Shooter vs. Collector.

Would you Refinish?

  • Yes

    Votes: 48 35.0%

  • NO

    Votes: 89 65.0%
  • Total voters
    137
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.
Tarosean, are we going to find out what it is at some point, or should I just unsubscribe now?

The question has been as thoroughly answered as possible without knowing what it is. Either give it up or shut it down.
 
The question has been as thoroughly answered as possible without knowing what it is.
Click to expand...


Honestly it shouldn't matter much.


However, I was cleaning out one of the safes and I recently sold 10 pistols and decided to test the waters with this one. Beretta Type M. 50 million inquires later a lot of comments concerning the wear.
Sure I could have sold it for a pittance, but I was unwilling to do so. So I contemplated sending to Wilson Combat for a refinish and some other odd's and ends, if they can even work on that particular model.

Its still a hell of a shooter...
 
heres the problem as ive ran into it.

you have a gun, regardless of what it is, it has some wear and you think about refinishing it. and these pop up.

1. dont, youll hurt the value.

2. youll make it look nice again. and you can use it even more.

3. youll increase the value.

the gun store or "collector" who refuses to buy say one of the first 90,000 colt detective snubnoses because it was refinished, is quite often the guy wholl say "sorry, the wear on it makes it only worth 100 bucks right now so still want to sell it to me?" and a week later hell say the same gun with the same wear and tear and finish damage he bought for 100 is worth 300 because it was never refinished.
 
Honestly it shouldn't matter much.
Click to expand...
It absolutely DOES matter and I'm baffled that anyone would think it wouldn't. As does the condition. Age and rarity don't necessarily equate value.

Thanks for playing games with us though. :rolleyes:
 
^^^ This.

It matters fundamentally.

The Type M is a very nice pistol (a shame Beretta discontinued it) - the single stack was neat. And it was imported in small numbers, so is a bit of a rarity. A friend of mine picked one up a year ago for something like $500. So rare, a curiousity, discontinued, but not "valuable" in the collectible sense. If needed, I would refinish a Type M, the same way I'm considering having my Sig p6 and HK p7 (both also discontinued) refinished. These are working guns.
 
CraigC said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, it's not "funny." There is a HUGE difference between having a firearm refinished and having one essentially remanufactured by one of the great firearms builders.

When a firearm is sent to H&H, Purdey, etc. it truly becomes new again in appearence. They don't look refinished. It's also highly documented in their books which adds (rather than ruins) its provenance.

This has been going on over there for generations. It's not comparable to someone having the Luger their great uncle brought home from WWI refinished.
 
Oi vey!

Yes Tarosean you should go a head and refinish it. It is not like you would be ruining a classic!:rolleyes:

Note to self: never again respond to a thread like this unless the gun is identified in the O.P.
 
Yes Tarosean you should go a head and refinish it. It is not like you would be ruining a classic!
Note to self: never again respond to a thread like this unless the gun is identified in the O.P.
Click to expand...


Hey at least it wasnt a Glock.... LOL


Different strokes for different folks....
 
No, it's not "funny." There is a HUGE difference between having a firearm refinished and having one essentially remanufactured by one of the great firearms builders.

When a firearm is sent to H&H, Purdey, etc. it truly becomes new again in appearence. They don't look refinished. It's also highly documented in their books which adds (rather than ruins) its provenance.

This has been going on over there for generations. It's not comparable to someone having the Luger their great uncle brought home from WWI refinished.
Click to expand...
It is "funny" and I'm not talking about a local gun shop buff and dip. Do you think there's a "huge difference" between having a professional restoration house restore a Colt and having H&H refurbish one of their guns? Possibly, because the restored Colt will probably be better than it was when new. It only "looks refinished" because no 100yr old gun should look that new.

No, it is not a difference in the quality of the work. It is a difference in perception. Because the purists see little difference between a restoration and a simple refinish. If it's not original, it's no good. Even on a lowly Ruger, the collectors turn their nose up at a complete Turnbull overhaul and refinish even though everything about it is better than the original finish. Why? Because it's not "original". Just read all the responses in this thread and any other regarding refinishing an older gun. The overwhelming majority will say "leave it alone", no matter how bad the gun is or how bad the owner wants it to look better. There are no concessions or distinctions made for professional restorations.
 
There are different baselines here.

First off, there is a difference between restoration and refinishing - more than a semantic difference (as CraigC said above - I didn't catch that until rereading the thread).

Also, there is the obvious difference between categories of firearms. Here's how I categorize things, IMHO -
  • vintage and historic firearms that one would not usually expect to be refinished or restored ("do no harm rule")
  • vintage firearms that are significantly deteriorated, and restoration would not greatly detract from value, and may even enhance value
  • vintage firearms that do have an expectation of occasional restoration (such as fine shotguns - which are collectibles as well as working guns)
  • rare modern firearms - which could well be restored and or refinished without significantly impacting value, others (one of a kind) which could be greatly impacted
  • common firearms - restore and refinish at will

The neat part of the ecosystem is that some common firearms will over time become less common, become rare, and eventually vintage. So its that untouched example of something today that may well be a coveted item in our grandkids time ...

The last thing is the concept of "value". 'Value' is a multi-perspective or multi-meaning concept. There are other dichonomies of value such as objective vs. subjective value, or measurable vs. perceived value. I'm really thinking of objective/measurable value in my comments.
 
