Aging may not be the right answer, but the problem is that some rifles these days run the risk of looking like they were made by a machine, perhaps the natural result of builders spending far more time on modern long rifles than the original builders possibly could have, with better tools, better lighting, and higher expectations for finish. I am not knowledgeable enough to characterize explicitly the difference between high-quality handmade and overdone handmade that is near perfection, but it is pretty obvious when I see it. Yes, rifles in the day were expensive, and to some extent status symbols, but they were first tools, made predominantly by competent craftsmen in the business to support themselves and families, not artists funded by patrons or government. Aging does break up the over-finished surfaces and maddeningly exact symmetry present on some rifles, which may be another reason it is so popular.
Many original rifles were very well made.
There is no reason to do sloppy work today just because some old rifle looks sloppy NOW.
There are Hawken rifles, for example that are now pretty rough. But these, the mountain rifles anyway, were expensive guns, 2-3 times what some made by Leman etc rifle would cost. The ones that survive in good to near new condition show a high degree of craftsmanship. Good inletting, high quality locks, good stock design and lines etc etc. There are guns of the era that are just as good and others that look like they were made by a farrier when he had nothing better to do.
There are people now that work to a standard, there were people then who worked to a standard. There are people then who did not or could not work to a standard and there are people today in the same class.
There are modern guns out there by highly rated makers that look like $#@*. Why? Because they did not simply say I screwed up and throw the stock away. OR they don't recognize the error or figured someone would buy it anyway. Hard to say.
I have cut up and burnt 3 guns I made as a kid. I should not have in maybe 2 cases anyway but I did not like the workmanship. There are others, at least one is signed that are beyond my reach and I would not destroy them now in any case. I have guns I have made recently that I am not thrilled with and one that I goofed a repair on
I make guns to MY standards. I don't make them to Stophel Smith's standards or to John Armstrong's. I make the best gun I can and I learn all the time. I doubt I can replicate Armstrong's best work or carve like Bonewitz often did.
Metal fit. Consider that the changing seasons can change the metal fit in many cases. I moved a Sharps from MT to Sea level and back in a period of 2 years and the fit was loose after a month or two back in the dry air of MT. So a rifle that is 200 years old is unlikely to maintain its wood to metal fit in all areas. So the locks, for example, might be far looser today then when the maker handed it to its new owner.
Then we have RESTOCKED GUNS signed on the barrel by the original maker. Some of these are not too bad, some are nothing like a J Dickert for example, but decent guns with Dickert barrel and hardware in a near Allentown stock layout. Probably made from reclaimed parts from a wrecked gun. Traded in for a serviceable/new rifle or restocked for the owner, no way to know. There are guns with locks replaced, either from wear or from the lock being taken out and lost when the guns was relegated to a kids toy and the parents wanted it disabled. Some of these are more obvious than others and the workmanship varies from a gunsmith carefully putting in a new lock to a collector sticking in something he had handy or found that was "close" of maybe not so close. Then we have "upgrades" done perhaps in the 1920s and 30s to make the gun fit what the collector/new owner wanted or thought was "correct" and/or to make it more valuable.
So when a poorly made gun is encountered especially when some of the work is really classy and some does not quite seem to fit in design or execution one really needs to ask "how come?". Was it all done by the same hand or was the carving or inlays expounded upon at some later date? Was it poorly done restoration of missing parts or enhancement?
Did someone amuse himself with a penknife and did some "background" for the carving in 1880 when the rifle was thought to have no value? The possibilities are nearly endless. Did parts of the back ground subside over the centuries and leave the surface with a ripple or two?
And PLEASE collectors do not take OFFENSE. We KNOW things were done in the past but when I say "collector" it is not referring to anyone in particular or to say the practice still being carried out today by anyone who posts or reads here or anyone they know.
Dan
