Nahhhhhhhhhhh . . .

Real collectables in guns are all original, un-restored. If it's truly collectable, I'm not going to do any more than clean it up, wax the wood, oil the metal.

The LAST thing you want to do on a collectable is refinish.

Some people collect salt shakers, others match books from all over the world. Cars, stamps, Elvis records, etc, etc, etc.

Each and every "collector" in the world has his/her limits on what they can and will pay for a particular item. Some (like me) are happy with a piece representative of a type of item. It might not be the best available, it might not be the worst, but it is "collectable" to someone.

If I purchase an item that turns out to not be what I believed it to be, if it turns out to have been "molested" and is no longer original, it's value to some collectors would be virtually worthless as it is no longer original. I would have a choice, attempt to get my money back (not always as easy as it sounds) sell it to another (maybe for what I have invested, maybe not) or to restore it to as close to it's original condition as possible. When done it is a servicable battle rifle, in the same condition (or as close as possible) it was in the last time it was presented for inspection.

If I want to see a mueseum piece, I'll go to the muesum, however I get little satisfaction from having to "glove up" and "Don't EVEN THINK about working that action.". If I can't shoot it, play with it, work the action, and just rub my hands on it when I want too it's worthless to me. Some people just "get off" having some thing, still in original cosmoline, just sitting in the rack so they can point at it and say "That one is still in the original grease!" They don't touch it, they don't clean it, and my friend, they were made to touch and clean.

Every thing is collectable. Just depends on who is doing the collecting.

quote:

If I can't shoot it, play with it, work the action, and just rub my hands on it when I want too it's worthless to me.

+1

You can argue and use all the logic you want to, but the fact remains the market pricing levels and standards are set by those thousands, sometimes a much smaller number, of collectors who have an interest in a given area of collecting. If someone chooses to ignore those standards and attempt to impose theirs, they will likely suffer an economic loss for your position. That is true in any area of collecting or investing. In short,to use a financial metaphor, don't fight the tape. The "tape" and market standards may change over time, but it is highly unlikely they will change due to your polemics.

You mean kind of like "government" and "politics?"

Eric

quote:

Originally posted by Edmond:

quote:

If I can't shoot it, play with it, work the action, and just rub my hands on it when I want too it's worthless to me.

+1

I tend to agree - I own one weapon that is not firable and that is my G-G-Granddad's shotgun w/ Damascus barrels. But many, many fine guns, especially things like high dollar doubles, are owned by folks interested in investment value only and are stored away to never be loaded and fired. Same with things like SAA Colts, couple of fellows in our assciation have 'NIB' Colts and would have a stroke if you so much as cocked one of them! This is of no interest to me but to each his own.

This is what I'm talking about.

http://eb-in-oregon.parallaxscurioandrelicfirearmsforum...com/fs/view/fid/6741

http://eb-in-oregon.parallaxscurioandrelicfirearmsforum...om/fs/view/fid/37647

http://eb-in-oregon.parallaxscurioandrelicfirearmsforum...om/fs/view/fid/37648

http://eb-in-oregon.parallaxscurioandrelicfirearmsforum...om/fs/view/fid/37649

http://eb-in-oregon.parallaxscurioandrelicfirearmsforum...om/fs/view/fid/37650

Regards,
Eric