Log In
Members
Home
Add Reply
Add Topic
Online
TR said
I have no problem with restored if you don’t change the serial number. Most professionally restored guns to mint condition have the serial number freshly applied, it can be the same as the original or it can be a clone of the letter.
If not the original no, what has been created isn’t a restoration, it’s a counterfeit…a fraud.
deerhunter said
Regarding the originality of the barrel, the seller states “the bore has strong rifling but has some frosting.” That tells me that the barrel is not newly manufactured. It’s original at least on the inside but not the outside in my opinion.. Original to the gun? Maybe or maybe not…Don
Don – I read that initially and then completely forgot about it. It’s a really good point and casts greater legitimacy on the barrel. For me, I would very much not want an aftermarket barrel. Particularly on a piece like this where the special weight and barrel matting are key features in the rifle’s desirability.
We also know that many of these restorations commonly have the receiver as the only original part. I have seen them advertised before and what has been replaced is often not specified. What are the thoughts on these?
Steve, Restorer’s age parts to match, it’s not uncommon to fire a new barrel with black powder and let it set to age the bore. This gun however was restored to mint so that’s probably not the case. It is a lot easier for the restorer to use new parts than old, most restored to mint guns use a donor receiver. A gun is only original once. T/R
steve004 said
Recall I had mentioned the .38-56 was not the most desirable. So, if you have a new barrel made up, why not chamber it in .45-70? Well, it wouldn’t be, “right” then. But… if the rifle now has a newly manufactured barrel, how is it, “right”? It, “letters” now, except it’s faked.
Now, that’s an interesting concept I never considered. If you are going to do a complete “restoration”, where only the receiver is the original part, and “refinished”, does it really matter if the gun letters correctly? Might as well chamber it in a more desirable calibre, such as .45-70, as compared to .38-56. In the end, the barrel is a replacement.
Waste of (a LOT) of money for this one, if you ask me. Better to have a 25% condition gun as at least it’s a whole lot cheaper and still original, vs a “pretty” 0% gun.
mrcvs said
steve004 said
Recall I had mentioned the .38-56 was not the most desirable. So, if you have a new barrel made up, why not chamber it in .45-70? Well, it wouldn’t be, “right” then. But… if the rifle now has a newly manufactured barrel, how is it, “right”? It, “letters” now, except it’s faked.Now, that’s an interesting concept I never considered. If you are going to do a complete “restoration”, where only the receiver is the original part, and “refinished”, does it really matter if the gun letters correctly? Might as well chamber it in a more desirable calibre, such as .45-70, as compared to .38-56. In the end, the barrel is a replacement.
Waste of (a LOT) of money for this one, if you ask me. Better to have a 25% condition gun as at least it’s a whole lot cheaper and still original, vs a “pretty” 0% gun.
I also would prefer a 25% rifle vs. this 0% piece. However I’m thinking a 25% rifle (with all these features) would cost more than the price tag on this one.
TR said
Steve, Restorer’s age parts to match, it’s not uncommon to fire a new barrel with black powder and let it set to age the bore. This gun however was restored to mint so that’s probably not the case. It is a lot easier for the restorer to use new parts than old, most restored to mint guns use a donor receiver. A gun is only original once. T/R
I haven’t paid much attention to refinished or restored guns during my long history with vintage/antique rifles. But these days, it’s hard not to given how prevalent they are. This thread has been quite interesting and educational for me. I’ve appreciated everyone’s information and comments. By the way, I am now even less interested in pursuing a refinished/restored piece than when I started.
What makes you think the receiver on a restored gun is original ? When you restore to mint every pit, rounded corner, or scratch has to be worked out of the receiver. If you reshape, change the contour, or make the frame smaller it shows. If you weld the pits or edges, it might show when blue or case finish is applied. The most cost effective way is to use a donor frame off a cheap clean gun that requires little metal repair. If you need to change a serial number, weld over the old number to scramble the metal grain and stamp any number you desire. All you need to start this process is a letter of a rare gun, clone it.
