One more kick on the dead horse of restoration/fakery

[JHeath]

Suppose I'm cleaning my garage. I find an old barrel that came from a barn, a lock that came from an antique store, a battered stock I bought cheap at a gun show. With minimal fitting I assemble them into a complete rifle. Is that forgery? I don't think so.

If I understand the scenario you've laid out correctly, then I'd disagree quite strongly.  Taking multiple dissimilar antique components and making a "new" piece, a piece composed of pieces of various other pieces, would very definitely be considered a forgery by most antique arm collectors.  There are MANY arms 'out there' that were assembled in this manner, primarily through the first three quarters of the 20th century, and many of them now have 50+ years of genuine age added atop preexisting component age as well as 'assisted' age.  Generally, this is considered by most (at least most that I know) as forgery.

Perhaps I am not understanding your scenario clearly?

Sincerely, Curly.

In law, forgery requires “an intent to deceive.” Suppose in my scenario there is no intent to deceive. I’ve got antique parts. Am I obliged to not use them? They can sit in the corner of my garage and that’s the end of the line for them?

Say I assemble them making no effort to conceal their nature. I’ve got a long pre-revolution fowler barrel, an early SMR stock, and an Enfield musket lock. Still a forgery?

[Eric Kettenburg]

I'm not looking at it from the perspective of a legal definition.  No, what you described would most likely not fit the legal definition of a forgery.  I am viewing it from the perceived perspective of a community of collectors who I am fairly certain would entertain your scenario in a very negative light.  And this is coming from a guy who builds a lot of 'new fakes!'

It's a murky topic.  There have been many 'new' pieces in the 20th century stocked up by hobbyists using old barrels or old locks, or some various old parts, and usually they have been viewed as quite harmless because - to be blunt - they were fairly blatant and many not particularly accurate within a historical context.  Many are just plain bad.  But there are indeed some good ones out there, and I have known a number of pieces that have been represented as antiques when they very definitely are not, at least not within the definition used by most antique arms collectors (i.e. a piece stocked up in the 1940s or 1950s might be technically an antique, but...)

[Buck]

I would opine no - as long as you do not present it or sell it as authentic / antique etc. For whatever my opinion is worth.

Buck

[Dale Halterman]

Problem is that the guy you sell it to may try to pass it off as authentic when he sells it. I'm with Eric on this one. I would sell those original parts to someone who restores antiques.

Dale H

[utseabee]

I have absolutely no problem restoring a rifle be as close as possible to how it was originally built. Embellishing an old rifle to make it something it never was is a different story.

[JHeath]

I'm not looking at it from the perspective of a legal definition.  No, what you described would most likely not fit the legal definition of a forgery.  I am viewing it from the perceived perspective of a community of collectors who I am fairly certain would entertain your scenario in a very negative light.  And this is coming from a guy who builds a lot of 'new fakes!'

It's a murky topic.  There have been many 'new' pieces in the 20th century stocked up by hobbyists using old barrels or old locks, or some various old parts, and usually they have been viewed as quite harmless because - to be blunt - they were fairly blatant and many not particularly accurate within a historical context.  Many are just plain bad.  But there are indeed some good ones out there, and I have known a number of pieces that have been represented as antiques when they very definitely are not, at least not within the definition used by most antique arms collectors (i.e. a piece stocked up in the 1940s or 1950s might be technically an antique, but...)

I agree a builder/restorer who “reasonably foresees” that his work could be mistaken for original has a moral obligation to mark it.

“Reasonably foresees” is another legal term that makes one responsible for an outcome. It applies to negligence.

I would argue that a builder who does not mark work he knows, or should know, could later be mistaken as original, is *negligent*.

But calling it “forgery” is in my opinion an abuse of the term forgery. If a dealer sells a piece labeled simply “unmarked” and makes no other representation, I doubt you can prosecute or sue him for forgery.

I have an unmarked halfstock flint “Hawken” bought from TOW. Maybe I am not bright, and yesterday someone told me that it was not built by J&S. My bad, not the builder’s or TOW’s.

There’s no threshold for “forgery” by the definition you tell me collectors use. There are countless exceptions, and everybody would agree that one defining element of an exception is lack of intent. If TOW deliberately sold my rifle as a J&S, it would be “fraud”, not forgery.

In fact a lot of new guns for sale are labeled “Lancaster rifle” or “Virginia” or Hawken etc because the buyer should reasonably know they are not originals.

