Does a contemporary replica devalue the original piece?

[MKemper]

Do you believe that contemporary reproductions of a highly regarded original longrifle may ultimately devalue the "original" piece?  Is there any evidence to suggest this?

[mr. no gold]

No effect that has ever come to my attention. The celebrated Oerter, 'Griffin' rifle has had at least two copies made and that certainly did not prevent the original from bringing the highest known price ever paid for a Kentucky Rifle. Personally, if you have a fine rifle that people desire to copy, that should validate your opinion of your gun. Others likely see it as an exemplary piece that they would like to own, and very probably shoot. It could improve the value some; it certainly will not devalue the original. Just my thoughts.
Dick

[Avlrc]

I would guess it would increase the value. If I knew of an original rifle, makers were copying I would think, "hey that rifle must be important, it must really be something special".  I would want to own the original. 

[Hurricane ( of Virginia)]

The biggest concern is, perhaps, that the reproduction be misrepresented as the original.

[smart dog]

Hi Marvin,
First, let me say that I love and admire your work.  My question is what circumstances motivated you to ask this question?  Did someone suggest to you that copying a valuable gun reduced its appeal and price?  I ask that because I would love to make a copy of some fine gun in a collection, but if there is a notion out there among collectors that doing so reduces the value, I'd like to know that.  Personally, I agree with Dick and Avlrc, but I am not a collector and am ignorant about the dynamics among that group.

dave   

[WElliott]

As a collector, I am in agreement with Dick and Avirc and  am pleased to cooperate with contemporary makers.

[bama]

I participate as both builder and collector and i feel that a contemporary copy increases the value of the original. I think part of the concern for some collectors is some builders can create rifles at a very high level of accuracy. This seems to cause concern for collectors that feel the contemporary may pass as a original at some point. Fakery has been and will always be a part of all types of antiques and those that are more interested in how much a rifle is worth and how much money can be made are the people with the problem. Honesty is the best policy.

[Bill Paton]

A recent case in point came up at a Julia auction last year. A Reading swivel breech got initially advertised as an original after inspection by a knowledgeable collector. Some of us suspected it was a copy (forgery) from the 1960’s that we knew existed but had not located. With the cooperation of the Julia staff, the rifle was disassembled enough to prove it was a copy. The gun then was advertised correctly and sold far below the initial estimate. The owner took a bath, as he thought it was original when he bought it.

The same original from which the forged copy was made was used as a model for another copy made by Wm Buchele in the ’60’s (he was not the forger of the above mentioned rifle).  Buchele made his own embellishments (changed things) and then signed the rifle appropriately. This one is really a contemporary FL not intended to be confused with the original.

These two guns,  inspired by the same fine original, show both extremes of the copying issue. I, too, think a copy is a complement to the original, and should be clearly and permanently identified as such by the maker.

Bill Paton

[E.vonAschwege]

Hey Marvin - it's a good question, but I agree with other members that it doesn't devalue the original, and might even increase its value.  In a way, it's kind of like "marketing" for an original... the more people who want to copy it, the more value it seems to have at auction, especially if it's one of those one-of-a-kind pieces ... or is it the other way around??  

As for reproductions passing as originals... I think most people who spend much time in this field are fairly aware of the market.  My biggest beef is with the less reputable auction houses that don't do their research, are poorly informed, and don't respond to comments when told they are selling something that isn't what they claim.  I've seen dozens of contemporary rifles (really junky ones too) sold at auction as "authentic".  

As an aside, you do wonderful and authentic work, which pays the best tribute to the original makers any collector could ask.  
-Eric

[Feltwad]

Question  what if a top quality original has been restocked.
Feltwad

[smart dog]

Hi Feltwad,
I believe that a restocked gun would sell for less compared to a similar one with the original stock.  However, how that would play if the original gun was reduced to just components and someone put them back in a stock, I do not know.  I think that is likely true even if the restock is very old.  Of course, then we can get into the grey area of how restoration work affects price or not.  I am totally out of my league there.

dave

[Gaeckle]

  I've seen dozens of contemporary rifles (really junky ones too) sold at auction as "authentic".  

True, they are authentic.....authentic junk.

[Mark Elliott]

I have the greatest respect for Wayne as a collector,  and if he says we do no harm with recreations, then we do no harm.  I certainly don't think I harm the market for originals.  Although,  I think it might depend on the sophistication of the collector.   I imagine there have been a number of collectors, maybe even myself, who have bought things that were not what we thought they were; but that speaks more to "restorations" than recreations.

