Beautiful Restoration Done By Turnbull

[rpenmanparker]

What is it about junk that so many folks won’t let it go. Shotgun houses in New Orleans are another great example. Bad when they were built. Worse now. But just try to tear one down to build attractive, functional housing.

Junk is a kind description of the gun prior to the restoration. Magnificent is the result. Have it your own way, but I will go for better every time.

 

[tark]

Often, in the R.I.A. Auction Co. catalogs, you will see a brand new looking gun. Under the "condition" paragraph it will often say "professionally restored" I'm pretty sure Turnbull is doing the work.

Restoring a gun like that little colt will not make worth as much as an untouched original in like new condition, but it can double and triple its value. Personally, I am against restoring very rare guns, or guns in general that are in excellent shape excepting a little surface wear.

But i have no problem restoring guns like that little colt. I like it a lot more after the work was done. The only problem is..... now it's too pretty to shoot!!!

 

[SunnySlopes]

Restorations are kind of like botox and face lifts. It won't be original and you lose the character.

I don't get any connection between the two. Botoxed and lifted faces are down right scary. Like, Joker in Batman scary.

The gun, oth, is beautiful in both configurations.

 

[22250Rem]

Turnbull has a good article on the "why" questions on restorations on their web site at www.turnbullrestoration.com. Just click on "Restoration Services" and there's a section entitled "Why Restore" that sums it all up nicely IMHO.

 

[Chuck R.]

Chuch R.

Show us your cool Sterlingworth

Not the best pics, but you get the idea:

 

[Zaydok Allen]

That’s beautiful work. I need to save my money for a Turnbull gun.

 

[drk1]

I knew Mr. Turnbull, Sr. and met Jr. a couple of times when he was running in and out of this father's shop. That shop is now long gone, but the company that Jr. now runs is the best there is. I have a luger that I wanted them to restore; a well-known luger dealer, now passed, really screwed up a nice luger trying to create something that didn't exist, so I wanted it put back to the original configuration. No replacement parts needed, but if there were, I explained that I'd be happy to pay. Just name the price for refinishing and some numbers recut. They did them in the past and used to have several posted on their website. We spoke several times several years ago, and I thought we had an understanding, but when I tried to give it to them, they said "we don't do lugers anymore." Talked with them again just today. Again refused to do the work. I keep hoping....

 

[paulsj]

Not the best pics, but you get the idea:

View attachment 830304

View attachment 830305

That is pic of A grade not Sterlingworth.

 

[Heir Kommt Die Sonne]

I used to have a British Bulldog that was in frozen shape that I suppose I should've paid to have them do up. Would've been very interesting to have had them repair it, but the original hammer was missing and was replaced with the hammer of a smaller gun. I eventually traded it for something else.
But the two other guns that I got rid of that I actually do regret, I still would've kept them as is

 

[hso]

I think the earlier reference to restoring cars is a good enough argument and something more of us can understand, but unless there's some significant collectable value to the firearm as it is or sentimental value due to personal characteristics (your grandfather's initials carved into the stock) it comes down to what the owner wants. There's a difference between "bubbaizing" a firearm and a proper restoration to like new condition. Regardless, here's Turnbull's thoughts on restoration vs. preservation.

Turnbull has a good article on the "why" questions on restorations on their web site at www.turnbullrestoration.com. Just click on "Restoration Services" and there's a section entitled "Why Restore" that sums it all up nicely IMHO.

Why Restore?
Preserving an Important Piece of History
The thought of restoring old guns to original condition has long been considered unacceptable. It was believed that tampering with an original gun would detract from its value, even if time and heavy use had taken its toll. It was thought that no one could possibly duplicate the original firearm finishes let alone the quality and craftsmanship of the original guns. Some people considered it a sign of disrespect to disturb the work of the original craftsmen.

When someone asks if restoration will affect the value of the firearm, remind them that The Statue of Liberty, The Washington Monument, The Star Spangled Banner and The Charter of Freedom (Constitution, Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence) have all undergone restoration efforts. Does restoring these pieces of American history diminish their value or significance in our country’s history?

We hope the original gun makers would be proud to see these guns being preserved for future generations. The craftsmen at Turnbull Restoration are dedicated to continuing the great gun making tradition in this country.