Half the violins in the world say “Stradivarius” on the label with no other info. In the violin world
that’s not a forgery. It just means the violin was modeled after a Stradivari. The buyer is supposed to know that. I know of a luthier asked to repair a violin with a Stradivari label. He looked at it, got a strange feeling, looked more closely and realized it was actually a Stradivari! The owner did not know it was genuine.

 A gun *intended* to be passed off as something other than what it is, is a forgery. But without intent, I would say it’s just negligence of a moral duty.

[JHeath]

Problem is that the guy you sell it to may try to pass it off as authentic when he sells it. I'm with Eric on this one. I would sell those original parts to someone who restores antiques.

Dale H

That makes no sense to me at all. I can’t use the barrel for anything because that’s “forgery”? But I can sell it to a guy who will install it on and old gun and sell the gun? So basically you want me to sell it to a forger?

[smokinbuck]

This has been a most informative read. Years ago I was involved with a staged incident that shows even the experts can be fooled. No names will be mentioned, or location. A friend new that a big time collector was going to set up at a local show and what he would be looking for. The friend put together a civil war pistol, the collector's specialty, and marked it in a way that made it identifiable for what it was. The collector did find and buy the pistol, for some big bucks and went away very happy. Before the end of the show my friend sent another fellow over to buy the pistol which he found was not available. My friend then went to the collector's table and informed him it was a fake and laid his money on the table. The collector continued to believe the pistol was right until my friend described then showed him the markings. The expert collector took his money and left without saying thank you.

[BradBrownBess]

Just my 2 cents. Unfortunately the standard in the relics and arms business is "don't ask don't tell". There are many, many down right crooks who will pass off a complete fake knowing it's a fake in a minute without notice or an ounce of remorse - those people probably make up a small portion - less than 5% of "dealers". Then there are many, many people who will simply buy and sell for profit even if they know something is wrong or replaced (even if they replaced it) - they don't mention it - I would venture to say 50% or maybe more "dealer/collectors" would do that - their mind set is "if he does not know then it does not matter, he is happy its all fantasy anyway". I would say now at this point in time there are 85% true "dealers" with web sites, etc that spend no more than 5 minutes looking over a piece before sale - they just say 3 day review and return - as a matter of fact most dealers are consigners and don't own the pieces. Auctions - none do a decent job anymore - NONE. They simply take the consigners word and sell the piece as described. There are more, and more, and more fakes (really good fakes) coming on the market now than ever before. This is all arms and militaria and other collectibles. Coins are another bad one - a slab means ZERO now - gold has to be tested chemically. The Balkan States, China, and India have old growth wood, old parts, and thousands of years of metal and wood working trades. Now they also have the internet.
I would say be very, very, very careful buying anything in the arms/relics market unless you can examine it in hand in great light, under heavy magnification, bore scope it, UV black light, etc. Copies and fakes are so good now that very few "experts" could tell without a complete disassembly of a gun. Its a shame because its affecting collecting interest and prices. As far as a forgery goes - legal wise - its almost moot - to prove a person completely mocked up a gun, and purposely sold it to another with the sole intent for stealing their money - would be tough at best. Not to mention it would cost thousands or 10's of thousands to get through court and try to get money back. The crook would say "I had no idea it was not real" - hard to prove that. Last piece of my 2 cents - "Buy the gun not the story - no matter what the story is - its a story - a tall tale - maybe true maybe not - but without ironclad provenance its not true". Just came from a big Civil War show where I saw a good piece go to three different booths - by the 3rd booth its was a "GREAT piece with more than triple the price tag". I saw more bad fakes this year than every before!
   I just had to return a Wheel Lock circa 1690 - it was a Victorian repop - Rock Island sold a huge group of them several years ago and they are all in the market being sold as the real deal - I think people don't bother to take off the lock - scope the bore - examine the wood under proper light. They get em and flip em. Caused me a $#*! of a lot of head ache though I did get my money back. All I had to do was pop the lock to see it was a complete gutted fake - decorative item - sold at 8K dollars.
Long story - don't worry about defining forgery - just use every single tool you can NOT to buy one. Better to not have the gun you want than to have the gun you don't want. Use this sage advise "its completely fake until you prove every piece is real - if you get a gut feeling something isn't right walk away".

[Pukka Bundook]

Thought provoking thread.

