Shooter vs. Collector.

[dogtown tom]

deadin Do you thing a couple of coats of Krylon will cover up these scratches or am I going to have to have them ground off?

The real problem with that dog is the bayonet under the barrel has been oversharpened.

 

[Legionnaire]

I voted no. I am not a collectr, but other people are. I'd sell a rare high-value gun for the most I could get for it and happily spend the proceeds on a "shooter."

 

[tarosean]

Do you thing a couple of coats of Krylon will cover up these scratches or am I going to have to have them ground off?

Bondo???

 

[tarosean]

Tarosean - what firearm are we talkng about here? Your first post says "a pretty rare gun, that is highly sought after". Then you switch by saying "Its definitely not a really a valuable gun to begin with.. Pristine examples go for a little less 1.5k...". So which is it?

Probably semantics. To me a valuable gun is 10's of thousands of dollars.

Its not as rare as a Walker Colt or Singer 1911, etc. etc......
However it was only imported in limited numbers (Best guesstimates are less than 2k)
Its a modern firearm, hence my saying it will likely never be worth much (Using My rule of thumb) and was produced from 90-93.

 

[CraigC]

Is it a secret???

It really depends on what it is, its condition and what you want out of it. Buffing the hell out of and refinishing a nickel plated Colt SAA that was engraved by Cuno Helfricht and carried by a famous Texas Ranger will kill its value. Sending a pitted gun with no historical value that has already been refinished to Doug Turnbull for restoration will absolutely increase its value. It will probably also increase pride in ownership.

Personally, I really don't give a damn what a collector thinks something is worth, apart from the financial aspect. If it makes more sense financially to sell the gun to a collector and get what I want another way, that's fine. However, if it won't save me any money by having a collectible refinished/restored then it will be done. I also don't subscribe to the typical American point of view that original condition is the only way. Some folks want a 100yr old Colt SAA that looks 100yrs old. Some want a 100yr old Colt that looks like it did 100yrs ago. There's no shame in either.

 

[grter]

"Some folks want a 100yr old Colt SAA that looks 100yrs old. Some want a 100yr old Colt that looks like it did 100yrs ago. There's no shame in either."

I agree with Craig C

 

[jcwit]

Put it another way, would you spray paint a 1953 Corvette fully original with a metallic paint???????????????????

Especially if its serial number is under 50.

http://web-cars.com/corvette/1953-Corvette.php

 

[Vodoun da Vinci]

You have the right but there is stewardship too.

*ThAt'S!* the word I was looking for! Stewardship...some things need to be preserved "as is" so that it can be relished and studied and observed as it was originally without altercation.
Some things deserve that distinction and some folks will disagree. But I believe that in some cases it's plain wrong to alter some things....like my Wife had an uncle that wanted to melt down some gold coins here when it was at it's peak price without regard to the folks who wanted them as coins.

Money isn't everything...some things need to be preserved.

VooDoo

 

[jcwit]

But I believe that in some cases it's plain wrong to alter some things....like my Wife had an uncle that wanted to melt down some gold coins here when it was at it's peak price without regard to the folks who wanted them as coins.

Money isn't everything...some things need to be preserved.

Agreed!

 

[WestKentucky]

Guns take on character as they age. To me that character is as important as anything. Don't kill the character

 

[wojownik]

"Some folks want a 100yr old Colt SAA that looks 100yrs old. Some want a 100yr old Colt that looks like it did 100yrs ago. There's no shame in either."

I agree with Craig C

Yes, but an original that shows age may command $6000, while the same item once refinished may be reduced to $2000 in value. It is a shame to devalue a fine collectable, IMHO.

 

[dr mark]

I've gone through the same question, too. I have a 1911 that was my grandfather's WWII gun that he used in the D-day invasion (he stormed the beach). It has patina. I'd never sell it. I could always refinish it later. But I have photos of him at bootcamp with it. I could never un-refinish it. So until it starts having mechanical problems, we shoot it and we clean it

 

[Kynoch]

You bet I would without any regard as to whether it destroys the "patina" or not. I call it fixing a worn out gun for more shooting.

Your gun will love you for making it look pretty and supplying it's needs to keep it working smoothly.

It will reward you with constant bull's eyes and admiration of both it and you by others for doing such a good job keeping her pretty and running good.

You have saved her from the evil hands of those who will lock her away in a dark safe doomed to boredom rotting in her own tarnish (known as "patina" by those terrible people who want to deprive her of sunshine at the range.)

See doesn't that explain it well?

There was no mention of the example firearm being "worn out."

 

[mavracer]

It depends on the gun. If it's just a limited edition or commerative that's been shot I'd say sure. If it's something with historical meaning I prolly wouldn't.

 

[dagger dog]

I will explain my yes vote.

If it's a shooter, I'm going to shoot it not look at it, so the collector value point is moot, why not refinish if that's what you prefer ? To my eye the patina, aged look of a well used but workable firearm is more appealing than any professional re-blue or case color job.

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Absolutely - generally - sometimes... I dunno!

Just last night I was fondling my worn to hell '73 and contemplating just this.


