Understanding Aging

[eagle24]

I think we have a hard time appreciating what even 10 years of regular use will do to a gun.  We might take our guns to the range and shoot them 5, 10, 50 times a year, each time carefully cleaning them, taking them into our dry and clean homes, and oiling them and adding a dab of wax or even finish when needed.  That is very different from the use that many period guns received.

I think this is a very good point, and whether my rifle is one that is was built to look old or built to look brand new, I have a hard time not thoroughly cleaning it and wiping down with a light coat of oil.  Personally, I prefer the rifles that are built to look like they have seen 100 years of use and abuse, and I like the ones that have a slightly softened patina finish, and I like the ones that have dings and dents, and the ones that were built perfect to look brand new, and the originals that really are old.  Guess I span the entire market profile.

[Tim Crosby]

 For three days I have been reading this thread and asking myself why I like the used look...I still don't have the answer and probably never will.
I like the looks of the guns that have been aged right out of the shop but I also like the new look on a rifle  with lots of wire and inlays. I guess I just like the used but not abused look, I am not one to rest the butt on a shoe while loading to keep it out of the dirt, mud, whatever but I do like to keep the insides clean. Once a rifle leaves the shop the shine starts to fade. I sold a fella a rifle years ago the next time I saw it I couldn't believe it was the same rifle, he had polished it so bright you could see your face in it and he had replaced the steel screws that I had put in with brass ones to make it look better....as they say; Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.

Tim C.   

[oakridge]

I like the old look, too. But, it's all in the degree it's done. I want them to look used, but not abused. An old gun that was well cared for. And, from what I've seen, some of you guys are pros at it. Nothing worse than a bad job of aging or antiquing, that looks fake from across the room.

[rich pierce]

Same is true for bad architecture, carving, etc- we all appreciate things well done.  Some are masters at aging and it is an art form like the others.

[tg]

I might add that we really do not know what ythese guns looked like 5 , 10 or 20 years after they were built it probably varied quite a bit due to curcumstances and individuals usage, many use a gun from an earlier period it would look kind of silly to have a brand new French fusil circa 1725 during the F&I, most strive to add a bit of "use" to theri guins and have no intention of haveing them look 200 years old and who is to say that they look 200 years old at any rate,there is no high ground on this one it is a simple matter of choice and interpretation.

[Daryl]

I'm pretty sure when a mountain man, immegrant or free trapper left the Hawken shop (or any other) with a new rifle, it looked like a new rifle - same for those buying from Pennsylvania, Kentucky or Ohio makers.  On a new rifle, that's the look I like, new, but of course, that's been said already and by me.

[Dphariss]

I think people tend to overstate the wear.
This rifle has probably been shot 500 to a 1000 rounds. I don't bother keeping track.
It is in excess on 25 years old though I have only had it since about 1990.
It was stained with a Wampler Chem co stain and sealed with a modern (circa 1980 or before) sealer.
I may have put a light coat of oil on it a time or 2.
You will not that it is not rusty, has no excess wear to the wrist, it has some dings and dent and one pretty good one back at the comb.
Now it has not been carried everyday for 5-10 years but it has been used, has killed one elk and a number of deer, shot in matches etc.
The heat blue on the buttplate and some other parts is well worn in places. It looks used.  This a 1725 gun used in the F&I war (for example) does not HAVE to look like it was drug behind wagon or stored in a pile of horse ****. A 1725 trade gun that was used a lot was likely scrapped in 25 years anyway. These things were basically throwaways once they had rusted bores etc.
My oldest hunting pouch is far older than the rifle and still in better shape than many of the "aged" pouches I see and its been used for weeks on end, been in horse wrecks (one when we went down in a beaver pond and it had 2" of water in it when Freckles and I got back on our feet), been modified etc. Its almost 40 now.
Yes the metal parts likely aged faster. Yes I live in the mountain west where things don't rust as bad as well. But I grew up in Iowa and used some guns pretty hard, broke the wrist on one, but over all firearmes stand up pretty well to use. IF they are made right to begin with. A trade gun, or anything with a thinly varnished stock is going to show finish failure pretty fast I suspect.

