All of us African addicted hunters like nostalgia and things associated with it.

Question-

Would you pay extra for a rifle used by -

Harry Selby
Craig Boddington
Ivan Carter
Pondoro Taylor
Karamoja Bell
FC Selous
Harry Manners
Ian Nychens
Saeed
Others?

If I had a rifle for sale that was "used" by one of these guys or your personal hero, would you pay double, triple, whatever to own it?

Why would you do that or why not?

I might pay extra for an R 93 used by Walter.

I don't think I would pay "extra" for any rifle. But I didn't win the Mega Millions lottery this week (but I think IdahoSharpshooter may have since one of the winners is in Idaho.)

I am willing to pay more for a well made rifle however. But a Duane Weibe rifle previously owned by a personal hero is still a Duane Wiebe rifle. When he stops making they may all go up in value.

Paying more for a nostalgic african hunting rifle would make less money available to me for african hunting.

I am headed for Namibia in May to hunt bull elephant with Vaughn Fulton. I will be using a stainless ruger .458 and If I manage to take a bull and or have a good hunt I suspect I'll feel very nostalgic about that rifle.

Maybe a slight premium but certainly not double. I am a user of firearms, not a collector. Would I pay more for a hunt conducted out of a tented camp in a remote area than a hunt in a lodge dodging cattle? Yes and I have.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
All of us African addicted hunters like nostalgia and things associated with it.

Question-

Would you pay extra for a rifle used by -

Harry Selby
Craig Boddington
Ivan Carter
Pondoro Taylor
Karamoja Bell
FC Selous
Harry Manners
Ian Nychens
Saeed
Others?

If I had a rifle for sale that was "used" by one of these guys or your personal hero, would you pay double, triple, whatever to own it?

Why would you do that or why not?

Absolutely! I would love to have Ivan Carter's double rifle that was lost for so long in the river! I handled that rifle in Dallas last year and besides the DIVING IN HIPPO & CROC river for days recovering that rifle, it fits me better than any double rifle I've even handled.

Yes I'd pay more for that rifle, if in it were un-refinished condition! It is not only who owned it, but also the rifle's own history that makes me want it! We've all said on one occasion or another "IF THIS RIFLE COULD TALK!" well this one already has talked!

No. But I'm a hunter and shooter, not a collector.

There is famous, and then there is historic. Famous, no, historic, yes.

No way.

If I could, I surely would.

Personally I wouldn't, but I know that there are those out there who would. Just like there are those who would buy a jersey actually worn in a game by Staubach, Namath, etc.

I don't collect "stuff", but in response to this - Yes - Ian Nyschens in particular. It would be great to be the caretaker for a while, and pass on to my son.

I have always wished that my father/grandfather had passed along a treasured firearm. I am not sure that any in my current battery will have value to my kids, perhaps the Lott that saved my arse, but I guess one day that is their decision to make!

Good Lord yes!!! A famous double rifle would be out of this world! Half the fun of owning older weapons is wondering what all they've seen and done!

Brett

quote:

Originally posted by BaxterB:
There is famous, and then there is historic. Famous, no, historic, yes.

With all due respect to a number of the persons on the list, I think the answer is yes in some cases, no in others. Would I pay a premium for a rifle used by Selous, Harry Shelby, J.A. Hunter, Ian Nyschens, Karamojo Bell, etc., heck yes. But that list is probably a limited list.

Absolutely I would pay more.

Provenance is extremely important to those who like history and the mystery of times past.

Taylor, Bell and Manners

No. I consider firearms to be tools. While I do collect U.S. martial arms, I've never paid a premium for provenance (rarity yes). Accuracy interests me more than prior ownership.

quote:

Originally posted by LionHunter:
No. I consider firearms to be tools. While I do collect U.S. martial arms, I've never paid a premium for provenance. Accuracy interests me more than prior ownership.

Mate, I take your point on tools and accuracy and concur.

However owning a firearm that is of historical value can give a certain pride of ownership, whether it works or not.

I don't play guitar, but would love to own one of John Lennon's guitars, strange eh?

I would pay double for a gun that one of them had carried in the field. Have always felt that way.

Harry Selby-yes
Craig Boddington-no
Ivan Carter-yes
Pondoro Taylor-no
Karamoja Bell-yes
FC Selous-no
Harry Manners-no
Ian Nychens-no
Saeed-yes
Others? -depends

For TR's "big medicine" I might. Perhaps something Ruark or Capstick used since I read most of their stuff.
But the point is moot. I have to think about selling, not buying.
Good question.
Lou

quote:

Originally posted by SDhunter:
Harry Selby-yes
Craig Boddington-no
Ivan Carter-yes
Pondoro Taylor-no
Karamoja Bell-yes
FC Selous-no
Harry Manners-no
Ian Nychens-no
Saeed-yes
Others? -depends

You would rather have a rifle owned by Saeed than by Ian Nychens, Pondoro or Harry Manners, three of the most legendary ele hunters of the last century.

Curious.

I can't be rude you know.
He is the host of the site.

Besides, his rifles definitely kill stuff.

I am not a big elephant hunting afficionado. One of those critters I have absolutely no desire to kill.

Can't explain it. On the other hand, every cat and buffalo should die.

I did not say how much extra I would pay.

