So many of us have no access to original work, self included, until I really made an effort. For me it takes travel, and putting myself out there, meeting people, talking on the phone, exchanging ideas and photos on the web, research.
While this may at first seem daunting, it becomes a natural part of your life. As I have gotten older, I made the switch from girls to guns, and so I am no longer multi-tasking. Don't get me wrong, I love women, but I don't have the traction I once imagined I had.
So I put the time where it reaps the most benefit, as it were.
Guns that are hundreds years old, will show tool marks, if they are not worn right down to the bone. A source for gun photos is our ALR library; look in areas that don't see a lot of wear, around the locks, guards, etc for tell-tale tool marks. SOme of the better publications with clear color photos are good, and the CD's of the KRA and KRF are excellent sources of info. Best is to see the guns in person; but most of us have to travel for this experience. Gun shows, Dixon's and CLA shows are another good source.
Acceptable finish: guns were tools in the 18th and 17the Centuries, unless you got into the presentation guns, but they are not the focus of the ALR site. We deal with the guns of the settler, the landowner, the pioneer.
I think in today's world, in general, we have come to expect a higher level of finish than people did in the 18th Century. This is my opinion, and I hope this does not come off as fact. And it's a general statement, for there were certainly exceptions to the norm.
This is my rant for the day: I don't believe that perfect is better. I like to see that the object was made by a human, made in a workmanlike manner. Toolmarks are part of this equation. Shape is critical, in guns(and women), color, design, choice of components, etc. The overall effect is that the object is warm, has life, and most importantly, because of its minor flaws, I can relate to it.