 

[Heir Kommt Die Sonne]

Look, restoring a gun that is otherwise in bad shape and making it new again so it may be preserved better and last longer I completely understand and justify.
But most of those guns look like they don't even need to be restored. There is something about the original factory finish and bluing that beats a professional job, even if the 'value' goes up for some people. I once too, thought a gun that is re-blued and restored would immediately add hundreds of dollars of new value to it, but in reality it really doesn't. It makes it more preservable, but not necessarily more collectible. And it's collectibility that's why most people collect these old guns. Most people I know who buy those old guns (myself included) like the original factory job that is often still visible on the gun. Too many times do we see something that was once attempted to be restored, but then neglected even further so now it's in worse shape. Such a shame

 

[rpenmanparker]

Why would you enjoy owning an ugly gun? The only “value” that matters is the value to the owner. I couldn’t care less what someone else thinks a gun of mine is worth. I only care what I think it is worth. And junk isn’t worth much to me, authentic or not. Just because I am looking old doesn’t mean all my stuff has to too.

 

[Heir Kommt Die Sonne]

The guns I collect aren't ugly.. I have a original 1851 that has 'HF' carved into the grips. Why would I 'restore' something that was probably so marked because the pistol was used in the Civil War?
To me, restoring is like refurbishing so the personality given to it by it's original owner isn't apparent anymore. Which is fine, if that's what you want to do. But why ought I to make my stuff look new just because I am young too?

 

[Chuck R.]

That is pic of A grade not Sterlingworth.

Yup I know, read my original post....was a Sterlingworth that I had "upgraded".

 

[rpenmanparker]

The guns I collect aren't ugly.. I have a original 1851 that has 'HF' carved into the grips. Why would I 'restore' something that was probably so marked because the pistol was used in the Civil War?
To me, restoring is like refurbishing so the personality given to it by it's original owner isn't apparent anymore. Which is fine, if that's what you want to do. But why ought I to make my stuff look new just because I am young too?

No reason at all. You and I should go our own ways. I should have said YMMV. I will say, however, if you use the concept of restoration rather than refurbishment for this activity, it gets more at bringing back the original character. But in any case, “to thine own self be true”.

 

[Heir Kommt Die Sonne]

I will say, however, if you use the concept of restoration rather than refurbishment for this activity, it gets more at bringing back the original character.

This is the point I agree with. Restoration is taking something that needs to be restored if it has any hope of being used as an presverable example. The guns that I said didn't need to be restored I see more of refurbishing jobs, and I think it takes from the original value.

 

[buck460XVR]

Very nice job on a very cool gun. I too was curious as to why the change in grips, seems both are correct, but if the first set wasn't original, neither is the second. Maybe preference, maybe because of age the old ones cracked when removed....could be the grip on the left side(not pictured) was damaged. I tend to like the square shoulder ones myself, but then that's me. Either way, I would love to have the gun in either the before or after condition.

 

[CraigC]

Look, restoring a gun that is otherwise in bad shape and making it new again so it may be preserved better and last longer I completely understand and justify.
But most of those guns look like they don't even need to be restored. There is something about the original factory finish and bluing that beats a professional job, even if the 'value' goes up for some people. I once too, thought a gun that is re-blued and restored would immediately add hundreds of dollars of new value to it, but in reality it really doesn't. It makes it more preservable, but not necessarily more collectible. And it's collectibility that's why most people collect these old guns. Most people I know who buy those old guns (myself included) like the original factory job that is often still visible on the gun. Too many times do we see something that was once attempted to be restored, but then neglected even further so now it's in worse shape. Such a shame

I think you're blurring the line between a poorly done refinish and a professional restoration. The gun in the OP had zero original finish left.

 

[Rock185]

I know some see every rusty, unrefinished gun as a piece of history, possibly imagining it to have been involved in incidents of daring do. I looked at the photo of the original, and saw what I would describe as a ROACH. Not much above an outhouse relic. I wouldn't buy it, but if someone else wants to buy it, and do a very expensive restoration, Great!

 

[czhen]

Beautiful gun before and after the restoration.

 

[Deltaboy1984]

Loved the good restoration!

 

[huntsman]

We live in strange.times, common production firearms are held in awe like the holy grail, The past is viewed through a vail of nostalgia that lacks reality.

The men who bought and USED those old guns weren’t worried about collectible value their concern was that the firearm hold up and do a job, that’s why they look the way they do.

If one wants to pay homage to the past try living like they did, frugally and purposely so the next generation will have it better.

 

[Jim Watson]

Sounds like Mr Turnbull has changed his tune a bit. He used to say that there were guns he would not restore because they were of more value and interest as was. That his ideal project was one that the value of a restored gun was greater than the cost of a worn gun plus the restoration fees, even if not worth as much as an excellent original.

There was an item in American Rifleman a few years ago where a convocation of gun collectors gave an award for a "pristine" Marlin lever action.
Then Mr Turnbull said, "Uh, we worked on that one." and the award was rescinded.

Which brings up a pet peeve of mine. Restoration of that quality should be discreetly but clearly and permanently marked as such. John Bivens, the flintlock restorationist would. But a pistol expert told me that I had no business buying collectables if I could not tell the difference by looking at it.