Aging question

[jmforge]

I have a question about aging or antiquing.  What is the purpose and what look are most people going for?  Are they looking to make a rifle that looks like it has been used for 20+ years but cared for or are they looking to make a gun that looks 200 years old?  Same question for accessories.  I see a number of horns, knives, etc. on the blogs that are clearly made to look like surviving examples of VERY old work.  Are such pieces accepted as PC at gatherings?  Just curious.

[Mike Brooks]

Depends on the builder and the customer.
 Keep in mind trade guns in the 18th century only had a life expectancy of 2 to 5 years. So, if you built a trade gun that was smashed and beaten to bits and completely worn out you could be representing a gun two years old.
 It's a part of the artistic expression for me.

[Dphariss]

I cannot give my views on this without people becoming insulted.
Yes there have been "spirited" discussions of this on this forum in the past. Should be in the archives.
All I can say is that from all accounts reputable collectors take a very dim view of antiqued arms.
For good reason I might add.
Dan

[Cory Joe Stewart]

As a horn maker I often struggle with this.  I do stain horns to give them a nice patina, sometimes just to knock the white off.  Horns were stained back in the day, the purpose of which varies.  What I DO NOT do is age a horn and I see a difference.  I also think this goes along with rifles and fowlers.  Giving a nice patina is one thing, but giving it dings??  That is the customers job.  Some modern horn makers are making horns look older than the originals do now. 
I will tell you this.  I can sell a horn faster if it already has a patina to it, and I imagine the same would be with aging, but I still refuse to do it.

Coryjoe

[B.Barker]

Like Mike said it depends. I like ageing my stuff and I have found over the years that it does help selling the item a lot of the time. The collectors of originals do look down at it sometimes. The ones that collect both old and new usually don't. I've met both. Eric Kettenburg is great at aging. I personly don't like to make them look like they are 200 years old. But I do like to make them look well used. Its a personal preferance some people like old looking stuff and some like the bright and shiny new look. I see nothing wrong with either as long as the aged is presented as such and not passed off as original.

[Mike Brooks]

I cannot give my views on this without people becoming insulted.
Yes there have been "spirited" discussions of this on this forum in the past. Should be in the archives.
All I can say is that from all accounts reputable collectors take a very dim view of antiqued arms.
For good reason I might add.
Dan

I can see this with beginner level collectors. But, anyone that has been around this stuff for a while can spot a production lock, or the radically tapered and flared barrels we use today. Not to mention the contemporary signature on the top flat. The barrel makers stamps on the bottom flat of the barrel is pretty much a dead give away too.
  Intentionally Antiquing to pass off a contemporary gun as an original for big $ is ethically inexcusable.
 I'm not insulted by this subject, but interested in other people thoughts on how far to go with antiquing. When do you step over the line?

[jmforge]

This is not unique to the ML'er game.  Guitar companies like Gibson and Fender charge extra money for their historical reproduction Les Pauls and Stratocasters for models with "aged finishes".  The thinking is that people would give their eye teeth and firstborn male child for a 1956 Strat or a 1959 Les Paul, but they can't pony up the $50,000-300,000(!) for an original, but that can plop down $2500-$7500 for the new guitar and have the vibe, so to speak.  This is somewhat ironic because there are folks out there that have been faking these classic guitars for years.  When you see adds on Ebay, even for the historical reissues of Gibsons, they buyers obscure the last couple of digits of the serial number in the pictures so that the fakers can't snag an authentic number. Personally, when I was playing guitar, I wanted ones that were built to the specs of the old ones, including the nitro lacquer finish, but that looked like they just came out of the old factories in Kalamazoo or Fullerton. To me when someone, especially someone who plays in public,  buys one of those "aged" guitars, there is at least some thought in their minds that people will think they are "cool" because they are playing a vintage guitar and that is fakery, albeit innocent in the eyes of the law.

[JTR]

As mentioned, there was a fairly lively discussion on this topic earlier this year.

As I said then, as a collector, I don’t disagree with guys aging/antiquing guns/knifes/horns, but if they’re going to do it in a first class manor to replicate an original as closely as possible, I think they should put their name and/or date someplace on the work.

