Degradation or historic items

[Lucky R A]

      In a recent post regarding TIG welding, a member gave some incite and then commented that he was "Sorry that I was degrading a historic item."    I know that we have beat the horse of to restore or not to restore about as much as patch lubes and vinegar stains...BUT.   Since Mr. Kelly feels my efforts are degrading this gun, I would like to give the facts.  Degrading means to move from a higher level to a lower level.  This particular Brown Bess came in with a real hack job of conversion  The nice Dublin Castle marked lock plate was hogged out to accommodate a drum and nipple screwed into the barrel.  From years of neglect the side of the barrel had eroded about half way through the wall.  The lock plate was similarly eroded.  The forend had been crudely chopped off in front of the entry pipe.  Luckily the barrel was not cut back.   The rest of the gun showed similar rough handling and general neglect of over 200 years of life.  NOW, how could this historic item be degraded any further?  The degradation was done by the hacks who crudely converted a proud military weapon into a POS utilitarian shotgun.   At some point degradation can be stopped and restoration begins, i.e. moving to a higher level.   When completed this Bess will again be a flintlock with a full length stock all in proper military order.   It will then be able to evoke thoughts of the battles that it may have fought and the hands that may have held it, all this preserved for the future.   Left untouched this gun may likely have been salvaged for parts or scrapped...Degradation I think not!    Ron.

[T*O*F]

a member gave some incite and then commented

Ron,
Perhaps a Freudian slip there.  He did give some "insight" in his posting, but in doing so he also "incited" a response.

[D. Taylor Sapergia]

Ron, I agree that this work was crying out to be done.  Sounds like you have your hands full on this one.

The commander of the RCMP subdivision stationed here, several years ago, had a Brown Bess that had been in his family since it was issued.  It fought Napoleon at Waterloo.  But it had been converted to percussion by someone during it's working life as a civilian firearm, and the Superintendent wanted it restored, with a bayonette.  I did the work using original cock and bayonette, and cut the pan from a good repro plate.  The job was seamless, and the owner was tickled.
As an aside, when I took the barrel out of the stock, I found that it was white inside the stock, not browned, as the finish on the outer part.  And it had been polished by running it over a grindstone on an angle to the bore, but very evenly done.  The outside of the barrel was smooth though, from two centuries of handling.  I enjoyed that journey.

[JTR]

Like patch lubes and vinegar stains, to each his own.
For those guys that consider restoration a form of mutilation, they shouldn't consider owning one. And they should probably consider quitting looking through all the books showing the great old guns, be they kentucky's, colts, winchesters, sharps, etc, because most of the best have been 'mutilated'.

John

[smart dog]

Hi Ron,
Another key point is that you know what the restored musket should look like.  It is not a case in which you have to infer some artistic quality or design like you might on a long rifle.  Consequently, you are not stamping the gun with your artistic signature.

dave

[Jim Kibler]

This is a general comment and doesn't specifically refer to Ron or his project. 

This subject has been discussed thouroughly in the past, but here are some things that come to mind which may be worth considering.  Of all the "restoration" that has been done on these guns as a whole, my estimation is that most has not been done well.  Sometimes you will see a really good job, but more often than not I see work that wasn't necessarily done well.  This seems to be more common, but not necessarily confined to lower cost guns.  In short so much has been screwed up by people who may mean well, but have no business doing this work.  Once something is screwed up, it's often much more difficult to fix and often much is lost.  It's agrevating and frustrating for sure.  People make many value judgments during a restoration process and sometimes they may not be good ones.  Further what's considered good work today might be looked down upon in years to come.  These are some dangers with restoration. Ask yourself whether restoration as a whole has been largely succesful or has it caused a lot of problems, messed a lot of guns up and resulted in a great deal of history to be lost.


Jim

[Pete G.]

Degarding an historic gun is one thing, upgrading an abused relic is quite another.
The trick is where do you draw the line between the two?
Sometimes it is obvious, other times not so much.

[JTR]

Of all the "restoration" that has been done on these guns as a whole, my estimation is that most has not been done well. 
Ask yourself whether restoration as a whole has been largely succesful or has it caused a lot of problems, messed a lot of guns up and resulted in a great deal of history to be lost.
Jim

There is a good deal of truth in Jim's comment, but it is good to remember that restoration work has been going on for a very long time now. Dillin comments on it in his book, and he wrote the book in 1920ish. Kindig mentions restoration, and supplying the brass for a barrel stretching on a well known gun.

I believe it safe to say that most, if not all the work done years and years ago is no longer up to today’s standards. Plus there are the guys that have done work then, and now, when they shouldn't have. I’m sure guys have looked at restored guns and asked themselves what in the world was the guy thinking, just like I've sometimes looked at a new build gun and wondered why the guy ruined a nice piece of wood to make that thing.

