AlexanderA
Member
I have to vent about the process of "defarbing" reproduction black powder weapons.
"Farb" is a word that describes someone or something as unauthentic or anachronistic. This is considered an insult among hardcore historical reenactors. Depending on whom you ask, the word comes either from the German "farben" ("colors") or the phrase "far be it from me" (to criticize someone's impression). The height of farbism was during the Civil War centennial in the 1960's, when Sears work clothes in blue or gray would suffice for uniforms, and Trapdoor Springfields were considered more acceptable than Garands (which were sometimes also used). Finally, the first reproduction percussion rifles appeared on the scene -- but these were Remington Zouaves, weapons that were produced, but never issued, during the Civil War.
Today, we have a plethora of reproductions of Civil War (and other historical) weapons. Not content with this, hardcore reenactors and history buffs are paying good money to have their reproductions "defarbed," that is, having the modern Italian markings removed and other, supposedly more "authentic," markings stamped in their place.
As a collector, this practice bothers me greatly. First, the whole idea is silly. No spectator at a reenactment is going to see the Italian markings unless he comes within a foot of the weapon. And the reenactor himself already knows it's a reproduction. What's the point?
Second, this opens the door to faking. Some reproduction guns are going to be passed off as originals, if not now, then maybe years from now. But to be honest, this one doesn't worry me too much. A collector familiar with the originals is unlikely to be fooled, since the reproductions tend to diverge from the originals in their details. (Beginning collectors might be fooled.)
The third objection worries me the most. Reproduction guns are going to become collectible in themselves. Already the prices of some of these guns, new, rival the prices of originals. Some reproductions are already rare, having been discontinued years ago. Examples are the Civil War muskets made by the Japanese firm Miroku, which are considered to be the most authentic of the Civil War reproductions, and command a premium when found.
Defarbing destroys valuable information. Knowing the specific maker is important. The best of the 1841 Mississippi rifles repros are considered to have been made by Antonio Zoli. If his name is ground off in the process of defarbing, how is an owner or purchaser to know that Zoli made the gun? It would take an unusual level of expertise.
I have one or two reproductions that were defarbed by gunsmith John Zimmerman of Harpers Ferry, WV, who is considered to be one of the best in the business. It drives me crazy not to know who the actual maker was!
So, if you are considering having your reproduction "defarbed," I beg you to reconsider! Doing this to guns will be considered, years in the future, to be equivalent to the butchering of military surplus guns in the 1950's and 60's, to turn them into sporters. (It seemed a good idea at the time.)
"Farb" is a word that describes someone or something as unauthentic or anachronistic. This is considered an insult among hardcore historical reenactors. Depending on whom you ask, the word comes either from the German "farben" ("colors") or the phrase "far be it from me" (to criticize someone's impression). The height of farbism was during the Civil War centennial in the 1960's, when Sears work clothes in blue or gray would suffice for uniforms, and Trapdoor Springfields were considered more acceptable than Garands (which were sometimes also used). Finally, the first reproduction percussion rifles appeared on the scene -- but these were Remington Zouaves, weapons that were produced, but never issued, during the Civil War.
Today, we have a plethora of reproductions of Civil War (and other historical) weapons. Not content with this, hardcore reenactors and history buffs are paying good money to have their reproductions "defarbed," that is, having the modern Italian markings removed and other, supposedly more "authentic," markings stamped in their place.
As a collector, this practice bothers me greatly. First, the whole idea is silly. No spectator at a reenactment is going to see the Italian markings unless he comes within a foot of the weapon. And the reenactor himself already knows it's a reproduction. What's the point?
Second, this opens the door to faking. Some reproduction guns are going to be passed off as originals, if not now, then maybe years from now. But to be honest, this one doesn't worry me too much. A collector familiar with the originals is unlikely to be fooled, since the reproductions tend to diverge from the originals in their details. (Beginning collectors might be fooled.)
The third objection worries me the most. Reproduction guns are going to become collectible in themselves. Already the prices of some of these guns, new, rival the prices of originals. Some reproductions are already rare, having been discontinued years ago. Examples are the Civil War muskets made by the Japanese firm Miroku, which are considered to be the most authentic of the Civil War reproductions, and command a premium when found.
Defarbing destroys valuable information. Knowing the specific maker is important. The best of the 1841 Mississippi rifles repros are considered to have been made by Antonio Zoli. If his name is ground off in the process of defarbing, how is an owner or purchaser to know that Zoli made the gun? It would take an unusual level of expertise.
I have one or two reproductions that were defarbed by gunsmith John Zimmerman of Harpers Ferry, WV, who is considered to be one of the best in the business. It drives me crazy not to know who the actual maker was!
So, if you are considering having your reproduction "defarbed," I beg you to reconsider! Doing this to guns will be considered, years in the future, to be equivalent to the butchering of military surplus guns in the 1950's and 60's, to turn them into sporters. (It seemed a good idea at the time.)
Last edited:
