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 totally disagree. Cars, to me are just like guns. The more help that they have had the worse they are in my eyes. Many times things get over restored and lose all of their originality. Restored as original is best. No extra shine or fanciness.
For what it’s worth here’s My thoughts; I have 100+ year old original Winchesters, still with the hang tag etc., they are very nice and a privelege to own, I also own refinished Winchesters that look nice but will gather negative scrutiny, and I also own properly restored Winchesters. Yes the high condition “original”, is extremely nice to have, although expensive but a good investment, but a properly restored gun is just as pleasing to Me and every bit as good an investment just dealing with less money. Saying that there is a very huge difference between “restored” and “refinished”. If a piece is properly “restored” it will look and function as it did when it come out of the factory. If it’s refinished who knows what has been used to make it look “like new”. As most on the forum know I have Mod’ ’94 ser#15147, the only extra heavy barreled ’94 ever built. Like the magazine article says it was fully “restored” by Turnbull. I don’t know what it looked like before. but it sure is a beautiful gun now and a true 1 of a kind that holds a place of distinction in My collection. On the other hand I am currently looking at a Mod. ’85 15″ saddle ring carbine that is in very poor condition. It is also a very rare piece but I am hesitating buying because of the condition, and if I do purchase it I may have it restored because I don’t think there is one out there in good-excellent condition and I feel, as is, it would deter from the rest of the display I am assembling. I also dabble in old cars and the difference between restored and refinished is very apparent in a vehicle. Ex; a full body off restoration on a model “a” Ford would be in the $60000.00 to $70000.00 range but I can refinish one for about a quarter of that using off shore parts etc.. Like everyone else I’ve seen so called improperly “restored ” guns but I wouldn’t put much money into them as I wouldn’t like the negative scrutiny, even if they do look nice. Like was said I think it is the eye of the beholder what one likes or dislikes.
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
Chuck said
Many times things get over restored and lose all of their originality. Restored as original is best. No extra shine or fanciness.
ANY degree of restoration erases originality…that is, what’s left of the original finish. Restoration to what the original surfaces looked like when new is the aim of the best restorers, like Turnbull, though it’s an art & not a science. Creating “extra shine or fanciness” would be an amateur’s mistake.
steve004 said
Henry –What is your opinion of the rifle that started this thread?
My opinion is that it’s an excellent facsimile of a “like-new” gun. The only way to prove or disprove how closely it approaches the condition of this gun on the day it originally left the factory would be to have a similar UNrestored gun that had been protected from all exposure to the atmosphere since the day it was built–sealed in a nitrogen chamber, for ex. I suspect that “brand new” case colors & nickel would seem a little garish to eyes accustomed to seeing them after 100 yrs of aging.
Chuck said
Cars, to me are just like guns. The more help that they have had the worse they are in my eyes.
I’d much rather have an unrestored car in good but not “show-room” cond., but go to a Barrett-Jackson auction & I think you’ll find that’s not the general opinion of the millionaires bidding on restored cars.
There is a line in the Winchester Book where George talks about how a collector that solely prizes mint condition over everything else on a gun, will generally have touched up / or restored guns in his collection. I believe the truth of that statement hasn’t changed in the slightest in over 50 years. I wonder if it ever will, but imagine eventually restored guns will be considered not so taboo. I’ve been told collectors in Europe don’t mind restored guns hardly whatsoever.
To each their own.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
Maverick said
There is a line in the Winchester Book where George talks about how a collector that solely prizes mint condition over everything else on a gun, will generally have touched up / or restored guns in his collection.
A significant proportion of the Wes Adams collection was defined by guns such as this.
Also, the same of a prominent Colt collector in New Jersey whose collection was auctioned off recently after his passing. His name slips my mind right now, but it was often said he had 100% Colts in his collection, but they were purchased in 90 or 95% condition.
Just like Bert, I would rather have a 75 to 95% condition vs 100%. That 95% means a LOT–NO EXCUSES! Whereas 100% can mean is 100% as original, or, “has it been restored?” I do have a few 100% firearms because I know the provenance, and no question this is the case. Except for a Smith & Wesson NM No 3. Purchased at an obscure auction, from on-line photographs, questionable if it was original or not. I think others questioned this as well, Purchased at a reasonable price and the gamble paid off!
Maverick said
There is a line in the Winchester Book where George talks about how a collector that solely prizes mint condition over everything else on a gun, will generally have touched up / or restored guns in his collection. I believe the truth of that statement hasn’t changed in the slightest in over 50 years. I wonder if it ever will, but imagine eventually restored guns will be considered not so taboo. I’ve been told collectors in Europe don’t mind restored guns hardly whatsoever.To each their own.
Sincerely,
Maverick
I agree totally. In fact, what was true 50 years ago (i.e. that many guns in collections had been touched up or restored) has surely increased exponentially. Colts likely worse than Winchesters. I also agree with you about your future forecast. One of the reasons I believe restored guns will be less taboo is because there will be a whole lot less people around who will be able to tell the difference. Over the last 50 years, probably hundreds of millions of dollars (likely a low estimate) have been made through faking guns.
clarence said
My opinion is that it’s an excellent facsimile of a “like-new” gun. The only way to prove or disprove how closely it approaches the condition of this gun on the day it originally left the factory would be to have a similar UNrestored gun that had been protected from all exposure to the atmosphere since the day it was built–sealed in a nitrogen chamber, for ex. I suspect that “brand new” case colors & nickel would seem a little garish to eyes accustomed to seeing them after 100 yrs of aging.