May I add into this, It may also depend where in the world you live, as what is acceptable differs quite a lot.
Back in the UK, many antique guns are purchased for use, whereas there appears more of a reverence for old arms over here, and they remain on the wall.
It is quite clear that an arm being used regularly, will require more upkeep  than one on display.

This goes into re-browning barrels as well. Quite the accepted practice over there.

I think D Pharris is close to how many of us see it, but perspectives Do differ on acceptable practice.

Example,
I have always wanted a Griffin Fowling piece, and never been able to afford one, so made one.  (Not up to the same standard by any means, as Benjamin or Joseph!!)
Lock is engraved Griffin, and address on the barrel.
No false proofs, and the date I made it in  Roman numerals on the trigger guard.  Chambers lock, marked below Getz barrel, and a plain maple stock.

Is this a forgery?

Also I have a Blunderbuss that seems to me made of parts, from 1690 to 1740.   I have sat on that one for years , as I do not know how to proceed with it in an
acceptable manner.
The parts build if it Was made from parts, was likely done in the first half of the 18th century.
(Caracature on the wrist only found in the 1690's according to Keith Niel, married to a 1740's John Hall iron barrel)

Many are the dilemmas.

Richard.

[Daryl]

I'm new too. It seems an ongoing subject and I am sure there is more to say.
Suppose I'm cleaning my garage. I find an old barrel that came from a barn, a lock that came from an antique store, a battered stock I bought cheap at a gun show. With minimal fitting I assemble them into a complete rifle. Is that forgery? I don't think so.

If this "piece" was then sold or attempted to be sold as an "original", 18th or 17th century gun, I wholeheartedly agree with Eric - it's a forgery.

[JHeath]

I'm new too. It seems an ongoing subject and I am sure there is more to say.
Suppose I'm cleaning my garage. I find an old barrel that came from a barn, a lock that came from an antique store, a battered stock I bought cheap at a gun show. With minimal fitting I assemble them into a complete rifle. Is that forgery? I don't think so.

If this "piece" was then sold or attempted to be sold as an "original", 18th or 17th century gun, I wholeheartedly agree with Eric - it's a forgery.

The hypothetical gun is not intended for anybody but me to ever see. I found some old parts in my garage. A pre-rev fowler bbl, an original SMR stock, and an Enfield P53 lock.  According to Eric, if I understand him correctly, I can't put the Enfield lock on an incomplete Enfield, because that would be forging a complete Enfield. I can't put the fowler bbl on an incomplete fowler for the same reason. If I collect parts to assemble on the old SMR stock, I will have forged an entire gun.

It seemed a shame to let the parts just sit there, unusable. So I assembled them into a frankenstein gun. It's obviously not a forged pre-rev fowler, or SMR, or Enfield, and I am not selling it. I shoot beer cans with it, behind the barn, whoop and holler, then hide it in the rafters.

Am I a forger? Eric says yes, if I understand correctly. I think that's ridiculous.

So I die and 80 years later somebody finds and sells it. The listing says "parts gun, date and maker unknown." Do I become a forger then?

A dishonest person then re-sells it as Custer's rifle, to an idiot. Am I then a forger? Or is the seller just a fraud?

I think someone who innocently builds a gun that a knowledgeable person could reasonably mistake for a valuable original, ought to mark it under the barrel at least.

But TOW for example is now selling a "Bedford County rifle" and "Virginia rifle", without saying they are not originals. That does not make the builders forgers. The buyer is supposed to know.

[rich pierce]

Could be a lot worse. Imagine collecting original scrimmed powder horns.

[WadePatton]

Methinks there must be some intent to deceive to qualify as forger.  Maybe y'all have covered that already. Just responding to post a couple notches up.

[JTR]

A couple posts up, sounds like someone had a bad day at the gun show.....
If you're going to do this, knowledge is your safety net! Buyer Beware are the key words.
I had some good luck at gun shows, because sometimes the sellers don't know what they have. Goes both ways....
If you want to see true to the heart stabbing BS, try a high end car auction....

[Eric Kettenburg]

Say I assemble them making no effort to conceal their nature. I’ve got a long pre-revolution fowler barrel, an early SMR stock, and an Enfield musket lock. Still a forgery?

Not guilty of forgery, but certainly guilty of bad taste!   

You are offering a straw man argument because the combination you are now describing is farcical.  Initially, your proposal was:  "I find an old barrel that came from a barn, a lock that came from an antique store, a battered stock I bought cheap at a gun show. With minimal fitting I assemble them into a complete rifle. Is that forgery? I don't think so."