Dan

[jerrywh]

My honest opinion.
   The difference in the two theories is actually that of artistic taste, Aging verses  new look,  The same thing applies to the very high art stuff.  It's what appeals to the eye of the beholder.  Some people don't have any autistic love at all and they like the plain guns totally devoid of any decoration. Some people are more artist than gun maker, some the other way around and some inclined to be both.
   For us to try and be all the same is the worst of all options. Most people will find that boredom will force their tastes to change as they age.  Variety is the spice of life, certainly applies here.  As far as I'm concerned to hate one or the other is what is wrong.
 Craftsmanship is different that art. When the two are combined they  appeal to a broader audience.

[Chuck Burrows]

As others have so eloquently said it is a matter of differences in likes and dislikes and that can relate to more business, if that's part of the equation.

I like some others here prefer the used look but has been said before one man's meat is another's poison and in that case I've never quite understood the at times vehement opposition to the aged look - bottom line if you don't like it don't buy it.........

Eric and Jerry - I would very much like to have your permission to quote your two posts on my website and in other venues, giving you due credit........

[jerrywh]

Fine with me.

[Dphariss]

I don't mean any of this in an offensive manner, but you all are assuming that the only customers interested in these rifles are reenactors, people who want to essentially attempt to relive history and/or immerse themselves in a historical milieu.  From this vantage point, of course a heavily-aged gun might seem silly save if one is perhaps recreating the Rev War period and is carrying a 17th century doglock.  However, there exists today an equally large - and rapidly growing - customer base amongst individuals who have absolutely no interest at all in reenacting.  These individuals, in general, are primarily interested in the old antiques as art form and to our eyes in 2008 the 200+ years of patina is an integral part of that art form.  The 'aging' of these antiques hints at a myriad of stories and adventures that to their minds may evoke the same sense of appreciation for the past, really a wistfulness for the past, that a reenactor may feel at Ticonderoga when the sun sinks and a hundred small fires spring up, all the while the low hum of conversation and laughter mingling with smoke to thence drift aimlessly across the fields.  I can only speak for myself when I state, fairly emphatically, that I can not warm up to a shiny new rifle.  My interest has always been antique firearms, whether it be Edward Marshall's rifle (which first impressed itself upon me at age 11) or a fine old Winchester lever gun.  With any old arm, it is the basic fact of its age and antiquity which captures my imagination and my appreciation.  The years of crusty rust browning blanketing the barrel, the evidence of repairs by various unknown individuals lost to the fog of time, the long-faded trail of calloused hands smoothing the wood and rendering it a slick, almost-otherworldly material...  Whether it be a genuine antique or a modern work of fiction, there is often a story waiting to be told; most of us will not live long enough or hard enough to impress our own upon an arm constructed here in 2008.  As a gunbuilder, I very much enjoy 'helping' the story along in a tangible manner.  It would seem, judging by the volume of 'aged' arms which are being now created, that many other individuals also enjoy this particular form of narrative as well.  This is not a new phenomenon:  furniture makers have been throwing chains, rocks and tools at new-made chairs and tables for many years.  Many luthiers are now joining the fray as well, for the skyrocketing prices of antique and more recent 'vintage' instruments have created an entirely new market for more affordable items which nevertheless look equally old.  It would seem that many people, myself included, find solace in opening a familiar, dog-eared book from time to time; as with all old friends, one does not feel obligated to incessantly revisit the first page.   