My take:
I'm most likely absolutely gonna do it. I'll enjoy the effect as a office hanger and in shooting, being tighter will pay off.

Honestly, the only thing I have against it is listening to butt-heads start every viewing of re-finished "classics" with "Too bad...".

Then there's the "... ruined the value..." observation. Excepting a really bad job, over polishing and the like, I never really get this. If you don't know what it looked like prior to re-finish, how can you say its value is diminished?

One of my favored pistols is a period perfect 1911 (not A1) built in the 50s as a state of the art competition pistol. It is monster beautiful and still fellas say the above garbage. I don't see it as a "ruined" classic pre A1 GI gun. I see it as a remarkable time capsule of the very pistols I loved to see as a kid. I even put the thumb-rest grips back on after taking them off for a couple of weeks as they set the pistol crooked in my 1911 rack.

 

[CraigC]

Yes, but an original that shows age may command $6000, while the same item once refinished may be reduced to $2000 in value. It is a shame to devalue a fine collectable, IMHO.

Read my whole post.

It really depends on what it is, its condition and what you want out of it. Buffing the hell out of and refinishing a nickel plated Colt SAA that was engraved by Cuno Helfricht and carried by a famous Texas Ranger will kill its value. Sending a pitted gun with no historical value that has already been refinished to Doug Turnbull for restoration will absolutely increase its value. It will probably also increase pride in ownership.

I'm not talking about a $6000 collectible or letting Billy Bob on the corner buff the hell out of it and throw it in his bluing tank. There's a very good reason why folks like Doug Turnbull are in business. Like I said, some folks would rather have this:



Than this:

 

[wojownik]

I did read your whole post, and as Kynoch also pointed out, the OP never mentioned a worn out firearm, or pitted. Its a "rare" import (or at least limited quantities), that shows some wear.

Later info was that it was produced somewhere in the 1991-1993 range. So we've all been arguing around in circles about historical/vintage/antique arms - not the case here. Just sounds like something that came in limited quantities. If it turns out to be some version of a Glock 17 with a gen 1 frame that was imported in small quantities, well, I'll be sorely dissapointed but say ... refinish away. Your Duracoat color of choice

Or a Wanad commerical export pistol from Poland (limited quantities in that same timeframe?). Not intensely collectible. Refinishing would knock a few dollars of something that would not command a lot of dollars anyway (relatively speaking).

Erich Honecker's personal DDR Makarov? Probably leave that one as is. But I'm just getting silly now.

So, without knowing the identity of this mystery firearm, this is kind of a pointless discussion, aside from generalities.

 

[CraigC]

...the OP never mentioned a worn out firearm, or pitted.

The OP has provided very few details at all. All we can do is talk in circles hoping somebody guesses it right. My point remains...

"It really depends on what it is, its condition and what you want out of it."

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

I think the general conversation of perceived loss of value relative to a re-fit/re-finish is valid regardless of limited facts.

We have: wear, limited production, perceived current retail range and myriad individual perspectives to plug and play with relative to the OP.

Rather than snipe the OP or following posters, why not play along?

I'm always fascinated by people's varying thresholds regarding refinishing one of their own firearms. Then, once action is decided upon, which direction they take. I particularly enjoy before and afters.

If a general conversation keeps it going until particulars are forthcoming from the OP - great.

Keeping fellas like Turnbull's name in search returns is another side benefit.

 

[CraigC]

I think the general conversation of perceived loss of value relative to a re-fit/re-finish is valid regardless of limited facts.

Again, it totally depends on the individual firearm, its condition and the nature of the proposed "refinish". A 100yr old Colt in original, unmolested condition with 10% of its finish remaining will be worth more if left untouched. Take that same Colt and introduce a ham-handed refinish, parts swapping or caliber conversion sometime in its lifetime and everything changes.

 

[huntsman]

NO Finish has nothing to do with function, if the gun doesn't work fix it but a gun's finish tells the story of it's existence so leave it be.

 

[Welding Rod]

I think refinishing a gun is like an aging man coloring his hair to hide the grey... it is unnecessary and looks out of place. A gun that looks unexperienced is a sad thing IMO.

 

[Nom de Forum]

If it was an old gun that was a shooter I would say go ahead refinish, but you said it was a rare gun that is a shooter so I say no don't refinish it. If it is a very rare gun I would not even shoot it.

 

[CraigC]

I think refinishing a gun is like an aging man coloring his hair to hide the grey... it is unnecessary and looks out of place. A gun that looks unexperienced is a sad thing IMO.

I don't agree with the sentiment or the analogy. An old man with dyed black hair still looks like an old man. An old gun that is properly restored will look better than it did when new.

Should the people who knew what it was like to own a new firearm 100yrs years ago be the only ones to experience new guns from that era? I guess I just don't understand the incessant clinging to a worn finish. Doesn't anyone want to put their own wear on a firearm?

Funny how the British have never thought twice about sending a VERY expensive Holland & Holland or Purdey, worth tens of thousands of dollars, back to the manufacturer for refurbishing. Yet we cling to wear on everything from $500 Rugers to $2000 Colt's.