Clarence – I suspect what you’re saying is quite true. If any of use were to hold a 100+ year old Winchester that had been sealed in a nitrogen chamber and appeared as new as it did when it departed the factory – we would consider it quite gaudy. “Obvious fake” would likely be the consensus
We’ve all seen original, “brilliant” case colors but none of us have seen them as brilliant as they were the day they left the factory.
clarence said
ANY degree of restoration erases originality…that is, what’s left of the original finish. Restoration to what the original surfaces looked like when new is the aim of the best restorers, like Turnbull, though it’s an art & not a science. Creating “extra shine or fanciness” would be an amateur’s mistake.
Even though I shy away from rifles that have any departure from originality, there are some shades of grey for me. For me, there is a difference between non-original finish vs. non-original finish combined with non-original parts. I still have some very mild interest in the rifle that started this thread – but that would be based on the barrel being original. Actually, having new wood put on it turns me off as well, but not as much as the prospect of the barrel being of new manufacture. So, I have gradients of objection which range at one end (finish alteration only) to the other far end (complete clone with no original parts used). As I write this, there is another possibility I hadn’t considered with this rifle. For all I know, the barrel is from the original rifle but the receiver came from a donor rifle!
steve004 said
Actually, having new wood put on it turns me off as well…
The one rather glaring error made in this restoration is the use of such fancy wood, when the letter says nothing about special wood. This wood isn’t even XXX, it’s Exhibition Grade, as would be used on a fully engraved gun. However, I can guess why it was selected, because I know a stockmaker who does this kind of work, & he says that his customers invariably want the fanciest, most expensive, blank he can provide.
clarence said
The one rather glaring error made in this restoration is the use of such fancy wood, when the letter says nothing about special wood. This wood isn’t even XXX, it’s Exhibition Grade, as would be used on a fully engraved gun. However, I can guess why it was selected, because I know a stockmaker who does this kind of work, & he says that his customers invariably want the fanciest, most expensive, blank he can provide.
It is interesting that they didn’t copy the rifle to the exact specifications in the factory ledger. I do understand the dynamics involved. People love fabulous wood. It’s part of what pulled me in to this rifle. Were I to buy it, if offered the option to have it stocked with plain grain wood instead, I don’t think I would go for that choice.
And now to hear from an almost complete novice , and one that collects 22’s and operates in a much lower dollar amount then the guns you’re discussing. I do not like refinished examples, unless they were trashed before refinishing. I really don’t like the glaring colors of modern case colors. I have no problem with a rifle that been conserved. There’s a difference between refinish and conservation. A rifle that has had it’s metal finish freshened by converting the rusted bluing back to black oxide is fine with me. It has had nothing added that is not original, but has had the rusting of it metal halted. The same with the furniture. Wood that has had gun oil soaked into it is softer and easily damaged. Wood that has been ignored and dried out will easily crack. Removing most of the gun oil and replenishing the hand rubbed finish is conservation. The same with repairing the later lacquer finish, or the piano finish tung oil finishes. Not only that but to do this work is fun and adds to the excitement of the collection. Does it add to the value of the collection? Well that remains to be seen. I’ve said enough and probably didn’t add anything to the discussion.
Vince
Southern Oregon
NRA member
Fraternal Order of Eagles
“There is but one answer to be made to the dynamite bomb and that can best be made by the Winchester rifle.”
Teddy Roosevelt
I have had several deluxe grade guns with flame grain wood, none of these listed the wood on the letter. The letter would just say pistol grip checkered! I don’t think the letter usually lists the x grade of the wood. I’ve owned 3 and 4x wood guns and the only way I knew the wood grade was from the x’s on the lower tang. T/R
TR said
I have had several deluxe grade guns with flame grain wood, none of these listed the wood on the letter. The letter would just say pistol grip checkered! I don’t think the letter usually lists the x grade of the wood. I’ve owned 3 and 4x wood guns and the only way I knew the wood grade was from the x’s on the lower tang. T/R
Of course, pistol grip checkered doesn’t necessarily mean deluxe grade wood. We see many plain grained wood with pistol grip checkered stocks. I find it odd that deluxe grade wood is often not mentioned in the ledgers. Another mystery of the factory ledgers. Factory letters often leave unanswered questions.
Deluxe grade wood was standard on the “Fancy” Sporting Rifles, and was therefore not mentioned in the factory ledgers (or very seldom mentioned). Winchester did not record information in the ledger if it was a standard feature.
Bert
WACA 6571L, Historian & Board of Director Member
WACA Life Member--- NRA Life Member---- Cody Firearms member since 1991 Researching the Winchester 1873's
Email: [email protected]
Steve; what would make Me interested in that particular rifle would be dollars and cents. It is a good looking piece though, restored or not and I wouldn’t say that it is or isn’t (I’d want to han g onto it) for a bit.
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
1873man said
Here is a copy of a ledger page with one gun that is listed with fancy wood. As you can see there are several 1of 1000’s listed and they had fancy wood as standard but no mention of it.Bob
Bob,
That is a great example, the 1st 1of1000 on that ledger page is #31266 and it has in my opinion has very beautiful XX wood on it.
Just goes to show that there are a lot of things not always listed in the ledger, just because a collector thinks it should be.
Sincerely,
Maverick
WACA #8783 - Checkout my Reloading Tool Survey!
https://winchestercollector.org/forum/winchester-research-surveys/winchester-reloading-tool-survey/
1 Guest(s)