I have to think you misunderstood my question or that you have lots of money. You are saying, in essence, : Yes you would reblue a gun you bought, for let's say a bargain of $500, if it brought its real value of $2,000 down by half?" That was the question in brief but stated more practically.
I realize those pistols you are rebluing are probably worth more reblued and did not mean such. I meant a collectible, such as historic type firearm, in lets say 60 - 70% finish that is worth $2,000 as is and which would be easily sold at that price. Would you then reblue it and maybe bring its value down to half that instead of selling it to someone else as is. I just find it hard to believe anyone would do that instead of selling the gun for $2,000 and then buying more guns with the 2 grand. I am not knocking it, if you can afford to do it great by me. Just wondering if I made myself clear the first time.
Those old pistols reblued are very nice by the way.
I do want to correct something I said in my earlier post. Pocomoke made me rethink what I had written.
That should be to some collectors there is more value in an original item in decent shape as opposed to refinished shape AND; that only goes for certain items. Some items will stand refinishing or repair nicely as far as 'collectors' are concerned but; many items are wanted as is so long as they are in good or better ORIGINAL condition. That is a collector's thing, not usually a user's thing (or in our case not a shooter's thing).
I understand both sides of the coin here. I love some old things that are in very good or better condition myself. If I find an older firearm for sale that is listed to sell for $550 and it is in excellent 'original' condition as opposed to the same firearm for sale that is restored to 'like new' condition selling for $400, I would probably go with the 'original' condition one for more money. Why? Well despite this maybe seeming like some sort of contradiction about my saying I don't have money to burn, I would likely buy the excellent/original condition, yet more expensive, one because the one in excellent original condition was kept better, much better, than any firearm that had to be restored. For all I know the restored one has used sub standard parts such as springs in the restoration. Any reblue job may also be substandard and may not last as long as the original finish on the one that is original condition. The restored model may also have a lot less rifling left in the barrel. Play between parts may have increased. I would just worry about the abuse the one went through to get in such a poor condition that it needed to be restored.
Of course if I found a good buy on a surplus rifle or pistol that was about $150 and it would cost $150 to restore, then I might buy two of them, and have the better one restored and simply resell the other, or have the other restored also and sell it to pay in part for the one I kept. My bet is that a gun enthusiast, instead of a strident collector, would buy the restored gun for more than I paid including its restoration, but not for as much as the excellent original gun would sell.
Lots of variables in being a gun lover for sure. That is one of the things that makes it so much fun.
All the best,
Glenn B