That statement is what initiated my response, and in the general terms you preliminarily described, I could conceive of it as a forgery ***assuming*** that in the general sense that you offered your initial scenario, one would not be mixing and matching components from three distinctly different stages of arms development.  Your more recent, refined scenario would (hopefully) never be considered a forgery because it wouldn't fool anyone!

I also did render a specific note above that I am not speaking in terms of legality; I am only speaking in terms of how collectors may (or may not - I surely can't speak for anyone other than myself) view the assembling of dissimilar components into a complete arm, again ***assuming*** that the components may be compatible within a historical sense.

I do not believe that we are discussing a realm wherein all is clear-cut or in black and white.  Perhaps it might be so, or more so, within the legal realm, but I am offering my own opinion fwiw under the assumption that legality is not under consideration.  I do agree with an above comment that 'intent' likely has a strong bearing on how a piece may be viewed, but at the same time, 'intent' is to my mind often incredibly difficult (maybe impossible?) to ascertain without a clear statement by the person whose actions may be under review.

Possibly we are talking past each other.  Let me offer a scenario - and I can tell you from personal experience, it's a VERY common scenario:

A relic kentucky buttstock turns up, intact up through let's say the forearm.  The lock and sideplate are missing, the barrel is missing, much of the forearm is missing.  Maybe some inlays are missing if there were inlays (people had a tendency to yank silver).  So now someone comes up with an antique lock to fit the mortise well enough, or maybe tweaks out a little woodwork to fit it well, makes a replacement sideplate, finds an antique barrel that fits closely, and fits and subsequently ages up a replacement forearm with pipes and yada yada yada.  And it's all done well - extremely well.  Now what?  I'll not dip my toe into the maelstrom of debate as to whether all that $#@* should have been done in the first place.  It's already done.  Now what?  How should it be represented, and how *will* it be represented?  I would personally say that it should be represented for exactly what it is - a splinter of a buttstock with a pile of added parts!  This representation, however, is in my experience fairly rare and in a number of instances I have found the owners to have no clue whatsoever until I took the piece apart.  A forgery?  Probably not by legal definition I suppose, but it's not something that is going to be fondly viewed.  At least not by me anyway, when one considers that there is more secondary work present than original work.  Again - this is a quite murky realm once "restoration" comes into play.

[rich pierce]

Suppose I'm cleaning my garage. I find an old barrel that came from a barn, a lock that came from an antique store, a battered stock I bought cheap at a gun show. With minimal fitting I assemble them into a complete rifle. Is that forgery? I don't think so.

In my view it is forgery if you market it as all original and built in the timeframe of the barrel.

I’ve got several original locks and barrels I’ll be using in builds but won’t be marketing the finished guns as original antiques. And they will be marked with my mark.

[Eric Kettenburg]

Rich you summed up my viewpoint with a dramatically lower word count.  Exactly.

[JHeath]

Eric — we’re not talking past each other at all. We’re converging.

The frankenstein gun is not a straw man. It is a _reductio ad absurdum_. It tells us there is a threshold somewhere and that the real question is specifically what defines the threshold.

It’s a serious mistake I think to cheaply throw around the word “forgery.” It’s misleading, clouds the issue, and invites a defamation suit.

If I build a ridiculous fake and try to sell it as authentic, I think we agree that is forgery. And fraud. It doesn’t matter what parts or how unconvincing, intent makes it a forgery.

If I hand-build a first-class traditional longrifle, engrave  “J. HEATH” on the barrel, and offer it for sale, that’s not a forgery. We see those for sale on TOW every day, labeled “Bedford County rifle” or Bucks County etc. even if I built it in Yamhill County, OR. Still, most would say the gun is not pretending to be anything other than what it is, a contemporary rifle.

But if someone re-sells that rifle as a mint original, that’s “fraud”, without forgery.

The cases you are concerned with I think fall into two categories. One is the forger who has intent. He creates something with the intent, or reasonable expectation, that people will overvalue it.

The other category is the interesting one. It’s called “The Ship of Theseus.” A preserved ship is repaired over the years, one plank at a time, until zero original wood remains. Is it still the original ship? Iirc,  _USS Constitution_ has 15% of the original wood. If it were a longrifle, it would be a forgery I guess.