When you start selling aged guns to collectors the possibility for abuse sky rockets. I do not trust a lot of these in the antique gun  world. Many show a remarkable lake of conscience.
I converted a Sharps Borchardt Military action to a sporter some years back for my own use and to see if I could get the shaping right. Never even thought about the potential.
I kept it and shot it for awhile then sold it to a collector who I knew fairly well and REALLY wanted it. I am (now) SURE he sold it as an original sporter, perhaps after adding an original barrel(?) and it kinda irks me. There is no way to prove this is a military action at this point. Sporter Borchardts are worth a lot more than the military actions.
I already related the story of the "rifle found in a cabin" etc etc. I don't like that much either.

Dan

[Majorjoel]

When it comes to likes and dislikes, I find myself in a changeing mode as I grow older. The more knowledge and experience accumulated over the years has indeed added to the fires of my opinions.  It is almost ironic that some of the styles and designs I once detested are now held high in my minds eye. The art form that these rifles, new and old represent, have given me a new appreciation for all the things I hold close. Aged or shiny bright new, I base my likes and dislikes on an individual basis.

[Eric Kettenburg]

"When you start selling aged guns to collectors the possibility for abuse sky rockets."

When you start selling guns the possibility for abuse sky rockets.  Is that a rationalization any of us would really like to examine?  How is it any different?

[rich pierce]

Some are concerned that aging could contribute to fraud in the collecting business.  That's a little like worrying about corruption in Washington or any other place of government.  It's been going on forever and will go on forever.  People love money so much they will do anything to get more of it. Collecting anything valuable looks fraught with danger to me.  I do appreciate the art of aging arms.  I find the good work as fascinating as other aspects of the craft.  Excellence is always fascinating to me.

This is really only a concern whyen we're talking about high end collector guns.  I note that many originals are available for less money than new, contemporary arms.  Look at prices of percussion double barrel shotguns, plain ordinary plains rifles of the 1850's and 1860's, or generic plain longrifles not yet converted back to flint.  Try to get a maker to build you a nice double shotgun, well made and engraved, for $700, or an Ohio made plains rifle for $1250.  These are available every day online.  If you want an old gun, you can get one, with natural patina in some cases.  Nobody is going to do 100 hours of work on a $1000 gun.  They are more likely to just refinish the dang thing and that will be apparent.

Many of the guns in RCA have "had work done" and a good deal of it is undocumented.  A lot of it was done long ago, but some much more recently.  Those collectors in the know, who have been at it a long time, know that's not the original lock or barrel or forestock etc.  That is all readily accepted.  What concerns some seems to be the gun they know nothing about, that may be new.  But is anybody going to call out Earl Lanning for the Dickert he made and aged so well that he enjoyed teasing some collectors with it?  I don't think so.  If some day 25 years from now someone who is unscrupulous or un-discerning gets  that rifle, could they pass it for a Dickert and get big money for it?  Yes.  Maybe the buyer would be getting their money's worth anyway.

[Dphariss]

Some are concerned that aging could contribute to fraud in the collecting business.  That's a little like worrying about corruption in Washington or any other place of government.  It's been going on forever and will go on forever.  People love money so much they will do anything to get more of it. Collecting anything valuable looks fraught with danger to me.  I do appreciate the art of aging arms.  I find the good work as fascinating as other aspects of the craft.  Excellence is always fascinating to me.

This is really only a concern whyen we're talking about high end collector guns.  I note that many originals are available for less money than new, contemporary arms.  Look at prices of percussion double barrel shotguns, plain ordinary plains rifles of the 1850's and 1860's, or generic plain longrifles not yet converted back to flint.  Try to get a maker to build you a nice double shotgun, well made and engraved, for $700, or an Ohio made plains rifle for $1250.  These are available every day online.  If you want an old gun, you can get one, with natural patina in some cases.  Nobody is going to do 100 hours of work on a $1000 gun.  They are more likely to just refinish the dang thing and that will be apparent.