I’ve seen horns and knifes that are so well done that it becomes difficult to tell them from originals, even with the item in hand.
Guns on the other hand are more difficult to pull off in a convincing way, generally due to modern construction techniques ie, meaning that today’s builders make the guns too perfect. However there are a handful of guys that excel in using old time construction techniques and make a very convincing original replica. 

Old wood, on outer surfaces and particularly in the protected areas has a look and texture about it that is very hard to replicate. However this look/texture can be dependent on how and where the gun has been stored. An experienced collector with permission to investigate will likely catch the differences; however a guy new to collecting might well be fooled especially if the item has been constructed with a mixture of old/old style and new parts.

Truth be known, probably just about every collector that has dealt with more than several horns/knifes/guns has been fooled by something at some point.

Self protection when acquiring requires a healthy dose of buyer beware, if it looks too good consider it a fake until proved otherwise, etc, etc.

John   

[B.Barker]

The guys carrying the aged guns and accuoterments I don't think are thinking everyone thinks they are carring vintage hardware.  Did that make any since. They would be walking around with 10's of thousands of dollars of gear. And Mike I like the fowler that was on the blog you did. I think its cool.

[jmforge]

Obviously, the problem of outright fakery is always going to color this discussion, but I was wondering how the uber-PC folks see this?  I haven't been on the forums for long, but I hear people talking about folks chastising them because the buttons on their clothes aren't exactly right or because a particular piece existed in the time period, but no mountain man has ever been shown to have owned one, etc, etc.  How do they react to a gun or accessory that looks like it is 200+ years old, when, in fact, it should look like it is fairly new if you are going for "real" period correctness.
Woo Hoo!!!!! Just hit my 25th post.  Doesn't that mean that I am "official" now?

[B.Barker]

If we used our guns like they did. Our would be purty ugly and rusty in short order.

[T*O*F]

I was wondering how the uber-PC folks see this?

Who cares what they think?  I don't work by committee to please others.  There are always extremists at both ends of the spectrum and those in the middle really don't care otherwise.

 

Just hit my 25th post.  Doesn't that mean that I am "official" now?

That depends on whether you just joined to be able to sell stuff.

[jmforge]

I was wondering how the uber-PC folks see this?

Who cares what they think?  I don't work by committee to please others.  There are always extremists at both ends of the spectrum and those in the middle really don't care otherwise.

 

Just hit my 25th post.  Doesn't that mean that I am "official" now?

That depends on whether you just joined to be able to sell stuff.

Actually I didn't join just to sell stuff and I don't really have anything to sell right now   I guess the thing that raised this question for me was when I saw a rifle that had been aged severely and had been marked with a carved name and other things to look exactly like a particular 200+ year old rifle.  At one level, I can understand wanting to build or own a spot on reproduction of a particularly fine piece.  But, as I stated in my comments about guitars, I'm not sure about taking the next step in making the gun look EXACTLY like the original as it sits today, as opposed to how it looked when it left the maker's shop.

[jerrywh]

I'm with TOF on this one. Who cares? To each his own. If that's what you like , that's great. If someone wants to tie his gun behind a truck and pull it across a gravel road a few miles , that's fine with me. I find that more people resent my high art stuff that the other way around. I just don't care what thay think.  Your always going to have critics no matter what. 

[JTR]

jmforge
  As you can probably already tell, the initial discussion was lively 

And probably no need to go there again.

John

Congrats on your 25 posts.

[jmforge]

jmforge
  As you can probably already tell, the initial discussion was lively 

And probably no need to go there again.

John

Congrats on your 25 posts.

LOL..........Okay..........question answered.

[Mike Brooks]

jmforge
  As you can probably already tell, the initial discussion was lively 

And probably no need to go there again.

John

Congrats on your 25 posts.

Hey, I missed the first time around!

