Restoration

[timM]

I am hoping to bait ALR membership into touching on the well worn subject of restoration. The recent thread showing a link to the items offered at auction being my primer. This has been a personal on going struggle for many years with no complete resolution. I find it interesting to see where folks draw the line on acceptable amounts of restoration. I know that this is a topic among collectors with widely varying points of view.  I also understand restoration (some extreme) can be profit driven. With that said maybe some interesting points can still be made with considerations to restoration boundary's and possible exceptions from a collectors/posterity point of view. I know that this is a very broad subject and an easy one to avoid? Still I would love to hear opinions.

A interesting parallel to longrifle collecting and restoration may be oil paint art, consider what is acceptable in that realm.  When collectables get to be near 200 year old or older, modifications, wear, use, and abuse can just be a fact of life. So for me the dilemma can be wether to collect all original mother Hubert or a restored master? Where to draw line as to how much is acceptable in the realm of restoration?   

A month or two ago the editor of "Man at Arms" did a piece on flint reconversions.  The essence of his stand was that anybody who reconverts a lock back to flint is a molestor?  Somehow a flintlock Kentucky rifle just looks so much more pleasing as flintlock.  The exception to that may be an artfully done percussion conversion,(Mr. No Gold's recent post) this I would probably leave alone.   I  know that through the years I have culled certain rifles of merit from my collection with considerations of restoration.  With that said I can also state that I have harbored some regret on a couple of restored pieces I wished I had kept. I guess if I had the resource, I would collect only masterpieces in original condition, but in the mean time the temptation for me is to collect pieces that I could otherwise not afford if it weren't for the items affordability due to the restoration. I think I this is a struggle I personally may never completely come to terms with.

So, again comments please.  Regards tim

p.s. I would have left the rifle with the Christmas tree patch box un-restored.  I have a place on my book case where that butt stock could have lived in honor.

[Hurricane ( of Virginia)]

There is no answer, and yet there are many answers. A first question that comes to mind is do we ever have an unrepaired or unrestored gun....150 plus years old and having served it useful life. Few, if any come with real certification.....only Man made  opinions. A wise old collector once told me that anything "man" has once made, he can even more easily remake today. It seems to me that each individual collector, perhaps in consultation with others, must make a decision on each item. There would be purest , then variations all the way to I am just glad to have an attractive "original" for my collection and visual enjoyment and study. Value again is in the eye of the beholder , owner and buyer. The ability of the restorer and quality of the restoration to approximate the whole original becomes a major factor...to be able to replace with period or reproduction parts, another factor. The rarity of the item, maker, etc.  is an issue to be considered.  Access...many of us are fortunate to frequently have access to potential additions to our collections and thus can wait for a "more original."  Then there is the issue of repair or wear/abuse while in use; clearly this is the history of the piece...should it remain or be put back to the original.

Perhaps the most important issue for many of us is that the documentation of what has been done somehow follow the gun.

Hope I have just begun to add to the controversy. The discussion is a necessary one and all should contribute so we can offer knowledge/opinion to each other and  to those who are new and interested in this American art form.

I would suggest  that individuals contributing opinions pro or con could very constructively guide their comments in relationship to each of the typical aspects of restoration, i.e, locks and conversion, reconversion: wood repair, barrel lengthening, inlays, finish, restocks etc , etc.  and how each can be identified as well . Perhaps even a thread about each could be started. It seems to me that opinions would vary amongst each of the elements as well. It is very important that all the  experts and collectors, particularly those of us with age, should comment here to ensure their opinion is recorded for ever.

[Dave B]

I know that for me I see the loss of any portion of an original rifle as a crime. I have been interested in collecting original long rifles for the last couple of years. My biggest problem is available cash. With that in mind i was only able to afford to buy originals that have some major restoration/repair work needed. the longer a original piece stays in multiple sections the greater the likelyhood they will become further damaged and small bits lost for ever.

My uncle was a gunsmith and because he had a portable tackle shop/camper shell on his truck He was often away from the shop. He had some breakins and lost some guns. The remidy for him was to take them all apart and put the parts in different drawers. No theif wants a broken gun. When he died I had to assemble 30 some odd guns from the parts. What a mess. Some of the parts were never found due to some of the parts being in a unknown storrage unit he refused to pay the fee on. We lost several family heirlooms in that disaster.

My point here is if some one leaves a item looking un loved and in pieces its more likley to get pitched than something that is obviously all complete and solidly in one piece. I have glued back together several pieces to keep them together long enough to restore them down the road when my skills will alow me to do the job properly. I have attempted to always follow the rule that you never do any thing that can't be reversed down the road. To mark the parts that are new so future owners will know they are not original to the piece.

The other issue is to make sure that the parts that are being used are correct for the job. The blessing of the current amount of parts to choose from will help keep the correct bits going back into the correct places on our rifles that need them.

I have a nice French fowler that was poorly converted to percussion and I want to return her to flint. Ron Scott Was nice enough to have his French double gun locks sequestered by Jess Malot at TheRifleShoppe for acouple of years to have them reproduced.
So now I have some parts that are perfect for my restoration job.  They are perfect to fit and contour for what was removed from the original. It deserves to be put back to where she was originally. If it were a nice conversion then I would leave it a lone.