As for destroying history; In the long run, I think not much. In the first place very very few of these guns come down through time with any history attached. In most cases you’ll be lucky to learn the name of the previous owner. Generally speaking, if the gun had any history, it was long ago lost. Some might consider cut back barrels, percussion-ized flintlocks and fullstocks made into halfstocks the guns history, and in a perverse way it is, although that history is a series of detracting modifications done to it taking it away from the way the maker made it.

Plus, most all had a very hard life once they were past their usefulness. Many were just tossed in the trash, given up for metal drives during WW1, given to kids to play with, etc. Those that remain have been beat and abused, broken through the wrist, have had the forearm busted off, had the silver inlays pried out and sold off, and even fewer remain in original as made condition with full length barrels, stocks, and lock ignition.

Chances are with a lot of the guns, if some restoration guy hadn’t done his work on it years ago, a lot more guns would have been scraped, trashed, abused, and completely lost to us nowadays all together.
 
On the other hand, I applaud the guy that refuses to buy any gun that is not totally original, or refuses to own a Model T Ford or a 58 Corvette, or a great masters painting that is not totally and completely original. I’d love to see their collection, small as it might be.

John

[Jim Kibler]

JTR,

When I mentioned "destroying history" I wasn't refering to oral history, stories etc.  I was refering to restoration where original material (wood, metal, finish etc.) has been lost due to poor restoration decisions and practices.  Examples might be replacing a forend instead of fitting pieces to a few existing remains,  creating a convenient but joint instead of fitting material to a break, stripping wood surfaces, buffing and polishing metal surfaces etc.  From this standpoint, my view is that a significant amount has been lost.

As to restoration today being far better than that done in the early years, I'm sure you are correct.  But fifty years from now, will we be disiapointed with what was done today?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against some restoration, but I think it should be done by someone who is competant (not just someone who views himself as competant), and the utmost consideration and care is taken during the process.  Sometimes it is probably necessary, other times it may not so clear.   A significant responsibility comes with all of this.

Jim

[James]

John Bivins wrote that in order to work with every material that had been used to make the guns and to be knowledgeable of all the methods used on them, "a conservator ... would have to develop something like two hundred fifty very specialized skills." [Restoring Antique Firearms, John Bivins] Quite daunting to do right it seems.

[Dave K]

Many guns that if left in the state they ae discovered, will in time crumble to the "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" state. I am firmly and strongly of the opinion and I cannot be made to waiver, that to restore the gun back to the condition it was built, is better than allowing it to go to the point of "ashes to ashes, dust to dust". I am not referring to "hack" jobs, I am referring to "restore". Many people, both those unfamiliar to the word and those that abuse the word, need to read up on what the word means. When people talk about repairs that were wrongfully made in the past to the gun, should remain because that is the history of the gun, should read up on the word restoration as well. Many will say if the gun could talk, it would tell a tale. Well, the gun is talking and it is crying for help, not to be placed in a wretched basement, attic or place that allows decay. The gun and it's maker would approve of a restoration of what they had built and what they once were.

[Jim Kibler]

I understand what those defending restoration are saying.  There are aspects of the topic I find interesting.  Some of this is probably me just wanting to argue a little, but here are some more thoughts... 

I find it interesting how an emotional component enters into some of this.  Here are a few examples from this topic: 

-The gun is talking and crying for help.
-The gun and it's maker would approve of a restoration of what they had built and what they once  were.
-It (the gun) will be able to evoke thoughts of battles it may have fought and the hands that may have held it.

In my view it has nothing to do with the gun or the original maker, but the desires of the current owner.  What they want to see and what makes them feel good and happy.

I would bet rationalization has bee rampant in restoration.  I also wonder how much, perhaps unecessary, restoration has been been done in the name of "stabilization". 

Please don't hate me for these thoughts.  I really do understand the other perspective, but think it's good to try to really understand how this stuff may work.  Plus debate now and then can be fun!


Jim

[Dave K]

Jim,
        I really and truly understand what you are saying. I have been involved with other restorations besides guns. I recognized some of the phrases there were my own, so that is why the response. I have done old cars and motorcycles as well. Many people will say that it is only original once, so they let all the dents and rust remain. If the item is truly close to original and worthy of no restoration, the items almost say it to be left alone. After all, the item is the original paint, etc. that it was built with. Many will not want to restore because of either the money do it right, or it is an effort they do not want to do. But there also comes a time, when you have to say, it didn't leave the builder with all that rust, dents and lack of paint. Then it is time to restore. That is why I mentioned for those to look up the word "restore". It is NOT a do as you please word. It is a word that says to take back as it was when new. Not your interpretation of it what you would like. Using the wrong parts is wrong. Face it, in the case if guns, they were made in a time when things were primitive and there is NO EXCUSE, in not making the parts exactly as they were when the gun was built. As far as leaving the guns for future restoration, that is the call of the owner. I know what I will do with guns that I purchase to restore. I will restore them! If someone wants to stop me, they maybe for sale and you can have it your way,when you own it.

