While I agree with you on the sniff test, I don’t think it’s any secret to anyone that’s collected old guns or furniture, other than someone just starting out. A newly made patchbox cavity just doesn’t smell the same as a 200 year old one, and that is something to watch out for.
On the other hand, unless you have the connections and bucks to collect totally original guns, the hint of linseed oil, dyes, or browning solutions wouldn’t be all that unusual. And, if you get right down to it, most of the Greatest Rifles have had at least some restoration done to them at some point, although the scent of that work might well be long gone.
Personally, while I have the desire, I just don’t have the bucks to write a check for 35 to 50 thousand dollars for a rifle. But even at that price range, you’re still going to find restoration on the vast majority of guns. Basically, the way I see it, the more expensive the gun is, the more likely it will have had some fixin’ done to it at some point, right up to and including the 100 thousand dollar beauties.
Fortunately for the new, or low level collector, more of the cheapo guns, say $1000 to $3000, seem to be original, since they’re not worth enough money to warrant much restoration.
If on the other hand, if you mean detecting those odors to determine if the gun is a new made fake, there’s lots of other giveaways to a new made fake other than just smell. Besides, any good faker worth his salt is going to remove those odors by burying the gun in a pile of manure or some such thing anyway.
I agree that buying a gun from just a picture can be risky and its well know that not all dealers advertize them with total and complete honesty. However most seem to offer an inspection period, so you have some degree of safety.
As for vetting guns by pictures alone, I assume you’re referring the library here? True, the guys on the library vetting committee only have pictures to go by, and varying amounts of information supplied by the person submitting the pictures. Personally I think they are doing a good job, and doubt that any of them are doing it to make their selves feel good or important. More so, I think most guys frequenting this site appreciate the efforts of those involved to present a wide variety of guns that are otherwise unseen and mostly unpublished. I’m also sure that it’s not a perfect situation, and that some mistakes have, or will be made on some guns. However, the alternative is to just stick with the published books, which, as we all know, are not totally correct either.
Generally I enjoy what you post, if not necessarily agreeing with all of it, and hey, if you’re one of the fortunate few able to collect only original and untouched rifles, why not submit some of them to the library, so we can all enjoy them!
Best Regards,
John