Many of the guns in RCA have "had work done" and a good deal of it is undocumented.  A lot of it was done long ago, but some much more recently.  Those collectors in the know, who have been at it a long time, know that's not the original lock or barrel or forestock etc.  That is all readily accepted.  What concerns some seems to be the gun they know nothing about, that may be new.  But is anybody going to call out Earl Lanning for the Dickert he made and aged so well that he enjoyed teasing some collectors with it?  I don't think so.  If some day 25 years from now someone who is unscrupulous or un-discerning gets  that rifle, could they pass it for a Dickert and get big money for it?  Yes.  Maybe the buyer would be getting their money's worth anyway.

There is a vast difference between restoring an original and faking one.
This might be the case except for the signed "poor boy" I made in the 60s being "found in a cabin in eastern Kentucky" and two antique dealers telling the buyer it was a rev war gun... Even though it obviously had a modern barrel on it. It sure as $#*! was not a high end gun.
You can dance around this all you want it still has a smell to it.
If YOU were the one hung out to dry by a faked rifle or tea kettle (yeah folks) or knife would YOU be as nonchalant?

Dan

Dan

[Daryl]

[ I am (now) SURE he sold it as an original sporter, perhaps after adding an original barrel(?) and it kinda irks me.    Dan

;
 A gun dealer is trying to do this with a Hochkiss I traded there. It has a Dougass barrel and nice new 1/2 stock.  He says it's a sporter model in 99% condition. Quite valuable - to him.

[rich pierce]

Maybe we should stick to gunbuilding topics here.  I apologize for my philosophize.

[Chuck Burrows]

This might be the case except for the signed "poor boy" I made in the 60s being "found in a cabin in eastern Kentucky" and two antique dealers telling the buyer it was a rev war gun... Even though it obviously had a modern barrel on it. It sure as $#*! was not a high end gun.
You can dance around this all you want it still has a smell to it.
If YOU were the one hung out to dry by a faked rifle or tea kettle (yeah folks) or knife would YOU be as nonchalant?

Dan - you just don't get it. You're own words show how the unscrupulous will take ANYTHING and try to fake it, so how does Eric or anyone else making an aged piece promote that or cause it to smell?
It may make it easier for the unscurpuloous, but not making it won't stop them at all. Heck I've even seen RUGER six guns being sold as "antiques"........

And no I'm not non-chalant at all since I've been on both ends of the stick. I've been "victimized" so to speak both as a buyer and a maker. On the first it was MY FAULT since I was the one who had not studied enought o be taken in by what was to the better educated an obvious fake. As a maker I have had my goods touted as being originals by others, both stuff I had aged and stuff that was sold looking new.
While I believe we as makers have an obligation to help prevent fraud we can only do so much - such as clearly marking our items as being made by whom, when, etc. - personally I also document everything I make with photos, dates, etc., but again that can only be taken so far and it can of course be done in an unobtrustive manner. Frankly ANYONE who starts out buying anything without the proper education is just plain stupid and while I believe that we can and should educate when and where possible, IT IS NOT our obligation to be nannies to those who choose not to study the subject first. The Romans said it many years ago caveat emptor.......

Rich - you have absolutely NO REASON to apologize, it was a well thought out and measured post.......

And Dan - you have the right to your OPINION, but please let's all keep it civil.......border line accusations of any type are not acceptable to this site

[Mike R]