I am not talking about this 86, I’m talking in general about restored to mint with fresh serial numbers. Possible clones. T/R
TR said
What makes you think the receiver on a restored gun is original ? When you restore to mint every pit, rounded corner, or scratch has to be worked out of the receiver. If you reshape, change the contour, or make the frame smaller it shows. If you weld the pits or edges, it might show when blue or case finish is applied. The most cost effective way is to use a donor frame off a cheap clean gun that requires little metal repair. If you need to change a serial number, weld over the old number to scramble the metal grain and stamp any number you desire. All you need to start this process is a letter of a rare gun, clone it.I am not talking about this 86, I’m talking in general about restored to mint with fresh serial numbers. Possible clones. T/R
Very interesting point. Before I started this thread I was not familiar with the technique of welding over a serial number and restamping it. I’m thinking through the museum letter aspect. All you need is to know about a rare rifle. Then send the serial number to Cody along with your check and they will send you a letter. Whether you own the rifle, have ever seen the rifle, etc. is not a factor in this. You might have seen the rifle at a gunshow, on the internet, etc. As long as you know the serial number, you are good to go. Or, sometimes when people post photos of a copy of a ledger page they received with their letter, there are other rifles listed. In that scenario, you might be grabbing the serial number of a rifle that no longer exists.
mrcvs said If you are going to do a complete “restoration”, where only the receiver is the original part, and “refinished”, does it really matter if the gun letters correctly?
Does it really matter? Absolutely, a letterable restoration is certainly worth more than an obvious “parts gun”! If all the “extras” on this gun didn’t letter, we probably wouldn’t be talking about it.
November 7, 2015
Offline
Beautiful work, probably a bargain at this price if that’s what you want. I’m also a little curious what it looked like before DT’s band of magicians started on it but that’s water under the bridge. I have a couple of previously “restored” rifles I’ve considered sending to him. I’ve also seriously considered buying an 1886 that he may or may not have restored at one time. A few years ago it was my opinion that someday there would be a stronger market for restored guns. Today I have my doubts. I think there’s a place in my collection for a DT gun, it will have to be a very special gun and situation as I’ll never be able to plan on selling it.
Mike
steve004 said
… sure has a lot of special features. Features I really like. It helps that they letter too. I hear if the work can be documented as actually performed by Turnbull, that helps also. So, how does this piece strike others here? Also, thoughts on how much the .38-56 chambering works against it?
Restorations are not my cup of tea but, some firearm enthusiast would rather pay 12k for a beautifully restored rifle to hang in the man cave, than 75k for the same looking original. Each to their own imo.
AG(Rick C)
November 7, 2015
Offline
AG(Rick C) said
Restorations are not my cup of tea but, some firearm enthusiast would rather pay 12k for a beautifully restored rifle to hang in the man cave, than 75k for the same looking original. Each to their own imo.
AG(Rick C)
Guilty as charged! Quite honestly I tend to display firearms (and replica firearms) with eye appeal but comparatively little actual value. I’m currently displaying a (restored) 1904 vintage 1894, a Pietta 1860 Colt replica and a Cimarron (Uberti) Peacemaker replica. To the causal observer they look just as good as firearms worth much more. All three have made multiple trips to the range; the Winchester even put some venison in the freezer a few years back.
Mike
Maverick said
I’ve always found the whole argument that something that has been restored is not a “fake” is somewhat of a quagmire. I heard a story that there was someone a few years ago that won a nice NRA Firearm Medal for his original Model 86. It wasn’t until after the medal was awarded, someone thought to check with Turnbull to see if it was a gun they restored. Low and behold they had restored it. The owner of the 86 claimed when he bought the rifle it was sold to him as an original condition gun. The medal had to be returned. So who in that scenario is in the wrong. The previous seller is the faker?
I also don’t know how much facts are in that story I heard, but it seems plausible.
Twenty or Thirty years or more from now when all these old time collectors pass away and their kids that had no interest in the dad’s hobby and don’t know OR don’t care a thing about old guns and have to sell dads guns. Do you think someone will be able to tell the gun was restored? And what responsibility does the heirs of the family truly have for knowing whether or not the gun was restored?