[bgf]

Look at how many guns have locks of the completely wrong type (i.e., Germanic where the original was almost certainly English) due to "restoration".  How many reconversions to flint are really making an early percussion lock into a flintlock ?   How far does one go?  It seems to me that most aficionados are not going to pay for a rifle restored faithfully with varnish brushed on, even if the original had brush marks on the cheek piece...  Do you clean up "signs of wear" on the wood and metal, and when you do so are you eliminating original toolmarks?  Is it better to join existing pieces as obviously as possible, retaining the original materials, or do you just graft on an entire fore end.  If you are unscrupulous do you "restore" a nice percussion halfstock to "late flint fullstock" glory?  I actually think restoration has its place, but "primum non nocere" applies, and thoughtlessly "restoring" a reasonably intact old rifle just because you want it to look as shiny and nice as a new Winchester is almost certainly wrong in terms of preserving history. 

[doug]

     If I could put in a counter point; the gun below was bought for $25 and not worth much more when bought.  The pieces in the photo have been cleaned up a bit.  The second photo is of the gun as it is today and is a display in the local military museum.  Obviously not original but still gives far more of a visual impression of one as issued compared to how it started.
      Sorry about using a cartridge gun, but I am trying to illustrate a point relative to restoration / mutilation.  Minor point but we shot it before putting it on display.

cheers Doug

[Dave K]

It appears as if the word restoration, needs be looked up and that means to restore has to be followed. A new coat of varnish, is not a restoration. That is what I have been attempting to get across in my previous posts. I will continue to restore guns that need it. If they are good as is, they will be left alone. If you are eliminating tool marks, you are not restoring. Changing a half stock to a full stock is not restoring. Please look up the word "restore" or "restoration" in the dictionary and all your concerns will be satisfied. If the person handling the gun does otherwise, it wasn't a restoration.

[bgf]

DaveK,
I think I understand what you are getting at, but my point is how do you know for sure that it is really restoration?  What if in a few hundred years when maybe cars are relics, someone finds an original first year Corvette and doesn't like the "six cylinder truck engine" some hack obviously put in it?  We all know, he might say, that these cars were V-8's; this is obviously the work of a shady restorer!   What if we find a nice Virginia rifle with what looks like a Germanic lock converted to percussion -- do we put an English Flintlock on there because we "know" that is ("in all likelihood") correct?  What if we are wrong -- unless there is a lot of documentation available (and I've never seen any field that likes documentation less), most people won't even think to ask. 

[Jim Kibler]

I would think that anyone doing this type of work should question what they are doing at all times.  A dogmatic closed minded approach might not be best.  Just because someone thinks it, doesn't mean it's right or best.  Titles and word definitions mean little in the scope of things.

[Dave K]

BGF, we are on the same page. Funny you use Corvette as that is what I have restored. Not refinished, restored. When it comes to a gun that has been bastardized by it's changing of ignition, there is NEVER a way to confirm what it's original cock may have been, but we can figure out what it wouldn't have been. We can assume by certain traits of that time period what is correct, but it is NEVER for absolute certain. We can usually tell if the lock plate though is highly probable that it is original by the way it fits the mortise or the style in which it was made, but again never positively the way  it was built. Regardless though, the gun has been altered when it was converted from flint to percussion. So it is no longer original anyhow. I good student of guns, of that period, should be able to take it back to the way it "probably" appeared as built, which may be different than the way it was bastardized. We can only go by certain traits such as the lock plate and the way the pan was removed, the fence altered or the previous frizzen spring attachments. Now, if someone bastardized a '53 Corvette, it is so easy to tell for the student who KNOWS these things. There were no Chevy V8's at that time and there would not be any with a casting date that would fit. Just like in all things, you can place earlier components on a newer object and say it was inventory used up by either the gun builder or the car maker. But you cannot put a percussion lock on a 1790's gun and say it was originally built that way, but you can certainly place a flint lock on a 1860's gun and say it was inventory used up. Again, it comes down to the understanding of the words restore or restoration. Many just don't have a clue of the meaning.