[doug]

     I will start by saying that I collect guns that I can shoot.  Within that context, I just cannot see the value of acquiring or keeping a pile of broken parts, particularly if they can be reassembled into a workable gun.  The only question in my own mind is how much if any to repair a gun which is more or less complete and I think my decision would revolve around scarcity and unique construction which the more rare, the more unique, the less likely I would be to alter it.
      From some of the comments posted in the past of guns that various people have owned and how much they paid or sold them for, I can see that I and they are in two extremely different categories.  I simply cannot afford to buy an original gun in good unrestored condition.  I also cannot see the point in paying big bucks for a gun which has been say 90% restored such as I seem to recall one a while back that started as a butt stock and little else and ultimately sold as a complete rifle for several thousand dollars

cheers Doug

[Feltwad]

There is one golden rule in restoration and that is {If in doubt leave it alone}
The main faults in restoration are recutting checkering, removing the patina and repolishing, buffing up the furniture .I have done restoration for almost 60 years and to me a gun that is 150years plus should look its age and not be overdone to look new  as though it had been just bought of the shelf.
Feltwad

[Majorjoel]

It is of my opinion that " restoration" has saved many a longrifle from the scrap heap of time. Over the years many a gun buff has gone on to his maker leaving his treasures behind to be dealt with by elderly widows and or uninterested\unknowledgeable children. As the many generations that have passed since these rifles were built, the losses have escallated making them the rare valuable artifacts we treasure and hold dear today.  I say "We" here today are a forum of a very small minority of the overall population. We're even a very small minority of the general group of gun enthusiests. It is up to us individually to uphold a strict standard of ethics. These ethics consist of a large number of "do's and don'ts" relating to our revered friend the Pennsylvania Kentucky Rifle. I will start with a couple and hope others here will add to this list and perhaps compile something worth the ink of printing.   1) It is unethical to add signatures to unsigned guns. 2) It is unethical to add parts to a gun that were never there to begin with.....

[mr. no gold]

Capn-You summarize it perfectly! Couldn't agree more with your perspective. Well said!!!
Best-Dick

[Dave B]

Hear, Hear
 I my self have found the conclusion that a rifle had at once been flint lock just based on the fact that the lock that is in the mortice is one that was converted to percussion. I imagine that the savy of the old time smith with a box full of import flint locks would leave them unconverted and buy new percussion locks is krazy. I have seen rifles that were buildt new with a converted flintlock that once had been from a different flitlock rifle. You could tell the forward lock bolt hole in the plate had been filled. However the new rifle it is on has only a single bolt holding the lock inplace. I had a guy tell me that it was flint in the begining. My comment was that the lock certainly was at one time. I will not convert it back to flint be cause its current rifle was percussion from the get go.
I would like to add that the bits and pieces need to be cased or Identified as to what they are in the advent that something happens to the owner it makes sure that they are Identified for what they are and not thrown out with the recylcling.

[gibster]

I have to say that I agree with the above comments.  I am guilty of a couple of reconversions back to flint, but there was no doubt the the rifles were originally flint to begin with.  I no longer own these rifles, but made sure that the new owner knew that they were reconverted back to flint.  As far as replacing wood on a rifle, I think that if it helps secure the rest of the wood from further damage, then go for it.  Also, there are rifles out there that have had wood added that really detracts from the overall appearance because of mismatch of stain, grain pattern and sometimes even the type of wood.  In these cases, the damage is already done, so correcting shoddy workmanship can only help the overall appearance and value of the piece.  These are just my opinion and please take it for what it's worth. 
Gibster

[timM]

My personal views on restoration may be considered some what tolerant.  I am OK with putting a rifle back to its original form with certain exceptions.  I think that restoration should be done with an eye to conservation and originality.

With that said, the biggest problem of restoration is later trying to determine what has been done.  When aspects of restoration flow over into refinish and honest signs of age are wiped out it can be difficult to determine old from new.  Documentation and full disclosure typically doesn't follow a piece for very long, so major restoration needs to be detectable.  It all seems so imperfect, but that is the life I have lived, imperfect.

One other point that seems to crop up connected to anything beyond mild restoration by some is the quickness to label a restored item a pos.  If a item is to be crucified I think it should have the benefit of honest discussion and debate.  This topic certainly supplies plenty of fuel.

Hurricane, thank you for having the fore sight to break this topic down into its various parts.   I hope ALR membership continues to chime in on these topics.  My observation is that there is a unbelievable amount of experience and expertise, not to mention TALENT that frequents this forum.  tim

[Dan Breitenstein]

Everyone has their own preference and definately their own opinion of restoration work. I've taken quite a few rifles back from the brink of extinction myself and always respect the owners choices. I've refused to do a few things that I personally thought weren't ethical. But no matter what you do to restore a rifle, there will be those out there that frown upon it.
One thing that really needs to be addressed on preservation is the fact that stocks dry out and rot. We restorers would have to replace a lot less wood along the way if the owners (the true curators of history) would be brave souls and buy a can of linseed oil. Most of the rifles I work on are virtually naked. Linseed oil doesn't take off the patina, it seals it in place.  So many people look at an old rifle and say "that's the original finish" when the rifle is just dirty and naked. There is no need to shine it up after the oil has dried, just slow down the aging process so our grandchildren can also enjoy these remarkable works of art.

[Blacksmoke]

Having done a number of restorations on old muzzle loaders over the last 30 yrs. or so, I have adhered to one major reason for doing such work and it is this:  If it were not for master craftsmen who were violin makers that did restoration work we would not know the sound of at least one Stradivarius today! Restoration done by a master craftsman and not some back yard hack who puts vise marks on unprotected gun barrels, is worthy of the original maker.  That's my opinion and I am sticking to it!  Hugh Toenjes

[rich pierce]

I'm not a collector but I have noticed some changes over the years.  Now guns in "attic condition" are far more accepted than they would have been in the 1970's.  Back then it seemed all Kentuckies at gun shows were either found in near perfect condition or had been made so.

I don't recall seeing many in Kindig's or RCA that were still percussion, for example.

The point I am trying to make is that standards change over time and now  a more conservative approach may be more common and there may be a greater appreciation for the working history of arms to be visible.  So when we discuss this, we're really talking about what is acceptable or appropriate now.