Last edited:
If it were my favorite gun to shoot in its class - a gun I would bring on most every range trip; a gun which I plan to shoot more $$$ in ammo than I paid for the gun - then I might refinish it. If it's a gun I occasionally shoot for the cool factor of handling a piece of history, then I would probably enjoy the fact it looks old.
 
common firearms - restore and refinish at will
Click to expand...

Just remember, what is rare today was, at one time, common.
Of course, what is common today will be someone else's rare gun in the future.
(But it's their problem with wishing grandpa hadn't refinished it...;))
 
^ why does a gun need to look "pretty" to be used?

If you bought a new gun and over time it shows signs of wear what's the big deal? you used it, if it shows signs on neglect well that just reveals a bit about your personality.

Buying used, one should always buy more condition than they can afford, buying a gun with the intent to have it refinished doesn't seem logical to me.
 
Last edited:
huntsman said:
^ why does a gun need to look "pretty" to be used?

If you bought a new gun and over time it shows signs of wear what's the big deal? you used it, if it shows signs on neglect well that just reveals a bit about your personality.

Buying used, one should always buy more condition than they can afford, buying a gun with the intent to have it refinished doesn't seem logical to me.
Click to expand...
Some people like wearing faded, torn bluejeans. Others prefer a "just bought" look. Personal preference ... it just is what it us. Same with firearm s I suppose.

Never could understand folks who bought clothing make to look all pre-worn, though. Wonder if there is a market for new firearms sold with that "pre-worn" look. I have seen folks sand and buff down their brand new ARs and AKs ... trying to get that been-there, done-there look. Not my thing, but whatever ...
 
^ why does a gun need to look "pretty" to be used?
Click to expand...
It doesn't but some people act as if a gun they're going to shoot should look like crap. There's nothing wrong with old, worn guns. I've bought most of mine used and 99% of them show wear by previous owners. By the same token, there's also nothing wrong with getting one refinished. I don't have to have all my guns look like new. If that's your impression, you've assumed too much. I just have to challenge the notion that guns should never be refinished. The point being, it's yours, make it what you want it to be.

I can go to either extreme and anywhere in the middle. It's not about one or the other, it's about the freedom to choose. I've been eyeballing the factory antiqued Uberti's for quite some time. Why? Because I'd rather pay $500 for an antiqued Uberti than $5000 for an old Colt. Same for the other end, I'd rather pay $1200 for a new USFA than several times as much for a restored Colt. At the same time, I understand the reasoning behind restorations and refinishing and see the beauty/utility of each.

Cases in point:

I bought this 1958 Blackhawk a couple years ago. It was almost new condition and I've only shot it a few times. I won't think twice about having custom work done to it, which will include a caliber conversion and refinishing. Why? Because it's mine and I want more out of it. I'd have just as much invested in buying a "shooter grade" sample and having it reworked.

IMG_2687b.jpg

I bought this model 27 a few years ago and got a good deal on it because it was freckled. I don't consider freckling "honest wear" but rather a sign of neglect. I will eventually send it to S&W, Ford's or Accurate Plating to be reblued. Some folks wouldn't even consider that because it's "just a shooter" but I want more out of it than "bang".

IMG_9019b.jpg

I bought this 24-3 brand new in the box 5yrs ago. I'm considering having it engraved and subsequently reblued. Why? Because that's what I want. Sure, I probably would've saved some money getting a used one in the first place but who cares? How much of your own enjoyment are you going to sacrifice for future collectors???

IMG_8747b.jpg

I love this 50yr old Single Six dearly and it bears the tender loving wear of previous owners, as well as 14yrs of my own use. I just might decide one day that I'd love it even more with a color case hardened frame, hammer and trigger along with charcoal bluing. What's wrong with making a cherished favorite look better than new?

IMG_7107b.jpg
 
Last edited:
I don't like safe guns. If it was truly, insanely rare, I would probably sell it or donate it to museum. I don't feel it would be adequately appreciated with me. I do have three safe guns, but only because they're so worn out they're unsafe to shoot. They're not very valuable, a pair of rusted old revolvers and an 1895 Steyr-Mannlicher, but they were my grandpa's, so I keep them around to remind me of my history.

I also own my grandpa's Colt Python 4" and a 1968 Detective Special. I use both for carry and/or nightstand frequently. When the finish wears, I'll have Colt re-blue. My grandpa would approve. My family has never had much use for things that can't be used, we're a practical sort, and I share that nature.
 
I have nothing against people wanting good looking shooters. If anything, I regret not being able to appreciate the beauty.

It's just a personal preference, as defined by the OP's question. If there is potential collector value, then I will not destroy that value for the sake of refinishing. I can't afford to ignore the economic value, and that's how I see it without laying judgment on anyone else.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
So just what is it with "collectors" anyway?
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Gordon Fink
G
B
  • Locked
There are more shooters than you think!
Replies
1
Views
391
Leanwolf
L
D
  • Locked
Professional Shooter performing in SD
Replies
1
Views
692
Kcustom45
K
C
  • Locked
  • Poll
Help me decide on an S&W Performance Center package por favor
Replies
5
Views
654
cyclopsshooter
C
D
  • Locked
Newbie Shooters
Replies
16
Views
1K
DasFriek
D
Back
Top