Capt. Obvious
Member
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2015
- Messages
- 31
I'm curious as to why some people say that refinishing a firearm, even back to it's original finish, causes the firearm to loose value. What makes this so?
Thanks.
Thanks.
Curious as to why.....
- Thread starter Capt. Obvious
- Start date
- Status
medalguy
Member
I'd agree with that assessment. A refinished gun is not original, and if any kind of work had been done on a gun, I wouldn't pay as much as an original, un-messed-with gun.
Because the condition has been changed from factory original condition, even if the original finish is worn.
You cant "refinish a gun back to original finish", because the original finish is the one it went out the factory door with. Refinishing may be the same type finish, but it isnt "the original" finish.
Most out of factory refinish jobs (reblue) involve buffing on power wheels. Despite many would-be gunsmiths opinion of their work, this is often done in such a way that dishes out and feathers the lettering and screw holes, rounds off edges, and changes the appearance in numerous small ways. Its rare to see a truly good quality reblue finish. Most that are experienced with handling, trading and seeing lots of used guns can spot a refinish pretty quickly, if not instantly. A factory refinish is the best for resale value and quality of work, but as it still isnt the original factory finish (that it came out the door the first time with), it still isnt worth as much as if all original and in good condition. If badly worn, a factory refinish is better value wise than the worn finish gun. Those aftermarket refinishers that are truly really good at refinishing guns charge enough that its probably more practical value wise to simply get a better specimen of the particular gun. Cold (chemical cosmetic)blue isnt worthy of mentioning as far as value and durability.
Non factory reblue work sometimes doesnt get the color of the parts correct. They can turn pruple because of variations in the metals of the model of gun. There can be some variations in the color on factory finishes, but its generally far less noticable than aftermarket refinishes.
Other than that, nothings wrong with a refinish.
Jackal
Member
Depends on the gun. Put some high end gee-whiz coating on a Glock and its worth more. Spray Guncoat on a Python and you should be crucified.
There are certain pennies that are extremely valuable to collectors because they have certain mint marks which denote they are from very small print runs. There aren't very many of them, so they are valuable.
Gun values are similar. The factory may have only made 10,000 of a certain type. Or maybe it was owned by a famous individual, etc.
If the gun has any sort of collector's value, modifying it away from factory original makes it less desirable to the collectors.
Now there are two caveats. If a gun has been modified away from factory original, and you re-modify it to be closer to factory original, that generally will increase it's value...but not as much as it in original form.
If you have a gun and it's value doesn't come from it being a collector's item but from a utility item perspective (For example, your Glock 19) then modifications done to increase it's functionality generally increase the value, so a glock with a worn finish which is given an NP3 coat, that's going to increase it's value.
Caveat to the 2nd caveat. In most hobbies, once you start modifying it from stock you start moving it in the direction that you view as best. Very few people will have the exact same opinion about what is best. You rarely get back what you put into cars, bikes, or guns what you invested in them to 'improve' them. You may think flat-earth looks great, i might think it looks like turds. I'll just get a used gun from someone else that needs to be refinished and have it done in my favorite color, not yours, so why should I pay extra?!? You can generally find SOME people who are willing to pay a bit something more for modifications, but rarely as much as you paid for the modification.
Gun values are similar. The factory may have only made 10,000 of a certain type. Or maybe it was owned by a famous individual, etc.
If the gun has any sort of collector's value, modifying it away from factory original makes it less desirable to the collectors.
Now there are two caveats. If a gun has been modified away from factory original, and you re-modify it to be closer to factory original, that generally will increase it's value...but not as much as it in original form.
If you have a gun and it's value doesn't come from it being a collector's item but from a utility item perspective (For example, your Glock 19) then modifications done to increase it's functionality generally increase the value, so a glock with a worn finish which is given an NP3 coat, that's going to increase it's value.
Caveat to the 2nd caveat. In most hobbies, once you start modifying it from stock you start moving it in the direction that you view as best. Very few people will have the exact same opinion about what is best. You rarely get back what you put into cars, bikes, or guns what you invested in them to 'improve' them. You may think flat-earth looks great, i might think it looks like turds. I'll just get a used gun from someone else that needs to be refinished and have it done in my favorite color, not yours, so why should I pay extra?!? You can generally find SOME people who are willing to pay a bit something more for modifications, but rarely as much as you paid for the modification.
1911 guy
Member
Paint a 1953 Corvette "almost" the same color as factory and compare the price to one with exact match paint.