[Hurricane ( of Virginia)]

Contempraory guns made in the 60s are now 50 years old and when used begin to show all the patina and wear expected of a gun made many years before ( pre 1860). Over time they will be greater than 100 years old and almost impossible to identify on casual inspection by a well intended novice  collector unless proprely signed or otherwise marked. As in antique furniture " centennial pieces" made in 1870s  to replicate originals of the 18th century are often very difficult to tell from the originals ( circular saw curf marks after about 1860), particulalry if refinished at some point in its life...they are 140 years old NOW....true 18th C.  pieces are 200- 240 years old....often look the same!
Hurricane

[Mark Elliott]

Really thinking about it,  I think Hurricane has a point.  The HCH requires that members sign/mark and date their horn work.   Perhaps, it should expected practice for all contemporary gun makers to conspicuously sign and date all their work. 
I didn't start signing and dating my work until I had made a good number of guns and was willing to take credit/blame for it.  Those guns were marked on the bottom of the barrel at the breech with my initials an a serial number, but you would have to disassemble the gun to find the marks, and you would have to check the CLA database for trademarks.  I really don't think anyone would mistake my work today for originals, but  I imagine, in 50 years when I am dead and gone,  probably more than a few of those might pass as 19th century work if they are not disassembled and studied by a knowledgable collector.   I can certainly see that as an issue.  However, clearly signing and dating all work should rectify that problem.   We just need make sure that ALL builders, no matter their experience or skill level, understand that they MUST sign and date their work. 

[MKemper]

My initial question addressed the impact of contemporary copies on the value of an original antique firearm.  I certainly don't want to represent this topic in the context of spurious or deceitful copies.  As we all know, many contemporary gunmakers build "their version' of the more popular Golden Age rifles (ie: Verner, Beck, Dickert, etc.).  Looking 50 to 100 years down the road...a well intended novice collector purchases a nicely patina-ed contemporary rifle with the understanding that it is a vintage rifle.  Has this "devalued" the original rifle?  It would certainly seem that any future buyer of the legitimate original rifle would be a seasoned and knowledgeable collector with the ability to discern the difference. 

[WElliott]

Marvin, a similar situation exists in fine art. Some artists seek to imitate and develop their skills while working in an old tradition which gives them pleasure and expression. That is admirable.  Some, however, seek to deceive. The old Masters are not devalued by imitation. But substantial investments in art must be approached with caution and experience. Or, as you well said, "a seasoned and knowledgeable collector with the ability to discern the difference."  Sometimes the seasoning process involves painfully earned experience.

[MKemper]

Thanks Wayne.  As Mark noted, your expert opinion on this matter warrants the highest level of respect.

[Mark Elliott]

I was watching Antique Roadshow last night, and a beautiful Chinese white jade incensor was presented.   It was identified by the appraiser as a 20th century work made in the style of the 18th century.   He was able to discern the difference due to subtle differences in the the quality of the, still excellent,  carving.   The market value was still $50,000 to $70,000 for an early 20th century work.   I guess that should give us sufficient reason to believe that an experienced/expert collector/appraiser  50 years hence should be able to tell the difference between an extraordinary late 18th century work and an extraordinary early 21st century work of ours.   I can only hope that some of my work might someday be worth $50,000 once I am gone; properly recognized and appreciated as a loving 21st century recreation of 18th century work.  I am certain Marv's work will be so appreciated.

You know, it just dawned on me that that incensor was a genuine antique in it's own right, made in the SAME century in which I was born.     
  

[HIB]

Gentlemen, As much as I would like not to comment on this subject I find it most interesting as I have loaned several guns from my original gun collection for 'bench copy' reproductions.

They were presented to the contemporary maker with the understanding they would be marked with modern maker name and date.  I have no problem with this as all have complied with this agreement.

However, there are a number of guns recently offered for sale by a few auction companies that, even told otherwise, have described reproductions or guns with significant restoration as original pieces. So the caveat of 'buyer beware' is as strong, if not stronger, today then when our hobby was considered a gentlemans sport.

I have been a victim, by my own doing, in the past on at least one such rifle. Probably two if I were to own up to it. The price of education!!

However, I would like all of you to understand why I cherish one of my favorite remaining rifles and have lent it out for more than one bench copy. It is a restored piece with at least 12" of the forend replaced and the barreled stretched.  It is unique by the simple fact the restoration is recorded in the barrel channel. Hand written in indelible ink is the date and amount of repair done by Earl Lanning over 30 years ago.

Say what you may about 'Bench Copies' but the real problem is undocumented restoration being passed off as original work.  Just ask Dr. Sirkin. 

I doubt if the rifle mentioned above will ever be sold in my life time, but if and when it is sold it will be done so with full restoration documentation.  It's value has increased 3x by the simple fact it is a classic, I have owned it for 20 years but the major return on investment, for me, is it's desire to be copied by students of the tradition and mysteries of the gun making art. 
HIB





 

[JCKelly]

The Early American Society, Pennsylvania, had some replica Lancaster County rifles made about 1972 or so. They were made with the architecture of Kindig"s #144 John Haga. I provided my Haga for the carving, patchbox & engraving to be photographed.

Good or bad, I doubt that very, very few people today know the EAS ever existed. For that matter, one of your Experts does not even know how to spell Haga. 

I could tell one of the EAS rifles by sight at some distance, because I knew the maker & his excellent work. I'm reasonably sure they were marked appropriately.

A few years ago I saw a fine old original at the MAAC show. Then I read the contemporary maker's name on the barrel. I think a lot of people are and will be fooled. Such is life.

I do not believe that the value of your original will be degraded by the 20th & 21st centuries' concept of how a long rifle should be built. Gaeckle we agree, most likely for different reasons.

This post reads a bit grumpy now, doesn't it? Well, I am retired and long past wanting to pretend I know nothing, in order not to upset some manager or other.

[Molly]

No