To be honest the whole 'fake' aspect was not on my radar when we started this discussion.  Just naive I guess.  The whole question to me boils down to 'your druthers' on new gun finishes.  For example, Eric, who is an [the?] expert on old gun finishes,  can make a new rifle look as if it was made back in 1775 and has been preserved perfectly as new, or look as if it was used pretty good before being stowed away.  I am sure he could also put on a fine modern finish.  The question in my mind is who are the various potential buyers of these finishes?  An unscrupluous dealer might try to pass off one of Eric's aged masterpieces as original--but the FIRST buyer of Eirc's guns KNOWS what he is buying.  Obviously there are collectors who want the aged look. Perhaps there are some well-heeled reenactors/shooters who desire the aged look as well.  Jack Hubbard, for example, has made a business of selling grunged -up guns to reenactors.  One 'persona' I read wanted a well-worn, abused gun to carry as a 'hand-me-down' from his granddad--so he had one made that way, with saddle wear so bad that the foreend was worn through to expose part of the ramrod.  Parts were badly corroded, broken, dinged.  I cannot imagine paying good money for a junker, but so be it.  I cannot imagine taking one of Bill Shipman's masterpieces, for example, and whacking it with chain, rusting the finish, etc.  I can imagine shooting and carrying it--and getting natural dings and scratches over time....but why would you want to, say, snap the stock and repair it just for looks?   When and if it happens, then repair it and carry it.  Some folks get deep into their personas.  I have heard of people burying their new clothes in the dirt for a week, then digging them up to wear! Its the Scotsman in me, I guess, or maybe my Depression era parents influence, that I can't see such happenings--I try to maintain my belongings as long as possible through good care.  I would be proud if my new rifle still looked new in 25 years! I lament every dent and scratch! 

[Dphariss]

This might be the case except for the signed "poor boy" I made in the 60s being "found in a cabin in eastern Kentucky" and two antique dealers telling the buyer it was a rev war gun... Even though it obviously had a modern barrel on it. It sure as $#*! was not a high end gun.
You can dance around this all you want it still has a smell to it.
If YOU were the one hung out to dry by a faked rifle or tea kettle (yeah folks) or knife would YOU be as nonchalant?

Dan - you just don't get it. You're own words show how the unscrupulous will take ANYTHING and try to fake it, so how does Eric or anyone else making an aged piece promote that or cause it to smell?
It may make it easier for the unscurpuloous, but not making it won't stop them at all. Heck I've even seen RUGER six guns being sold as "antiques"........

And no I'm not non-chalant at all since I've been on both ends of the stick. I've been "victimized" so to speak both as a buyer and a maker. On the first it was MY FAULT since I was the one who had not studied enought o be taken in by what was to the better educated an obvious fake. As a maker I have had my goods touted as being originals by others, both stuff I had aged and stuff that was sold looking new.
While I believe we as makers have an obligation to help prevent fraud we can only do so much - such as clearly marking our items as being made by whom, when, etc. - personally I also document everything I make with photos, dates, etc., but again that can only be taken so far and it can of course be done in an unobtrustive manner. Frankly ANYONE who starts out buying anything without the proper education is just plain stupid and while I believe that we can and should educate when and where possible, IT IS NOT our obligation to be nannies to those who choose not to study the subject first. The Romans said it many years ago caveat emptor.......

Rich - you have absolutely NO REASON to apologize, it was a well thought out and measured post.......

And Dan - you have the right to your OPINION, but please let's all keep it civil.......border line accusations of any type are not acceptable to this site

I accused no one, everything I wrote has happened and I was thinking of specific instances and it does stink. Its is not limited to guns, or MLs.
It never crossed my mind when I modified, which was not antiqued BTW, the Borchardt that I was making a fake. It simply never occurred to me. So I can understand how it can happen.

I never dreamed that the flintlock rifle I made for a friend in the late 60s that was a "new" rifle would later be sold as an original. I found out because it had my name on the barrel and I was contacted by a third party. I do KNOW people who are expert agers who have gotten caught selling faked Sharps rifles created out of parts. I KNOW someone who put himself through college selling faked antiques that he made.

*But I know of no such instances concerning anyone who posts here.*
If I have insulted anyone here or somehow my posts were taken as a personal affront I apologize. But people need to understand that there is a "dark side" to selling antiqued firearms no matter the builders intent.

I UNDERSTAND people wanting to  have gun/equipment that looks used. What I don't understand is why they don't simply USE them.
What I am attempting to point out here is just what you stated, people have to be careful.  The makers as well as the buyers. When someone makes a rifle aged so that it cannot be easily told from an original, signed or not, its just a hare's breath from a fake. Regardless of the original motivation.

