Wayne,
I must have missed this earlier, but I think your ‘just for fun’ post is quite interesting, and I noticed the two sets of pictures many moons ago when your book came out.
I think this rifle is a great example of what can be achieved with an excellent restoration, but at the same time, would have been a excellent example of a rifle that should have just been kept as found.
As Shumway pointed out, the gun as found had everything necessary for the student to study, so from that standpoint, the rifle needed nothing. Beat to $#*! as it was, it still had all the important elements intact, as well as what was possibly some of its original finish.
As restored, it certainly ‘shows’ much better, and to most collectors will be more highly appreciated. And if you look closely, you’ll see that the restorer left all the nicks, scratches and blemishes, and only added to the rifle what was missing. I’ve never seen this rifle in person but hope to someday, and would bet that if you looked closely the original finish is still there under the restorers work.
So is the rifle better in this restored condition?
Or should it have been left as found?
Personally I don’t know, as I see merits in both conditions.
John
PS. As far as I know, it's still the only signed example.