This thread brought up an interesting quandry. There are many old parts floating around. Is it “forgery” to ever reuse them? If I stock an original Ketland and salvaged barrel, is that “permissible”? If I acquire an antique longrifle with the barrel missing is there any circumstance under which I can fit another? Or do we just hang parts and incomplete originals on the wall?

How incomplete? If the trigger guard is missing? Or just the trigger guard screw? What is the threshold? If we don’t all agree then “forgery” is an inappropriate word. “Forgery” is a direct accusation of dishonest intent.

[JHeath]

Suppose I'm cleaning my garage. I find an old barrel that came from a barn, a lock that came from an antique store, a battered stock I bought cheap at a gun show. With minimal fitting I assemble them into a complete rifle. Is that forgery? I don't think so.

In my view it is forgery if you market it as all original and built in the timeframe of the barrel.

I’ve got several original locks and barrels I’ll be using in builds but won’t be marketing the finished guns as original antiques. And they will be marked with my mark.

If the maker does it, then it is forgery. If a later seller does it, then it is *not* forgery. It is fraud.

[T.C.Albert]

Though probably not possible, its too bad we can't actually codify a set of recognizable established rules to define all of this? It seems apparent that some kind of standardization or check list scoring system might be useful. The first case scenario of adding an old barrel and an old lock to an old stock sounds like what some may call a restoration. Especially  if the stock were attributable to a specific rare school or famous maker. Reconverting a lock on a rifle that some might argue "may" never have flint to begin with sounds like it might qualify as a forgery, but then for that matter wouldn't any other undisclosed restoration as well? Where does it end? Where does it even begin? Is it simply just foolish to assume that any old gun in good shape hasn't been messed with somehow, and the more valuable it is the more likely that is to be true? Are legal and ethical always the same thing, does intent out weigh ignorance? How do things like provenance and attribution fit in? is buyer beware the best we can do? Great topic and much to think about.
Tim A

[HIB]

Gentlemen and Molly,      Talk about old posts and excellent opinions.  I am the 'Henry' referred to in several of Wayne's old 2010 posts.  The opinion he suggests is related to a 25 year old purchase from a well known collector who basically saw a new opportunity enter the room. I have not communicated with that individual since.  If we find ourselves in the same room, I ignore him.  Actually, the experience worked in my favor when one considers the basic overall value to what I call today; education.

Wayne was correct, in 2010, when he indicated the 'old guard' knows where the good stuff is, however, many of the old guard are now sharing conversation with the original gunsmiths as they sit on a cloud.  It is the new collector who is vulnerable. And they need to pick their mentors carefully.  And they need to equip themselves with the tools required in todays market: formal bills of sale, contracts, black lights, x-rays and reputation. Possibly, the ALR BOD will consider a standard contract like the KRA.

I have always said to any new ALR member or aspiring collector regarding any one dealer in particular: "He never screwed me, unless I let him" !!!   I am responsible for my mistakes, even the first one !    HIB

[spgordon]

If the maker does it, then it is forgery. If a later seller does it, then it is *not* forgery. It is fraud.

Is there anybody who doesn't agree with this?

[spgordon]

If the maker does it, then it is forgery. If a later seller does it, then it is *not* forgery. It is fraud.

Is there anybody who doesn't agree with this?

My point is: at this point, we're talking about a matter of terminology. Nobody seems to be disagreeing in their assessments of "the thing itself."

[rich pierce]

“Work done” on an original is another quandary for not only the collector but today’s builder who attempts to research a build carefully. I’m less concerned with a reconversion to flintlock than an assumption that this old SMR from 1840-1860 was flintlock to begin with and this deserves “reconversion”.  I believe I see a lot of those. Guns with deeeep crescent buttplates about an inch and a quarter wide that are “flintlocks”.  Of course it could be in some cases and sellers tell ya, “they hung on to the flintlocks longer back in the hills.” I’m guessing being flintlock boosts the selling price of an original SMR by 50% minimum.

A lot (30%? more?) of fullstock golden age rifles were cut to halfstock when converted to percussion during their working life. Restoration of the forestock from the entry thimble forward has often been done as a normal part of the restoration. Then some builder wants to know what the nosecap on a such and such rifle from 1790 looked like and what’s pictured in the books is the restorer’s best guess, possibly based on school or another previously restored gun.

I fully understand an owner wanting the work done and trusting a restorer’s inclinations, and a restorer respecting the owner’s wishes. It’s their gun. For now.