The good, the bad and the ugly

[jwh1947]

I have an honest question for which I would like as many experienced opinions as possible.  For the tight-lipped, all that's needed is a percentage; but comments could be useful.  Based on your personal observations, what percentage of 18th and 19th century rifles for sale today have not been the subject of major, legitimate restoration?  I define that as replacement of more than 6" of forestock or any other added wood except small burnout replacement, also any barrel stretching whatsoever, reconversion to flint, or replacement of original parts, or skinning and refinishing?  Period conversion to percussion is not considered as "restoration."  Herein I consider that history upon history, as that is what happened to lots of the guns during their primary period of use. That's just my criteria for "major."

The flip-side would be, what's the percentage chance of coming across a pristine specimen, showing true age, patina and finish, and in as-made, un-messed-with, condition?

I'm not speaking of bogus stuff...20th century carving and added boxes, but, if you wish, you can venture a guess here, too.  My intent is not to stir up commotion, which is admittedly sometimes the case, but rather to let the newer enthusiasts realize what the playing field actually consists of, as what appears to be is not always what is.  Have at it. 

Note: Honest restoration is a respectable and often worthy endeavor, but be advised, it will always be underestimated as a detractor by sellers, and when you go to sell it yourself, there will likely be a big brouhaha about what a great gun it would be without all that heavy reworking, which, you'll be told,  just bashes the value. 

[JTR]

Wayne,
About the only way to buy an ‘as made’ gun, is to buy an inexpensive one (relatively speaking). I’ve seen lot’s of completely original rifles, but they were all in the $2000/3000 price range.

So for your question I’ll assume you’re talking about guns that have at least a decent degree of value. And naturally the more expensive the rifle, the more work it is likely to have had, assuming it needs work.

Restoration, for and against, has been hashed and bashed about here a couple of times, with no real consensus other than some guys are for it, some against, and seemingly never the twain shall meet.

So for your question, I’ll pick an imaginary rifle worth about $20,000/25,000.
If the barrel has been shortened, it’s been restored to full length along with the forearm wood.
If changed to percussion, it’s been reconverted back to flint.
If its missing wood at the toe of the stock, between the lock and tang, or sizeable splinters knocked out of the forearm, etc, they’ve all been repaired.
If it’s missing some original inlays, they’ve been replaced.
And if the lock, or trigger guard has been lost, they’ve been replaced too.
But, if the finish is a bit tattered, it hasn’t been stripped and refinished, but instead just some concoction rubbed into the wood to help return it to a degree of life.
And I’d say my imaginary gun isn’t unusual, because I’d guess that about 95% of guns in this price range have had whatever needs fixing, fixed.

On your flip-side question, I’ve seen only a couple of pristine guns in my imaginary guns price range, but being pristine, they are now priced at $30/35K, or more.  For those wanting to see an example of what looks like a very pristine rifle, see the latest Beyer posted in the Library section.

I too agree that honest restoration is a worthwhile endeavor. And while I respect the purest view that nothing should be done to an old beat up gun because that's its history and lot in life, fact of the matter is that most guys buying pricy guns expect a gun that looks the part, and not something held together with bailing wire, tape or rubber bands.

However that’s not to say that same guy finding a good gun needing work won’t buy it. Because he will. At a discounted price. Then have it restored!

A quick look in the books shows very few beat up rifles. Believe me, those in nice condition didn't all come down through time in that condition! 

If this topic catches you’ll likely get some good answers, so I’ll get a bag of popcorn.

John

[jwh1947]

I'm with you entirely.  Wayne

[projeeper]

another thought on this, a young man heads west and settles in kentucky he brings with him a haines rifle that belonged to granddad so over the years this rifle fought a war, took a lot of table food, fended off indians.
 so young man finds a bit of fortune and decides to have granddads rifle spruced up new fangled patchbox,rifling recut, stock cleaned and the carving sharpened.
 so now young man has a haines that was worked on by lets say another famous maker whom can be indentifed by the patchbox.
 how would one rate a rifle such as this and has anyone come across anything of this nature?

[JTR]

Projeeper,
I'm sure it's been done lots of times.
Two for example, A Henry Albright rifle restocked by John Amos in the Bedford style. Used all of Albrights parts including the signed barrel.
Another Albright restocked by Lenord Reedy. Again used all the Albright parts, but nicely carved in Reedy's style. I think the Albright/Reedy sold for less than 10K, which is a good bit less than what an all Albright or all Reedy rifle would sell for.
John

[jwh1947]

Yes, not uncommon.  Incidentally, what about this phenomenon you bring up of "enhancing" carving, or "recutting" carving?  To me, that sounds like dirty business.  Now we have rifles showing 200 years of age with crisp carving, inconsistent with the rest of the package.   On a worn gun, I expect to see fainter incised work. 