Just a few thoughts on the matter.
Sincerely,
Maverick
Brady, we all know this happens a lot. The individual that did the restoration work didn’t make a fake. But like you said who knows what the owner may say when he sells it? That is why those of us that have seen a lot of guns keep telling people to learn the guns before they buy.
AG(Rick C) said
Restorations are not my cup of tea but, some firearm enthusiast would rather pay 12k for a beautifully restored rifle to hang in the man cave, than 75k for the same looking original. Each to their own imo.
Guess I don’t qualify as a “firearm enthusiast,” because I’d put my 12 thou on a new truck; or my 75 on a new house.
clarence said
mrcvs said If you are going to do a complete “restoration”, where only the receiver is the original part, and “refinished”, does it really matter if the gun letters correctly?
Does it really matter? Absolutely, a letterable restoration is certainly worth more than an obvious “parts gun”! If all the “extras” on this gun didn’t letter, we probably wouldn’t be talking about it.
In the end, these “restorations” are nothing more than parts guns with newly fabricated parts. What does it matter if it letters, when it is mostly newly manufactured? A letter is only pertinent to an original gun. These restorations are nothing more than guns that have completely been meddled with such that they look nice, even better than original. The cost to do so, and the prices these sell for, even if the cost of restoration is not recouped, seems outside the realm of reason.
mrcvs said
In the end, these “restorations” are nothing more than parts guns with newly fabricated parts. What does it matter if it letters, when it is mostly newly manufactured? A letter is only pertinent to an original gun. These restorations are nothing more than guns that have completely been meddled with such that they look nice, even better than original. The cost to do so, and the prices these sell for, even if the cost of restoration is not recouped, seems outside the realm of reason.
After giving these rifles more thought over the last couple days, than I ever have, that pretty much sums up the conclusion I am reaching.
Yet, they clearly have their appeal. There is a market for them and sellers seem to sell them. I suppose for the buyers, having a rifle that essentially looks the way it did the day it left the factory, is what they want. I will admit, the one under discussion is really quite the showpiece.
As with car collectors, originality means everything to some and it is not important to others. With the better current rifle restorations, if you lay one that has been restored next to an original mint rifle, 99.9%+ of the planet population could not tell the difference. With a vintage collectible car, if you took one that had been well-restored and you parked it next to one that had been kept vacuum-sealed since the showroom, and again, 99.9+ percent of the population couldn’t tell the difference, I can see the appeal of paying ten times less for the restored one. And with the car, if prior to the restoration it had zero percent finish (or even 50% finish) I can see having it redone. Cars aren’t guns of course, but we have used them as contrasting examples as part of our discussion. Some of the thinking, logic and pragmatics are the same. As has been mentioned several times, the pragmatics weigh in heavily. Many buy a restored car simply because it is not an option to by a high condition original. The same is true for guns.
One difference for me is that I really don’t pine away for mint original rifles either. Mellow use on a Winchester is just fine and adds an element that a minty piece doesn’t have. I’ve never paid much attention to old collectible cars. However, due to some farm history I have periodically paid attention to old tractors. I occasionally watch the TV tractor auctions. Nearly all of these tractors are fully restored and look like they did as they came off the production line. They are very brightly painted and to me, look like plastic toys. I suppose it’s not surprising that I like my tractors like I like my rifles – some character and patina are preferable. I will add, a very high condition, brightly painted old tractor that was all original, would capture my attention.
Steve, most of the time if you put a newly re-done gun next to one in brand new condition you still will see a difference. No matter how well kept, the original gun will still have some areas of patina. If oiled the wood will have a “fuzz” to it where the fibers have not been rubbed smooth. I’ve only seen a few absolutely brand new antique Winchesters. I’ve seen dozens of newly restored guns and they don’t look the same to me.
steve004 said
Cars aren’t guns of course, but we have used them as contrasting examples as part of our discussion. Some of the thinking, logic and pragmatics are the same.