Paint can be mixed to match, bluing is essentially a corrosive process and cannot be matched exactly because the conditions, and often chemicals due to proprietary nature, can never be exactly duplicated.
There was a story some years ago in American Handgunner about a revolver the owner refinished. The dealer buying it offered him a lot of money for it. When the sale was complete, the dealer stated he would have offered much more, but the refinish job destroyed much of the collector value. Colt Patterson with a single digit serial number.
Paint can be mixed to match, bluing is essentially a corrosive process and cannot be matched exactly because the conditions, and often chemicals due to proprietary nature, can never be exactly duplicated.
There was a story some years ago in American Handgunner about a revolver the owner refinished. The dealer buying it offered him a lot of money for it. When the sale was complete, the dealer stated he would have offered much more, but the refinish job destroyed much of the collector value. Colt Patterson with a single digit serial number.
Collector's pay more for original finish - however much is left - because it is original. That finish is what the manufacturer put on it - and what the owner wore down using it.
If it was Jim Bowie's authenticated knife, removing the wear patterns of his hand on the hilt and blade would be destroying the history of how it was used.
If it was Audie Murphy's Garand, refinishing it would destroy the marks he put in it during the acts of his heroism.
Removing the wear patterns and markings that someone has created on that tool is, in some circles, criminal. It would be the same as buffing out the handmarks and scratches on Michaelangelo's hammer and chisels he used on his sculptures.
Patina is what tools get when used extensively by a particular human. Grandpa's old double shotgun he carried on the stage escorting gold shipments in the West wouldn't be the same all redone. You couldn't see where it lay across his lap in the dust, which hand held it, or how he used his off hand to support it. All the wear and tear would be gone. it would be shiny new all over.
And a lot of times, those who do refinish it do so in a manner about 50 years newer, which throws another discordant note into the job. A cap and ball musket from the Civil War carried by a young man who later commanded the Army, slicked out like a '60's Remington bolt action with high gloss wood, and buffed out shiny black metal? It was never done or intended to be that way.
And if the job was done 50 years ago, then changed hands, we will never know if it was the actual authentic piece used in history making moments, or some poorly done subterfuge attempting to defraud the public.
Loss of patina is the first step in the loss of provenance - and you can never go back. The first Shelby Cobra is on display at their museum - the coats of paint are chipped, revealing the various colors it was sprayed during the first year of marketing. The leather seats - ripped and horsehair stuffing exposed. The wire spoke rims still on it.
Clean that up? Nope, sorry, it would be the evidence of it's history destroyed. Destroying the patina of a collectible item is destroying history. History is what collector's pay for, not Shiny.
Most Americans have little respect for history - which is why so much of it is lost. Exactly why the original hand hammered Daytona Coupe was parked in a storage unit for decades. At least the right person got it - and he hasn't repainted it, buffed it out, or "restored" it to a finish it never had. Still has the Bonneville salt blasting on the front end from the 24 hour record run.
Of course, a new coat of paint and some glaze could fix all that up - it would look just as good as any other fiberglass kit car then.
It would be criminal.
If it was Jim Bowie's authenticated knife, removing the wear patterns of his hand on the hilt and blade would be destroying the history of how it was used.
If it was Audie Murphy's Garand, refinishing it would destroy the marks he put in it during the acts of his heroism.
Removing the wear patterns and markings that someone has created on that tool is, in some circles, criminal. It would be the same as buffing out the handmarks and scratches on Michaelangelo's hammer and chisels he used on his sculptures.
Patina is what tools get when used extensively by a particular human. Grandpa's old double shotgun he carried on the stage escorting gold shipments in the West wouldn't be the same all redone. You couldn't see where it lay across his lap in the dust, which hand held it, or how he used his off hand to support it. All the wear and tear would be gone. it would be shiny new all over.
And a lot of times, those who do refinish it do so in a manner about 50 years newer, which throws another discordant note into the job. A cap and ball musket from the Civil War carried by a young man who later commanded the Army, slicked out like a '60's Remington bolt action with high gloss wood, and buffed out shiny black metal? It was never done or intended to be that way.
And if the job was done 50 years ago, then changed hands, we will never know if it was the actual authentic piece used in history making moments, or some poorly done subterfuge attempting to defraud the public.
Loss of patina is the first step in the loss of provenance - and you can never go back. The first Shelby Cobra is on display at their museum - the coats of paint are chipped, revealing the various colors it was sprayed during the first year of marketing. The leather seats - ripped and horsehair stuffing exposed. The wire spoke rims still on it.