[Pat_Cameron]

I read here a couple of times a day. I forget if I contributed to the first go around. Likely not as I don't post much and try to avoid this type of topic but I do have strong feelings about this one. A long hunter then as now should take care of his equipment. I just can't understand how somebody would damage an item and destroy or damage quality workmanship. It shows an utter lack of respect for his equipment and the craftsman that built it. There is only ONE way to age something. Take the very best care of your rilfe and equipment that you can and in twenty years it should look about five years old. I'll end it here before I get carried away. See ya'll at Dixon's

Pat Cameron

[Don Getz]

When I saw the topic "Aging question?",  right away I thought, this one is for Roger and myself, we can handle this one.
It comes on so naturally, hardly even notice, until one day you suddenly realize that you can't see as well, you're getting
stiff at the wrong places, you get tired, etc.   Let's see, what were we talking about?  Oh yeah, guns.  If you have guys
that will buy them when you make them look old, that's what you do, that is if you're making them to sell.   If you don't
want to sell them, finish them with tru-oil, polish the brass, and you've got a dandy...........Don

[Randall Steffy]

For me this topic can be distilled to one word, Patina. That word has no negative connotation for me. It speaks not of abuse, but rather use and age, and the inevitable wear and tear that the passing years of use must bestow. There is a glow, shading, metal colors and wood tones that are like magic and when these features can be added to a contemporary piece, I smile. We cannot all own the genuine antique, but we should be able to enjoy patina, where appropriate.

To produce a fake is the last thing on my mind, and irreversible evidence of the items true age should be employed to satisfy the conscience that wants no part of fraud.

[Roger Fisher]

For me this topic can be distilled to one word, Patina. That word has no negative connotation for me. It speaks not of abuse, but rather use and age, and the inevitable wear and tear that the passing years of use must bestow. There is a glow, shading, metal colors and wood tones that are like magic and when these features can be added to a contemporary piece, I smile. We cannot all own the genuine antique, but we should be able to enjoy patina, where appropriate.

To produce a fake is the last thing on my mind, and irreversible evidence of the items true age should be employed to satisfy the conscience that wants no part of fraud.

Patina Yeah that's it.  Mine's got plenty of that

[lew wetzel]

i have some insight to this topic.i started out doing historic trekking.all the guys wanted rifles and gear that looked like it was straight off the frontier and made to look like it was used daily and had heavey patina.as i started to build rifles and got turned on to this site i noticed alot of the guns being built were very clean and shiny.collectors pieces.only shot now and then and very well cleaned and stored.a grungy gun and gear fits most of the personnas of the re-enactors and trekkers.most of these are emmulating a longhunter or militia.only landowners and men of esteem owned very nice rifles then and werent shot everday.they had lower grade rifles for that.so for the guy trekking it would look awful silly for him to be carrying a $4,000 rifle when he is portraying a frontiersman or militia.but to build a collectors piece and age it to look like a common mans gun just for the sake of it is silly,unless its a customers rifle and that is what he wants...

[Chuck Burrows]

In one of the earlier duscussion regarding this subject I think Jerry Huddleston and Eric Kettenburg said it better than I ever could - hope they don;t mind me quoting him

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.
-Jerry Huddleston
 
I don't mean any of this in an offensive manner, but you all are assuming that the only customers pinterested 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.   
-Eric Kettenburg

Note in particular the bolded section of Eric's quote

Keep in mind trade guns in the 18th century only had a life expectancy of 2 to 5 years. So, if you built a trade gun that was smashed and beaten to bits and completely worn out you could be representing a gun two years old.
 It's a part of the artistic expression for me.

And Mike here points out a fact that gets lost in thesed discussion - Based on my own personal experience and that of others, it's a "myth-conception" that using a gun or other just several hours a month over several years adds up to the kind of 24/7/36 wear and tear put on much of the original gear........cumulative wear over an extended period of time is seldom the same as when a piece is used extensively everyday - a fact not conjecture........

[KLMoors]

Yup, I agree with Eric's quote.(thanks!) He said it better than I can.

To my eye, two identical rifles built by the same artist, one aged and the other shiny, I MUCH prefer the look of the aged firearm. That's just my taste in such things.

[jmforge]

Yup, I agree with Eric's quote.(thanks!) He said it better than I can.

To my eye, two identical rifles built by the same artist, one aged and the other shiny, I MUCH prefer the look of the aged firearm. That's just my taste in such things.

I guess the burning question is how did that taste develop?  In every other field of collecting that I can think of, including every other type of firearms collecting, given two items of the same type and similar provenance, the one that is in "newer" condition will be more desirable and therefore bring the higher price. The only exception that I can think of would perhaps be in the case of musical instruments, where an extraordinary "road worn player" might bring more than a "closet classic looker" but only if it is bought by a well healed musician who is looking for that Holy Grail tone.  But more often than not, those types of people are no longer the ones buying such items.