Ballistol?

[Garvin]

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)?

[mrgeoff]

The slight shine that a protecting oil finish shows up very nicely in pictures more than real life.
Yes it's a problem when trying to show the honest condition of something a bit poor, when it looks amazing in a pic by accident!

[chieffool]

..that IS the question.

I suppose Holts can be expected to provide the best possible professional photography - and hopefully the most honest description? However, it would be so much better if they actually provided more pics.

I have one of yours Garvin bought last year through Holts (BSA Standard) which came with peep sight, and which is kept in the same oiled state by me at all times to preserve. I am very fond of it, and believe anyone else who buys undoubtedly treats their guns the same way for the same reason. Isn't this the same approach as cleaning the car before offering for sale?

To date I have been lucky enough not to buy a clinker with any issues - which is why I trust postings in the private sale section from other members of such an excellent community as this forum.

[isobar]

i agree that it's ok to give a coat of oil to make things shine for a photo,it's fairly obvious that it has been done in this case.on the other hand if you bought a shiny rifle like this from the pictures alone and found when delivered that it was actually varnished over the top you might not be so happy

[Airsporter1st]

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?

[draitzer]

Gents,

Do you think it was the Holt's people adding the shine on the David Swan guns, or a speculator who snagged them as bargains at Anderson & Garland's to turn a profit? ( I don't generally keep a close watch on Holt's photos as they often make me weep, knowing the auction goodies can't cross the Atlantic.)

Don R.

[Garvin]

..that IS the question.

I suppose Holts can be expected to provide the best possible professional photography - and hopefully the most honest description? However, it would be so much better if they actually provided more pics.

I have one of yours Garvin bought last year through Holts (BSA Standard) which came with peep sight, and which is kept in the same oiled state by me at all times to preserve. I am very fond of it, and believe anyone else who buys undoubtedly treats their guns the same way for the same reason. Isn't this the same approach as cleaning the car before offering for sale?

To date I have been lucky enough not to buy a clinker with any issues - which is why I trust postings in the private sale section from other members of such an excellent community as this forum.

Last year? Surely 2015, Richard? Glad it went to a good home.

Gents,

Do you think it was the Holt's people adding the shine on the David Swan guns, or a speculator who snagged them as bargains at Anderson & Garland's to turn a profit? ( I don't generally keep a close watch on Holt's photos as they often make me weep, knowing the auction goodies can't cross the Atlantic.)

Don R.

Don the speculator is Jason Millar, who was booted off here for dealing (or at least attempting to). No doubt he will make good money if these guns sell for anywhere near their reserves...

The Giffard pneumatic, for which he paid just under £1K hammer at the David Swan auction, may be the only one he doesn't make too much profit on, after seller's commission etc is paid.

I often wish that Swan auction could be re-run as I would break the bank to buy more, if the prices were the same (although I'm very happy with the two I did get).

[chieffool]

Last year? Surely 2015, Richard? Glad it went to a good home.

Mmmmm.....
...I think you are right. Just goes to show time flies by when you are having fun!

(Still a lovely gun - so many thanks)

[tacfoley]

Let's look at if from the perspective of another kind of purchase - a used car.

Car - used daily for taking the kids to college and weekends for towing a boat and occasional grass-tracking in the wilds. Owner has three labs and keeps chickens and the car interior shows every hair and feather, soda-pop can and candy wrapper. In the advert, unwashed, untidy, covered in crap and looking like a POS. £10000.

Car - used daily for taking the kids to college and weekends for towing a boat and occasional grass-tracking in the wilds. On the advert, shining, gleaming, black tyres, shiny chrome trim. Exterior AND interior, looks almost like new. £10000.

Which one would YOU buy?

tac

[Garvin]

Let's look at if from the perspective of another kind of purchase - a used car.

Car - used daily for taking the kids to college and weekends for towing a boat and occasional grass-tracking in the wilds. Owner has three labs and keeps chickens and the car interior shows every hair and feather, soda-pop can and candy wrapper. In the advert, unwashed, untidy, covered in crap and looking like a POS. £10000.

Car - used daily for taking the kids to college and weekends for towing a boat and occasional grass-tracking in the wilds. On the advert, shining, gleaming, black tyres, shiny chrome trim. Exterior AND interior, looks almost like new. £10000.

Which one would YOU buy?

tac

This doesn't really work, Tac, unless the car is a rare collectors model, in which case the first one sounds more authentic.

[cringe]

This doesn't really work, Tac, unless the car is a rare collectors model, in which case the first one sounds more authentic.

Must be a bastard of gun to shoot! BUT! who does not clean/polish anything before putting up for sale?