Clean that up? Nope, sorry, it would be the evidence of it's history destroyed. Destroying the patina of a collectible item is destroying history. History is what collector's pay for, not Shiny.
Most Americans have little respect for history - which is why so much of it is lost. Exactly why the original hand hammered Daytona Coupe was parked in a storage unit for decades. At least the right person got it - and he hasn't repainted it, buffed it out, or "restored" it to a finish it never had. Still has the Bonneville salt blasting on the front end from the 24 hour record run.
Of course, a new coat of paint and some glaze could fix all that up - it would look just as good as any other fiberglass kit car then.
It would be criminal.
oneounceload
member
Yet when folks do a total reconstruction on a rare mustang or similar, the value goes WAY up.
When Doug Turnbull gets done refinishing a gun the value also goes way up. Only certain guns with a real provenance will lose value.
If I see a S&W 17 at flea market or gun show, I'll take the one that has been completely redone so as to look like new over one that is worn and in need of fixing.
YMMV
When Doug Turnbull gets done refinishing a gun the value also goes way up. Only certain guns with a real provenance will lose value.
If I see a S&W 17 at flea market or gun show, I'll take the one that has been completely redone so as to look like new over one that is worn and in need of fixing.
YMMV
All that has been said has been pretty much true. This particular sentence could use a footnote in that nobody cares who put the dings and wear on the gun unless the person was famous in some way, or a framily member.
That's why a gun in good antique condition is worth much less than one in antique excellent condition. Collectors in general are looking for guns in high original condition. This may not be a huge point, but it is an important one as indicated by the story of the single digit Colt that belonged to ??.
There is a big difference between restoring, refinishing, and repairing. And of course at least some controversy over whether anything should be touched on a collectable gun other than perhaps a proper cleaning. There are those who want grandpa's gun to look new again, and some that wouldn't dare let a screwdriver come anywhere near it. Depends on the gun, the owner, and the guns intended future
Anyone with any doubt should leave it alone, and this is particulary true for those that expect to be resold at some point. Only certain small things can be done to a collectable gun that inhances its value. But even a $5 million dollar painting gets a cleaning and touch up sometimes.
Deus Machina
Member
Depends on the market.
Old guns with the original finish, are 'valuable' because it's all original. It ruins collector's value to have any non-original parts or work on them, which the finish falls into.
If someone's looking for a shooter, refinishing is a bit of a selling point but they get to take advantage that it's not as rare and they're not the money faucet some collectors can be. People don't want to pay as much for a shooter because they plan on putting more wear and tear on it.
To liken it back to cars, it's the difference between a newly refinished muscle car--which can be a status symbol or toy, or something to show off--versus Jay Leno paying for one that had been locked in an empty barn and doesn't even have rot in the seats.
Old guns with the original finish, are 'valuable' because it's all original. It ruins collector's value to have any non-original parts or work on them, which the finish falls into.
If someone's looking for a shooter, refinishing is a bit of a selling point but they get to take advantage that it's not as rare and they're not the money faucet some collectors can be. People don't want to pay as much for a shooter because they plan on putting more wear and tear on it.
To liken it back to cars, it's the difference between a newly refinished muscle car--which can be a status symbol or toy, or something to show off--versus Jay Leno paying for one that had been locked in an empty barn and doesn't even have rot in the seats.
Liberty1776
Member
Well, that's a little severe. Maybe just realizing you've destroyed 2/3 of the value is punishment enough...
B2Tall
Member
I refinish firearms (Cerakoting, blueing), both old one and new. The old ones that I refinish either don't have that much collector value in the first place or are in such bad shape that a new finish will actually help the value. Ditto for wood.
I would never advise someone to refinish a firearm if it would have a drastic, negative effect on its value. Often times an older piece just needs a good cleaning with gun oil and some fine steel wool. In some cases that can work wonders.
I would never advise someone to refinish a firearm if it would have a drastic, negative effect on its value. Often times an older piece just needs a good cleaning with gun oil and some fine steel wool. In some cases that can work wonders.
oneounceload
member
Sorry, you are NOT "refinishing", you are applying a new finish and that is a whole 'nother can of worms
Apples and oranges.
A "total restoration" on a vehicle is usually performed on a vehicle that was made in the hundreds of thousands (except for a particular combination of accessories) and transforms it from useless to usable. Even with vehicle restorations there is a pecking order of "good" to "poor" and the shop that uses the most authentic techniques and materials (often "new old stock" that was produced by the factory for that vehicle but never used) will have a greater value than a restoration using a variety of different years of mechanical components that might be physically interchangeable but lack the correct factory date coding and then sprayed with a modern basecoat/clearcoat paint.
