Quote Originally Posted by Garvin View Post
I was just posting some pics of a rifle sold at the David Swan auction in 2015 and which is currently up for sale at Holts and I noticed just how shiny the gun had become in the Holts' pics. It's not the first time I've noticed this but it's a really obvious example of 'tarting' up the gun for the photos because there are also pics of the gun in its 'non-Ballistolled' state too to compare them against.

It's a fine line between presenting something for sale in its best possible light and trying to show it as 'more than it is'. I suppose it comes down to the intent of the seller. Is he trying to tempt buyers (perfectly legitimate) or trying to cover up blemishes (illegitimate)?

Surely using Ballistol to protect the finish is perfectly legitimate, Danny. My guns always look shiny, because they always have a film of Ballistol on them Those great gents I met at the springer bash could probably attest to the fact that I keep a Ballistol wetted cloth in a ziplok bag beside me at all times when shooting and always wipe the gun over with it before returning the gun to its bag. Ballistol doesn't dry out, or at least it takes forever to do so.

So is the gun 'tarted up' or just well-cared for?