[john schippers]

Hi, I am new to this forum but I have been readind it for quite some time. I worked in the museum field for 35 year, mostly in the conservation and Restoration field. I have also been building muzzle loaders and restoring historic guns for 57 years.I have restored just about every type of artifact that you can think of. There is a big difference between Restoration and conservation. Conservation means save it as it is. Only repair it if it is in harms way and this is how most history museums operate. Museum professionals also differ in what thy think about how to treat artfacts. Living history museums use artifacts Daley and think it is OK, as long as the artifact is not harmed. History museums, would never think of using an artifact to till there story. So who is right. History museums do not think that restoring an artifact is proper. But Living history museums do it all the time. I have work for both types of museums and have developed an opinion that I would like to pass along. If you have a Springfield flint musket that has a broken stock an was converted to percussion, what should you do with it. The first thought is conservation ? well I don't think you have to worry about this. The big museums have already saved several of these muskets in there original state. So their is no need to continue doing so.The pore condition musket that you would like to work on has already been historically damaged. In my opinion go ahead an restore it. If you make a misstack, "so what." Any collector of this type of musket will know if it is right or wrong. If you have restored the gun properly you have made the gun historically correct and that is OK. If you added regimental markings to the gun, That is Dead wrong and it becomes a fake. If you know what the gun should look like go ahead and restor it. If you do not know what it should look like then leave it alone. If you have a gun that has been never seen before and there is no record of what it should look like then leave it along. Know matter what you do to this gun, It will be a fake. I see nuthing wrong with restoring common artifacts that are plentiful. Restoring one of a kind artifacts should be left Alone because there is no information on how it was made and what it should look like.  Most of the museums that I have worked with think about the same way as I do. Just one man's opinion and also food for thought. J.S.

[Dphariss]

I have rebuilt 19th century breechloaders. Rebuilding a junker into a shooter is just that. Its not restoration so to speak. They are rebuilt into shooters. I can buy all the parts I need to rebuild a Wincheser single shot.
But what we have to remember, for example, is that Sharps, for example made about 100000 percussion guns during the Civil War, many survive in mint or near mint condition. THere were a lot of Spencers and Colt Navies, 340000 Colt Pocket models. etc etc. Its apples and oranges.
JP Beck, for example, did not make 100000 long rifles. So they need to be treated with more respect and deserve more careful restoration and it requires more than buying the replacement parts, assembling and ordering a pantographed stock.
Having some experience in both I can tell you its not the same thing by a considerable margin. To the point that using a mass produced breechloader is not even relevant to the discussion.

Dan

[Dphariss]

"Restoration" needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis. How much can be done and how much SHOULD be done? Converting a percussion rifle that may or may not have originally been flint, to flint to make it fit a collection?

<deleted>

I better go to bed before I really get in trouble again...

Dan

[54Bucks]

 Ron based on the facts I would not even entertain the suggestion that you degraded the guns history. Just like any aspect of American longrifles, we all have our personal conjured up ideas of what they were,what they are now, and what they should be. If we actually had the facts about how they started ORIGINALLY, what they actually encountered (use, abuse,neglect, dis-favor,poor maintenance,breaks,repairs,ect.), I'm not sure if anyone's romantic vision of what they should be would remain intact.
 Before anyone flys off the handle about my suggestion that a classic flintlock American longrifle could fall out of favor, consider that the height of a flintlocks value as well as the  builders reputation probably occured in recent times. And it had to survive the percussion era, black powder cartridge era,smokeless, and optics before it achieved the status we give them.
 

[Bill of the 45th]

Good discussion, and I agree that restoration needs to be on a case by case study.  I would point out that there is an alternative in many cases, that allow the gun to stay as an untouched study piece.  That is to have a bench copy  made.  It  gives the owner the pleasure of having a shooter, while maintaining the history untouched.  In some cases there is so little left, or it is so fragile that it may be beyond any true restoration.  Take Rich Pierce's recent find of a kind of a rare Ketland lockplate, cock, and tumbler.  If Rich were to restore it to operation, then build a late (1820's) trade gun, would this be considered a full restoration of the rifle.  Some might say yes, others no, and still others couldn't give a rip one way or the other, they would just enjoy Riche's handiwork.  I think all we can ask is that both owner, and restorer take the time, and make a studied, and educated decision.  So do we lose a study piece, or gain some insight into what it originally was?

Bill

[doug]

     I think many of the posters have made a basic assumption that the piece would still be preserved or continue to exist, if left as found.  I think for a significant number of guns, that is not true or only marginally true.   I have run across a number of guns which approach relic status.  If they were to surface in the estate of a person whose family had no interest in guns, they would stand a very high risk of being tossed in the garbage.  The Spencer rifle that I posted earlier certainly fits that category and such guns are far from being restricted to cartridge guns.  I found a double flint shotgun in terrible disrepair and have seen many fowlers that I felt were just too much work to put back to shooting order.

     I think the point that I am making is that guns that are put into shooting order from very poor condition may not be exact portrayals of how they were made but at least they continue to exist and conceivably could be taken on as a restoration project by some inspired individual in the future.  Guns left as found and which are little more than a pile of rusty scrap parts often end up in the dumpster.

    The criticism made of using the Spencer as an example was that many thousands were made  but in the case of the double flint shotgun I now shoot (occasionally), I suspect it was one of only a few hundred if that many by its maker (Greenwood made in the UK).

cheers Doug