Vintage Airgun refinishing and collector value

[45flint]

I ask this question on a American Airgun forum. Curious how the British would view it?

“This to me has become a fascinating question. I am a collector more than a shooter and I find original condition very important to me in evaluating price and desirability. I have heard that years ago refinishing was pretty accepted but now that seems to have changed. I would rather have a gun with legitimate wear than one refinished to look new. I know many here are just shooters and that’s fine but curious thoughts on how this influences other collectors. I know in the vintage firearm world a refinish can just destroy value. I feel in the Airgun world it may be more of a mixed bag?”

[DEAN C.]

I'm pretty sure the real collectors and enthusiasts prefer original patina, and reblued vintage collectables are not so sought after and would lose most peoples interest and value.

Lightly cleaned and oiled up would be acceptable and almost desirable to make the most of the older guns while keeping the age and every scratch and mark.
Having said that the slighter newer collectable items such as 30 year old Ripleys or NJR air arms, GC II pneumatics etc, it would be quite acceptable and condition would be everything if done properly.

[Jerry Cornelius]

I guess there comes a point where a refinished gun is more desirable (to me anyway) than a truly tatty original gun. But a lot of my enjoyment is handling and shooting well engineered old rifles rather than “collecting” per se

If the gun is truly rare I think refinishing is always a mistake. But if it was made in the tens of thousands does it really matter if one tired specimen is given a face lift?

Obviously passing off a refinished specimen as original is a different thing. Fraud, in fact.

[edbear2]

As Jerry says in many ways, but I did have a 1920's standard that had been re-done by someone who knew what they were doing, not polished but banded /grained as per original, and a bluing job like on shotgun barrels, so it ended up not looking overdone, like you would get on a TX for example. Woodwork the same, and at first glance as the job had been done a couple of years earlier, looked like a well preserved gun with no etching!

Wish I had asked who did it, I recall it was a gunshop East of me, maybe as far as Oxon.

ATB, Ed

[flogger]

I guess there comes a point where a refinished gun is more desirable (to me anyway) than a truly tatty original gun. But a lot of my enjoyment is handling and shooting well engineered old rifles rather than “collecting” per se

If the gun is truly rare I think refinishing is always a mistake. But if it was made in the tens of thousands does it really matter if one tired specimen is given a face lift?

Obviously passing off a refinished specimen as original is a different thing. Fraud, in fact.

Iam of the same mind there Jerry. On saying that i have quite a few pistols collected over time that have been refinished to a very high standard. A Webley target complete in wooden case marked A F STOEGER TARGET. With .177& .22 barrels circa 1925. ser.21642. Also a Webley mk2 target second pattern original box ser. 24984.just two looking at my lists. Must be worth a few quid especially the Stoeger.
Roly.

[ccdjg]

This is thorny question that has been raised many times before, and at the end, the day has to be taken on a case- by- case basis and one's personal preferences. However, I think it is useful to differentiate between "restoration" and "refinishing". If a gun has already had something done to it that has compromised its originality, such as being painted, stock carved with intials, barrel shortened etc., then if the gun is intended to be kept as a collectable (perhaps because of its rarity or age), then it makes sense to restore it back to how it was. In fact, if the gun is exceptionally rare, or even unique, and you have specialist knowledge of how the gun should look, you could even say that it is your duty to set the record straight and restore the gun as accurately as possible to its original form. This is what a museum might do to an ancient artefact for example. But of course such restoration processes should always be placed on record.

On the other hand, restoration carried out for deception and financial gain is a wholly different ballgame.

[Abasmajor]

As has already been said, this is clearly a Marmite issue which has long divided opinion among collectors depending on their particular preferences. I consider myself a bit of a purist and would not consider owning a fully refinished airgun even when done to a very high standard but have no issues with those that do.
For me, an aged appearance is a large part of the attraction and presents a pleasing visual indication of something that has been used and cared for over many years including any superficial imperfections picked up along the way. I'm happy to replace any broken parts with modern reproduction spares when available, but always keep the original part with the gun as part of its history.

Brian