That is the whokle idea of the thread, the extra is all about perception, worth to the individiual.

I know it is not logical, but I just posted off the top of my head without giving it much thought. As you can tell.

Yes & Yes! to both. I did the classic tent thing two years ago with CM Safaris. Loved the ambience. I hope to do so again next year. Oh, right, this is next year.

Wink, sad to say, "It wasn't me..." And I was going to split it with you, mon ami!

Rich

Selby, Taylor, Bell, Selous - for sure. Ruark and PHC, yes.

why would i want to do that? i am not rich and extra money wasted on "historical" guns is less money to spend using them.

What about Finn Aagaard's .375H&H Pre'64 model 70 that Berit brings to the Hoot&Shoots in Juliff? Berit allowed me to shoot it and it was almost a religious experience for me. Yes, quite possibly triple for that one!

Andy

It doesn't matter whether it's Bell's old rifle, Hitler's Mercedes or a signed and dedicated 1st edition by Hemingway, any item with a good/interesting/provable provenance will always be of interest and extra value to many people.

And usually a good investment to boot.

Many of those names I would pay double or triple for- because I know I could sell it for much more than that.

Nostalgia or provenance is quite valuable in the collecting world. Several of the folks on the list were quite good at documenting some of the legendary things they did with a given firearm.

Might a Boddington owned gun be worth 3-5X its original value down the road? Maybe.

Is a Selby or Selous owned gun worth that now? I am willing to bet on it.

Have a London Best grade that has documentable provenance to Selous or Taylor?

Have Selby's .416?

And you are willing to sell it to me for 3 times what a similar non-provenance gun would sell for? Send me a PM. I would do business with you.

Dogcat,

Seriously, you let yourself down with this thread by comparing some contemporary fellows with greats such as Selous and Selby.

What possibly could be nostalgic about owning some stuff belonging to Boddinton, Ivan Carter and our good host Saeed?

Ok, now I understand what you were commenting on.

I was only referring to well known hunters of today and yester-year.

I would add Brian Marsh, or Brian Herne, Gordon Cundill, John Berger, Fred Everett.

My point was that I was curious about men and their attachment to rifles and to items owned/used by "famous" people. I own property once owned by George Washington but I do not get any extra for it when I sell it.

The post was made out of my own curiosity about human nature and preferences.

In my mind, the historic significance and the ownership can't be separated. John Hunter's rifles belonged to him, but are significant in that they helped shape a continent and a culture, and people are aware of the stories and the historical context. The same with Selous or Bell. These guns have a meaningful provenence, and will command a real world premium in price (at some level).

Other guns may have a personal value, due to nostalgia. Someone may have a sentimental attachment or respect for a writer such as Aagard, Seyfreid, Boddington or (for some unfathomable reason) Capstick. That person may justify paying a premium for such a piece, but it will likely carry no long term market premium.

Bottom line is, yes, most people will pay a premium for something that evokes "nostalgia". What that something is is a totally individual question, as shown by the varied answers above. How much is another question, and the question of whether it is worth it is a market driven question which is answered every day at auction.

quote:

Originally posted by dogcat:
Ok, now I understand what you were commenting on.

I was only referring to well known hunters of today and yester-year.

I would add Brian Marsh, or Brian Herne, Gordon Cundill, John Berger, Fred Everett.

My point was that I was curious about men and their attachment to rifles and to items owned/used by "famous" people. I own property once owned by George Washington but I do not get any extra for it when I sell it.

The post was made out of my own curiosity about human nature and preferences.

Cheers

In all fairness though, if you owned Bell's 7x57 would you sell it to me for market i.e. intrinsic value only? Likely not. I think your example of land is interesting but a little apples to oranges. The house that sits on it though, is different, and celebrity houses bear that out.

Human nature wants us to be a part of the smallest group possible so that we are closest to the top, it is a simple desire to maximize our existence. After all, none of us want to NOT be important or impactful or having NOT achieved anything in our lives. Owning historic/famous items is a way to say "I have this one thing that no one else has so I win." And in that one (and often very small and sometimes self-created) category, they do win which feeds the central need to be the winner in something.

Maybe.

I prefer to treat my personal nostalgia for African hunts going hunting again in Africa.

I guess my interest in owning rifles which have belonged to/been used by someone famous is limited to those I know and admire. I have met at one time or another Jack O'Connor, Warren Page, Charles Askins, Jr. and John Buhmiller. I would not be interested in a gun belonging to the first three, but one of John Buhmiller's rifles would mean a great deal to me, because I knew and loved John, had a long relationship with him by mail, and spent an unforgettable week with him and his wife in San Antonio at the 1971 Game COIN convention.

A rifle built by a famous maker, which really fits me, such as my Wundhammer Springfield, my Hoffman Arms Mauser and my Al Biesen Model 70 mean more to me than the identity of the previous owner(s).

BaxterB - that was an excellent post by you above.

If I liked the caliber, style and look of the rifle, yes, I would pay quite a bit more for it if it was previuosly owned by Selby, Taylor, Bell, Selous, Manners or Nychens (if I had the money).

To me, a gun is much more than a tool, which is why I don't own any stainless rifles with nylon stocks, and never will. Owning a historical firearm with some cachet to it would be a blast to own and to hunt with.

Glen