I posted as I did to try to point out that not all gunsmiths that do "aging" are doing so to make the gun for some re-enactor. They are doing it for the "trade" to the point of spurious documents.

I know its impossible to prevent.
I know there is a sucker born every minute.
The examples of firearms fakery are endless. Whole factories were in operation in foreign countries making fake Colt revolvers for retail sale, fully marked, in the late 1800s.
From where I stand I see you as not "getting it".
I can't see making it easier by doing all the aging work for the unscrupulous.

Dan

[Acer Saccharum]

From where I stand I see you as not "getting it".
I can't see making it easier by doing all the aging work for the unscrupulous.

Dan

Dan, this seems to me to imply that we don't get it, AND we are providing material for the unscrupulous. I don't appreciate the implications nor the tone. Please keep your posts to a discussion level, and leave the implications out. I consider this a friendly, but serious, warning.

Acer

[Scott Bumpus]

I do not wish to offend anyone here so please take no offense.  The reason i do not want "aging" on my rifle or other gear is that it has no meaning to me.  Let me explain my point.  I shoot a flintlock that i built about 20 years ago. This gun has plenty of age, wear, and tear, that was all put there through use.  When I look at this gun it gives me all the feelings and enjoyment that eric spoke of in his post. This is one of the reasons i enjoy it so much.  All of these "feelings' were put on the gun by me through many hunts and shoots and other fun stuff.  A gun that was aged right after it was built would have none of this for me.  To me it is a little like wearing a medal that you did not earn, the look is there but none of the substance.  Now do not take this as an insult to people who do like such things, as stated before this is AMERICA  and we can have what we want.  I will defend to my death your right to have and enjoy these things!  Sorry to ramble on, this is just my take on the subject.  Everyone have fun and enjoy this great sport!!

[Leatherbelly]

Dan,
  I think you are referring to  the "antique" dealers as being unscrupulous,not the builders. That's how I read your post. I read it thrice,and don't believe your intent was to slam the builders. I think with buying any "antiques" it's buyer beware. Lots of people get sucked in. Dealers in antiques are like car salesmen, they make available what the customer wants. They are not afraid to sell a fake,even if they,the antique dealer has got stiffed on the item. I got to handle a couple of real nice guns that were antiqued, a Hershal House mountain/plains rifle that was most impressive. Dave Rase also had a little thirty-two that I believe he built,ISTBC., that was also very nice. Allan Martin's fowler that Ken Steinhauer owns also looks very old, and very impresive,to say the least.
 I guess I just like the new and used look. And as my guns age with normal wear and tear,I like them more.
 Mods; I don't think Dan meant any harm. If an unscrupulous person buys your gun,how do you know if he is or is not. For that matter,who cares? If the piece is signed,dated etc...well,it don't matter. If it is sold to a sucker as an antique,well,buyer beware.He hasn't done his homework. Vendors can be a tricky lot!

[Leatherbelly]

Words are so so powerfull. Lately I have been trying to abide by the Four Agreements (book written by * Ruis). they are:
1. Be impeccable with your word(s)
2. Never assume.
3.Never take ANYTHING personal.
4.Always do the best you can.

Just try it, the first two agreements are the hardest,but if we try these methods, our words will not offend. Now I can get off my soapbox! Sorry

[Dutch Bill]

I got caught up in some nonsense when I set up my last display at the Gunmaker's Fair.  I had been working on the horn dyes for several years.  Then I set up a big display showing how the basic chemistry and "technology" had been in use since the ancient Romans.  I had dyed horns and dyed fabrics on display with historical backing and the chemistry of the process involving what have become known as mineral pigment dyes.

I caught a lot of flak out of somebody who I found out later was sort of speaking for someone else.  Someone who was indeed  faking old horns and selling them as originals.

At that point I simply dumped the whole project and got out of the horn business and all of the other items I had been making in limited numbers.