Curious as to why.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
I will pay more for original condition mil-surp guns and refuse to buy sporterized ones. Even more if it has proper slings, ammo pouches, cleaning kits, ect.

As to the Mosin senario list above, consider this;

not too long ago, 03 Springfields, Mausers, and eve Mosins were dirt cheap. Many were cut up and modfied. Come back to today, Original condition, unaltered Springfields and Mausers are pushing, and over in some cases, $1k in value.

Not too many years from now, the $89 original Mosin 91/30 with its matching accesories will skyrocket in value. why, it is the popular one to hack up right now. Soon, there will be more modified ones than original ones.
 
Not off base.......Not off base at all.
You know what Ash.....you're right. We never know when we'll wake up to find that 99.9% of the millions of surplus Mosins have spontaneously disintegrated, leaving just a handful of '42 Tulas that have now skyrocketed in value....provided they're in original condition.

Just last week I was able to buy a Hopkins & Allen .44 that was carried by Jesse James. Got it for $50. You see....Jesse had it re-blued back in 1880 and that just KILLED the value......;-)
 
I've got a 1894 Winchester in .32-40, manufactured in 1901 that I sent to Doug Turnbull for restoration.

In your situation, I may have done the same thing. It's not something you're planning to ever sell anyway.

I would love to see a pic of your rifle if you are so inclined to share one.
 
http://s270.photobucket.com/user/sharkman53/slideshow/1894

You can see how the bore looked...Wood is all original. One other thing I didn't mention before, on the left side of the receiver it looked as if someone had struck it with a chisel. Three deep indentations, perfectly repaired
Wow. Beautiful.

Of course it's blasphemy in the eyes of those who see an older firearm simply in terms of a dollar sign. Not in my eyes.
 
Last edited:
My wife acquired some Empire-era (Napoleonic times) furniture years ago. "Now what's that got to do with guns...?"

Antique furniture people seem to be a lot like many gun collectors-they don't like any changes to the original, worn finish etc.
And not all worm holes in wood are authentic (i.e. some try to fool you with tiny drills). Beware of this in furniture and guns.

ID-Shooting: many of us have no interest in sporterized milsurps. We don't care whether the gun had been abused in its previous life, needed major surgery, or not.
A friend's Czech VZ-24 Mauser in original config. had been professionally reblued with exc. stained wood, with a scout scope (no drilling etc).
Beautiful work!

About three years ago a Moderator (retired N.?) at "Surplusrifle" became unstable and very rude, called a guy an insulting name (in Big, Red Letters, all Caps) because the guy visiting that forum simply believed that people should not alter milsurps. The Mod's outburst was totally uncalled for.
 
Last edited:
B2, what is blasphemous to the collector community are those who cannot accept a little age and the marks that go with a few lifetimes of existence, who would strip and refinish and stain something to make it into what it is not - a new arm or an arm that was always in perfect shape.

I posed the question "If I could get a Chinese T53 with a refinished stock and touch-up reblue, is it worth more than one that has not been touched? If so, how much would be fair to pay over the price of one that is not refinished?" over on the collectors forum. This is what they said:

"In my opinion from a "collector's" point of view, a refinished stock and reblue of any kind deminishes the value of them. I will buy a "ragged, beat up, been there done that" specimen (as long as it is shootable) before I buy a prettied up one."

"A refinished probably mismatched T53? $50 IMO "

"A refinish kills any value to me personally, usually for most collectors that's true. In the case of these t53s though, value seems to be a wash."

"I agree and would also would value a refinished C&R lower than an original example."

As a general rule in firearms, refinishing seldom returns on its investment - professional jobs just about never return on investment - while historic arms (even those made in the millions) usually go down in value with such a job.

I had a Tanfoglio hard-chromed once because it was my knock-around pistol. I know there is no way I could get $600 for that pistol, which is the combined cost of the pistol and the refinishing job.

Of course, that works out nicely, too. I have an 1812 Klingenthaul-manufactured French Cuirassier's sword with scabbard that was likely at the Battle of Waterloo. A previous owner used a chemical brass polish to polish up the hilt and basket to make it shine. Luckily nothing was done to the grip and the idiot had not gotten around to polishing the blade. But that brass shined like it was new (in most places, at the ricasso and pommel the polishing was not so good).

As a result, the collecting community ignored it. I am a far more patent kind of guy so I bought it for $300. It was normally a $1,000 and up sword. I took it home an carefully degreased the brass and then hung it on the wall. That was about ten years ago and while the verdigris that should be there is not as deep as it could be, in time it will return. It no longer shines like a cheap copy. By the time I pass it on to somebody else (we own nothing in this world) the damage done will be reversed. Refinishing a stock, unfortunately, doesn't allow that to happen.

It's the sabre at the bottom. You suppose I would make it worth more if I refinished that Brown Bess above?
 

Attachments

  • sword1.jpg
    sword1.jpg
    89 KB · Views: 8
Last edited:
B2, what is blasphemous to the collector community are those who cannot accept a little age and the marks that go with a few lifetimes of existence, who would strip and refinish and stain something to make it into what it is not - a new arm or an arm that was always in perfect shape.
I get it now, Ash. You're convinced that every firearm is either worth gobs of money (although the owner may not know it yet) or soon will be and that altering it in any way will result in lost value on a drastic scale. Cool. Good for you.

I disagree. Some weapons will always be "bottom feeders" on the value scale no matter what. Making them look a little better makes me happy. Makes other people happy too. I don't need to go to another forum in an attempt to validate my view. I'm already confident enough in that.

Feel free to have the last word in our little debate here
 
Refinishing diminishes collector value. Most of the guns we use every day don't really have much collector value, which is why we use them every day. Making them visibly more appealing to ourselves is not harmful.

What gives a gun collector value is its historical significance, and its rarity. A lot of old military rifles are a dime a dozen and are often refinsihed, without harming or helping their value, while others not so much. I have a WWII era M1 Garand and 30 Carbine. If you refinish those, you're removing their visible history, and what makes them appealing to historians. Refinishing a historical piece would be like fixing the crack in the Liberty Bell or dropping a "better" modern motor into your all factory original '67 Mustang.

When it comes to a low value military rifle, refinishing is something usually done to make the gan more appealing to its owner, and not to "add value". For that matter, most peopel who want a refinished or sporterized milsurp would rather buy an original and rebuild it to their own perferences than buy one already done.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top