mrcvs said
Being in the market for one of these, I might have been inclined to start reaching for my wallet–except for the fact that the serial number dates this carbine to 1917 and yet it has the stylized Winchester on the barrel.
  

I’m curious–what was the “reasonable” price you referred to?  It’s irrational, I think, that a legitimate factory refurbishment (assuming it’s not an OF barrel) should drastically reduce its value.  Most collectors claim that what attracts them to “old guns” is their history; well, here’s a gun with a fairly uncommon history: it’s barrel was ruined (very possibly by early smokeless ammo, much more corrosive than BP), and some previous owner took the trouble to preserve its good accuracy by having it rebarreled.  Rather sad to think that shooter’s well-intentioned efforts are, now, considered the “kiss of death.”

mrcvs said
The gun had condition, so the asking price, which I think was $4000, but the collector said his bottom line was $3000, was reasonable for what he believed the carbine was–all original. 

That’s what I meant by “irrational”:  that work done by Winchester only a few years later should be considered “non-original.”  I don’t dispute that’s the majority opinion among collectors, but it represents a ridiculously narrow view of “originality,” especially when it results in the value being slashed some 75%.  (By the way, this wasn’t MY gun, though it would be if I could buy it for $750.)

Generally speaking, any circumstance that adds to a gun’s known history, such as ownership by some minor celebrity (even some sheriff’s deputy nobody ever heard of), being sold in some famous location or by a notable dealer, etc., adds a little something, at least, to value, or at least to “sales appeal.”  Going back to the factory that made it should be no different.