Personally, I’d rather see an abused wreck of a good Winchester restored rather than parted out and, in one small instance, have done just that.

Anthony said,

I really think that an abused 1 of 1000, receiver that is a rarity in itself, or an example that was worn past recognition, which in all reality is hard to imagine, should be restored properly, but not misrepresented! It can be done properly, without trying to make it into something it wasn't. Putting it back to it's originality, instead of leaving it by the wayside and not doing anything with it, would be disastrous. IMO! 

Especially if a talented person had the means, the talent, and the upstanding, wherewithal to do so! It wouldn't have to be admonished into something more than what it could be or should have been, but what it was, originally, and documented as refurbished, with as many original and existing parts that could be acquired, to do so! 

If I had the talent, and the means, and was able to acquire a receiver, from an original 1 of 1000 rifle, meaning that other original parts from a certain rifle weren't included with the receiver, I would absolutely try to put it back to it's originality, with as many original parts that I could acquire from the proper resources, and even if I had to talk to let's say a reputable company like Turnbull Restoration, I would do that, for the correct Deluxe, "XXX", wood! IMHO!

Tony

martin rabeno said
Interesting discussions to say the least and all god points made.
So, as I make it out. Repairs and restorations, not fakes, are acceptable as long as there is full disclose to prevent thievery down the road. As long as it is done skillfully and correctly. Right ? Of course a restored firearm is not everyone's cup of tea and naturally worth a fraction of an unrestored one
  

As long as there is provable full disclosure, I see nothing ethically wrong (or, for the artisans involved, hazardous) with a restoration and the market will decide what the piece is worth. 

Personally, I'd rather see an abused wreck of a good Winchester restored rather than parted out and, in one small instance, have done just that. 

I suppose there could be an issue in the case of a truly unique arm - say, the pistol used by Burr to kill Alexander Hamilton in their duel. If it existed in 30% condition and had absolute provenance, anything beyond wiping it down to preserve it from further deterioration would be wrong. 

What somebody wants to do with a rusted piece of steel that was once part of a valuable and rare, but not unique, gun does not bump my revulsion meter.

Building a gun around it and palming it off as real and original is a felony and should get the perp a good stretch of "porridge and mailbags", as the coppers at Scotland Yard liked to put it. 

Tim

So, as I make it out. Repairs and restorations, not fakes, are acceptable as long as there is full disclose to prevent thievery down the road. As long as it is done skillfully and correctly. Right ? Of course a restored firearm is not everyone's cup of tea and naturally worth a fraction of an unrestored one

Some owners don't deserve their rides. 

Until recently (or maybe even currently?) some folks actually raced Cobras in vintage races. I suppose that would be like taking a One of One Thousand on a two-week African safari. 

Mike

Disclosure separates the sheep from the goats. 

Proof of his or her sincere attempt to achieve permanent, irreversible disclosure is important to the artisan. 

For everybody else, the woods are deep and dark and full of tigers.

TXGunNut said
 I have been made aware of a number of serialized Shelby Cobra frames awhile back that reportedly sat in a field for a few decades before someone decided to build a few of them. They were supposedly titled as a vehicle matching the serial number on the frame even though they were built decades later in a shop near here. I have seen the finished products a few times, they bring a price that boggles the mind. 
Mike
  

One of our WACA members restores Shelby Cobras.

Another blurb on this. Last year I had a chance to buy an 86 SRC in 45-90. Sure everyone knows by now that 86's are my undoing. I had to pass because it was restored. It was a nicely done resto and sold for short money. I didn't chase it, not because it was a restored rifle, just that it was way to clean for what it was and when it was made. But somebody bought it and it will turn up again but I think it with have gone thru the "aging process" And at that point it will be a little harder to tell if it live or is it Memorex. And it will sell for a good deal more. I suppose I could have done the same thing but my moral compass has a little steadier arrow in it. 

If there's a demand (and deep pockets) someone will supply the product. 

Mike

Pwog said
I think the analogy with the Cobra steering wheel would perhaps bring a different result if you used the comparison example instead  a serial numbered chassis, verified from the Cobra registry with letter, with a few other bits from a wrecked race car and took it to the top Cobra restorer in the country and had it rebuilt. People would consider it real compared to a replica I think but assign it a different value than an all original, unrestored car. Or...ask ten people, get ten opinions.
  

I don't think so.  I do not have a Cobra but do belong to the LASAAC, LA Shelby Club.  The Members would not look down on it because they also allow replicas.  But it would never bring the money that it would cost to "restore" it.  The restorer I know would not restore it.  He is too meticulous and it would drive him crazy.  Wrecked and repaired cars are worth a lot less because not all the parts are original and are hard to sell.

Pwog said
I think the analogy with the Cobra steering wheel would perhaps bring a different result if you used the comparison example instead  a serial numbered chassis, verified from the Cobra registry with letter, with a few other bits from a wrecked race car and took it to the top Cobra restorer in the country and had it rebuilt. People would consider it real compared to a replica I think but assign it a different value than an all original, unrestored car. Or...ask ten people, get ten opinions.
  

What unnamed people may or may not consider a "restored original"  was not my concern. 

Martin is an engraver of considerable note and sterling reputation, who asked a not-so-hypothetical question tinged with ethical considerations.

No restoration or replication of  a Winchester 1 of 1000 rifle could be done without engaging a top-notch engraver capable of emulating the necessary engraving pattern and style of an original gun.

Martin is demonstrably capable of doing that accurately;  enough so that he could be at risk of being accused of being at least an accessory to criminal forgery after the restored/replicated piece passed through several hands, over time and its provenance became blurred.

I addressed myself to that possibility and my response was not intended to be philosophical. 

martin rabeno said
Wow Zeb  That all is petty complex but to some extent true. As an engraver I have been asked to engrave lets say a Nimschke style and I say I would BUT I am going to sign it, That usually ended the conversation. Dishonest people are always available.
However there is an other scenario. To honestly restore a valued piece of history and admit it is a restoration I see no disgrace in  Now I am not talking deception or monetary profit. It would never be as valuable as a unrestored one but still has its place.  As to who would do it properly  and cost, that is a variable dependent on the owner of such a piece. Plus consider the level of restoration. Are you making it look like new or what it would look like if was originally in one piece.  All things that come into factor and the money to do so
Just my thoughts
  

Signing the engraving job - visibly and then again inconspicuously inside the frame - solves all kinds of problems. But don't do it without prior written consent in the commission contract. "I'm not paying -- you've defaced a valuable gun". Never happen? I've litigated with Fagin.  

However there is an other scenario. To honestly restore a valued piece of history and admit it is a restoration I see no disgrace in  Now I am not talking deception or monetary profit. It would never be as valuable as a unrestored one but still has its place.  As to who would do it properly  and cost, that is a variable dependent on the owner of such a piece. Plus consider the level of restoration. Are you making it look like new or what it would look like if was originally in one piece.  All things that come into factor and the money to do so

Just my thoughts