They have VERY little in common–a completely different esthetic applies to antique cars. Not that antique car collectors have no appreciation for a rare vehicle that has miraculously survived the ravages of time, but there’s absolutely no “downside” to restoration, & you can hear Jay Leno talk about the lengths he goes to in his no-expense-spared restoration projects on his wonderful YT channel.
A better analogy would be antique furniture, & if you watch the Antiques Roadshow, you’ll hear their experts saying again & again, “what a shame it was refinished!”
clarence said
They have VERY little in common–a completely different esthetic applies to antique cars. Not that antique car collectors have no appreciation for a rare vehicle that has miraculously survived the ravages of time, but there’s absolutely no “downside” to restoration, & you can hear Jay Leno talk about the lengths he goes to in his no-expense-spared restoration projects on his wonderful YT channel.
A better analogy would be antique furniture, & if you watch the Antiques Roadshow, you’ll hear their experts saying again & again, “what a shame it was refinished!”
I agree that the furniture is a more accurate comparison. It’s also interesting to note that the interest in antique furniture has had a similar drop to what we’ve experienced with antique guns.
With cars, I do know there is that subgroup of collectors that focus on, “survivors.” They will happily purchase something showing mellow use over a minty restored specimen. As I said earlier, I haven’t followed collectible cars much but when I’ve come across an, “original survivor” it gets my attention.
Maverick said
I’ve always found the whole argument that something that has been restored is not a “fake” is somewhat of a quagmire. I heard a story that there was someone a few years ago that won a nice NRA Firearm Medal for his original Model 86. It wasn’t until after the medal was awarded, someone thought to check with Turnbull to see if it was a gun they restored. Low and behold they had restored it. The owner of the 86 claimed when he bought the rifle it was sold to him as an original condition gun. The medal had to be returned. So who in that scenario is in the wrong. The previous seller is the faker?
I also don’t know how much facts are in that story I heard, but it seems plausible.
Twenty or Thirty years or more from now when all these old time collectors pass away and their kids that had no interest in the dad’s hobby and don’t know OR don’t care a thing about old guns and have to sell dads guns. Do you think someone will be able to tell the gun was restored? And what responsibility does the heirs of the family truly have for knowing whether or not the gun was restored?
Just a few thoughts on the matter.
Sincerely,
Maverick
Your story of the ’86 that was awarded the medal has been in the back of my mind since you posted it. It’s interesting how something we can be exceedingly pleased with can be spoiled by others. I’ve done this to others and have had it done to me. I’ve also held back from doing it to others because I don’t want to spoil their day. In the story of the ’86 that won the medal, had the owner not put it up to compete for that medal, he might be exceedingly pleased with it to this day. Not only did it fool him, but it fooled a lot of other people. This sort of begs the question, if you buy something and love it, what’s the problem?
The problem occurs when someone comes along and says something or points something out. I’ve had it happen to me (and they were right of course) and it was painful. How important is it to know? I think that answer varies greatly. Some would say when it comes time to sell, it will rear it’s head. Maybe, maybe not. Again, I’ve been fooled. Or maybe I don’t plan to ever sell? For some people, their collection will fall into the hands of greedy heirs who will immediately try to cash it out. A problem there?
I sometimes think about Wes Adams collection. It was one of the more amazing collections put together. I also suspected that many pieces were not right (i.e. they were original once but not by the time he acquired them). I now believe there were far more not right than I had suspected. So… what did it matter to him? He liked them. They gave him pleasure to own. Was there a negative result or consequence to him? And even as far as consequences to his heirs, his pieces by and large sold for plenty (including some that wasn’t right). Yes, there were people here who didn’t bid on certain pieces because they knew they weren’t right. That didn’t stop others from bidding big money.
As I watch the internet auctions, I am often struck by the clear fact that most of the people out there buying collectible guns don’t have near the knowledge they should have. It doesn’t stop them.
To come full circle and to answer my own question, I choose the pain of knowing. Not that I enjoy the pain but the knowledge I’ve gained as a result has been very important. With every piece I look at, there are certain areas of a rifle I now obsessively and meticulously inspect. Coming to this site has advanced my knowledge base significantly. It feels good to be more knowledgeable. 🙂
1 Guest(s)