For the rarest and most desirable of vehicles, original and low mileage will still be worth more than a restoration even if original low mileage shows wear and patina.
Arkansas Paul
Member
There are some guns I would send back to the factory to put a finish job on. For instance if I got a steal on a Python that had a lot of wear, I wouldn't hesitate to let Colt return it to "like" original condition.
On the flip side, if I had a gen 1 SAA that locked up tight, I wouldn't let them touch it. I would want that one all original.
So I guess it would depend on the gun for me, as it would for most others I imagine.
On the flip side, if I had a gen 1 SAA that locked up tight, I wouldn't let them touch it. I would want that one all original.
So I guess it would depend on the gun for me, as it would for most others I imagine.
This is changing.
In the last few years collectors are accepting the fact that old firearms that have been refinished are more than acceptable. The days of the "no touchy the gun" are coming to an end. That is, so long as no one uses a hacksaw on them.
In the last few years collectors are accepting the fact that old firearms that have been refinished are more than acceptable. The days of the "no touchy the gun" are coming to an end. That is, so long as no one uses a hacksaw on them.
Jim Watson
Member
While a well done refinish is becoming socially acceptable in some cases, it is not because the guns look nicer than when well worn, it is because the collectors, speculators, and wheeler-dealers have jacked up the price of similar but good original guns to the stratosphere.
There just isn't much else for a non-tycoon beginning collector to do.
Something else to watch out for is fakes.
There just isn't much else for a non-tycoon beginning collector to do.
Something else to watch out for is fakes.
B2Tall
Member
Last yr I bought a pre-10 (1927) for $139. Functioned great but the finish was beat to you-know-what. Chose to Cerakote it in black instead of bluing it. Looks great, shoots great. Probably a $200 gun now!
B2Tall
Member
What's the difference between a new finish and refinishing??
Orion8472
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2008
- Messages
- 3,638
I had a 1958 Marlin 39a reblued,. . . but did so because how it was [when I got it] would not have brought much money if I tried to sell it. Had too much pitting. There are enough of them out there that were taken care of that some random pitted 39a would not be considered. . . . . perhaps for a couple hundred bucks.
Mine was redone by someone who does it without power tools. All by hand, so it ran me a considerable amount, but now the 39a looks much better than it did.
Mine was redone by someone who does it without power tools. All by hand, so it ran me a considerable amount, but now the 39a looks much better than it did.
As others have correctly noted it depends on the gun. I've had several of my ordinary milsurp pistols (Tok, CZ52 etc.) professionally Duracoated. They look fantastic and I have no concerns about any value loss.
OTOH I also have a WWII bring back Luger that could probably use a good refinish but that'll never happen.
OTOH I also have a WWII bring back Luger that could probably use a good refinish but that'll never happen.
Arkansas Paul
Member
I agree that technically it is refinishing. The prefix re means "back" or "again". To me, finishing would imply that there has been no finish before.
That is all technicalities though.
I very much agree with the spirit of what oneounceload is trying to portray. A re-finished gun is not as desirable or valuable as one that has not been re-finished. Original finish means something when talking about classic antiques. That will never change. It may become more acceptable for things of a certain age, but the untouched model in good condition will still bring the top $.
olafhardtB
Member
- Joined
- May 8, 2011
- Messages
- 393
Refinished guns
I personally regard some redecorating as American folk art to borrow a phrase from Antiques Roadshow. One thing to point out to those who don't know is it isn't that long ago that Springfield 03's, Gen 1 SAA's etc were a dime a dozen. The guy who sat by the fire carving his name on the stock was creating not destroying. The guy who applied steel wool and Oxypho to an old Police Positive was really just making it more rust resistant. I am sure that I am not the only one that has twinge of animosity toward collectors for running up prices and hogging up guns making them hard to find. I often wonder if gun collectors and trophy hunters don't possibly suffer from feelings of sexual inadequacy.
I personally regard some redecorating as American folk art to borrow a phrase from Antiques Roadshow. One thing to point out to those who don't know is it isn't that long ago that Springfield 03's, Gen 1 SAA's etc were a dime a dozen. The guy who sat by the fire carving his name on the stock was creating not destroying. The guy who applied steel wool and Oxypho to an old Police Positive was really just making it more rust resistant. I am sure that I am not the only one that has twinge of animosity toward collectors for running up prices and hogging up guns making them hard to find. I often wonder if gun collectors and trophy hunters don't possibly suffer from feelings of sexual inadequacy.
- Status