I guess we can debate apples and oranges all day, but on the automobile analogy, I see a difference in kind, not degree, on changing, say, a factory quarter panel and painting it to match, as compared with replacing 3 feet of wood on a rifle.  It is only my opinion and anyone is certainly entitled to see it otherwise.  Maybe it's just because cars are no big deal to me and I am not as picky or analytical about them. 

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the buyer needs to be aware of restoration and the effects it is going to have on value, prior to sinking money into a piece.  Then there should be no issue. It does come to pass that buyers occasionally find out about major work after they become the owner.  It is bad for all of us when this happens, regardless of the fact that the buyer's lack of awareness was to blame.  OK, OK, Wall Steet types, let me pick your brain-- if it wouldn't be for the easily duped little fish, the grifters couldn't unload their bad paper. 

 Cars never charged me up like guns do, but I live 10 miles from Hershey, home of the nation's premier antique auto club and show.  There are unrestored autos in these parts, with original paint, from Packards to Corvettes.  Yes, they are exponentially more costly than their refurbished counterparts, and quite scarce, well under 5% of the total of show cars. 

By the way, I've mentioned this before.  The KRA has officially approved "Bills of Sale" that are furnished free of charge, the intent of which is to document exactly what a piece is and what it looks like, sale price optional, identifying marks, provenance, restoration, etc.  What amazes me is how infrequently they are utilized.  Those of you who ask "who cares?" might be on target; apparently, a lot of people don't. 

[T*O*F]

I see a difference in kind, not degree, on changing, say, a factory quarter panel and painting it to match, as compared with replacing 3 feet of wood on a rifle.

The difference between guns and cars is that cars are produced by manufacturers and are not one-of-a-kind.  Production details are readily available down to the minutest detail.  NOS or used parts are available so when a car is restored, it is as new.

Most things on guns are hand-made and without any production details.  One cannot restore a gun to original condition.

[JTR]

Wayne,
I'll beat that dead horse a little more, and agree with you that restoration needs to be pointed out.
It seems that back in the olden days of restoration (I wasn't around then), that it was easier to spot. Joints where wood was added generally weren't done perfectly, and if a piece of wood was added to the forearm, often times, there was a long piece of cloth of some sort glued into the barrel channel to help hold everything together. Obviously glue wasn't as strong as what's available today.

A high quality restoration today generally has near invisible joints, and probably more care with the correct grain structure and orientation of the wood used for additions. Also, casting of original lock parts help make it easier for reconversions than trying to file or forge the parts yourself. And today, you better use the right parts and don't make an English/German flintlock during a reconversion.

And there's a lot more information available and pictures today.

All of the above, and more, make it much more difficult to detect the work of a skilled restorer, although a careful and learned eye can generally pick out most of it. The problem comes when someone inexperienced gets hooked into paying the price of an untouched gun, for one with considerable restoration. However that's not to say that finely restored guns can't sell for a lot of money, because they do!

I would guess that with some of the grandest makers guns, only a handful, a few, have made it down through time in anywhere pristine condition. And unless you have deep deep pockets, And someone willing to part with a pristine gun, if you want one of that makes guns you're going to have to buy a restored piece.

Personally I have no problem with restored guns, if done well. And I appreciate the dealer that points out the work. And I appreciate the dealer less, that makes me look for the work myself!

In the hierarchy of things, the guns being of equal grade, the untouched original will obviously sell for the biggest buck, a restored gun second, and the same gun in clunker unrestored condition the least. And at least this gives a guy with less than deep pockets a chance to buy a big name maker gun.

And, generally the reason for restoring a gun is sort of twofold. The work can strenghten the gun and make it more presentable, insuring that it will be around for many more years. And it can also increase the value.
I know some guys say the value of a rifle has nothing to do with the collecting of it, but if you ask that same guy to let you take home that fine Dickert he has hanging on his wall, all you're going to get is a smile. Offer him a hundred bucks for the same gun, and all you'll get is the same smile. So value doesn't matter, except it does.

Having spent my .02,
John

[Karl Kunkel]

I'm no collector, and not all that knowledgeble, but I would have thought an Albright restocked by Reedy would have commanded a higher price just due to it's uniqueness and history.