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

[Garvin]

Over the course of 40-odd years of collecting I've had a couple of refinished air rifles: a Haenel 33 and a Webley Mk1 rifle. The Haenel because I was young and it was cheap, the Webley because at the time I feared I wouldn't get another one.

The Webley was heavily refinshed after what must have been serious corrosion in some places and this was especially obvious where the refinisher had smoothed carefully around the markings to preserve them at the same time as removing the rust.

I just couldn't relate to that gun at all like I could to others in my collection - even much inferior collectables in worn condition. The thought that I owned something that was basically a modern creation (albeit one 'painted on an old canvas' as it were) just ruined it for me.

I dare say if I looked at it only for its shooting properties I would feel differently. But that's not why I collect.

Now I realise the connection with a gun's past is so critically important, I'll never buy another refinished gun, even one I would otherwise love to own.

[Mach 1.5]

It's original only once. Mach 1.5

[Turnup]

In my limited experience it seem that there are two types of collector:

1) The collector who has no interest in shooting (might have the odd plink now and again) but is passionately interested in the history of the collection. In general for them conditions must be original, including any wear/modifications/additions which are part of the gun's history and it does not seem to matter even if the gun does not work..

2) The shooter who becomes interested in older guns but is primarily a shooter. In general for them condition is not so important and re-finishing is also not so important - how they shoot is the primary interest for them.

I can understand both views but for me a gun which does not work is not interesting other than perhaps as a fixer upper.

[ccdjg]

Now I realise the connection with a gun's past is so critically important, I'll never buy another refinished gun, even one I would otherwise love to own.

I can fully understand where you are coming from Danny, but I wonder if by "a gun's past" you are referring exclusively to natural wear and tear, and not when human intervention had been involved in the gun's history. I would like to put a particular scenario to you, as I would be interested to see what your take would be.

You are the lucky owner of the only known example of a Walther LP52 pistol, so something like this could have happened. Imagine when this gun had first become available for you to buy, the owner had refinished it because when he first got it, someone 50 years before, had decided to nickel it. The owner, knowing that this was wrong had recently removed the nickel plating and blued the gun similar to what it was when it left the factory. Would you still buy the gun, knowing that it was refinished, and also knowing that its history (i.e. the old nickel plating) had been compromised ?

Second question: Do you think the previous owner did the right thing in replacing the nickel finish with a blued finish?

[45flint]

Here is a interesting case on point. I manage to win the lot containing Ingvar Alm’s Tell 3’s. Ingvar was old school and was part of the group that had no hesitation refinishing Airguns. One of his was boxed and original. The lower one was reblued to the highest standard well beyond original. From examination this gun had to be in good shape to begin with? I think he just wanted to perfect it? Seems odd to me from my current point of view as a collector.

[Garvin]

I can fully understand where you are coming from Danny, but I wonder if by "a gun's past" you are referring exclusively to natural wear and tear, and not when human intervention had been involved in the gun's history. I would like to put a particular scenario to you, as I would be interested to see what your take would be.

You are the lucky owner of the only known example of a Walther LP52 pistol, so something like this could have happened. Imagine when this gun had first become available for you to buy, the owner had refinished it because when he first got it, someone 50 years before, had decided to nickel it. The owner, knowing that this was wrong had recently removed the nickel plating and blued the gun similar to what it was when it left the factory. Would you still buy the gun, knowing that it was refinished, and also knowing that its history (i.e. the old nickel plating) had been compromised ?

Second question: Do you think the previous owner did the right thing in replacing the nickel finish with a blued finish?

Hi John. Great questions both. I think my personal beef with refinished airguns must be with the human intervention erasing its true condition rather than the exact current condition of it. Having said that, the closer a gun is to its original condition, the keener I am to add it to my collection!

As for the Walther LP52, I expect that if it was obviously not in its original state (x2) I would have steered well clear. (As it was, I ummed and ahed before taking the plunge because I knew it wasn't at all certain it was original. But as it happens, happily I think it probably is!)

If it had been nickel-plated and then refinished, personally my originality antennae would have been doubly tweaked. Given that the LP52/53 is not conventional blued steel, I wouldn't have advised the 2nd owner to attempt a refinish either, but since it was already tampered with, I could understand why he'd want to.

[ccdjg]

Thanks for your clear answers Danny. I agree entirely with you about the evils of human intervention, but I must admit I would never pass up a refinished gun if it was extremely rare and there was no chance of my finding another in my lifetime. Also, if the refinishing was totally out of character with the original form of the gun , I would have no qualms about trying to remedy the situation, as long as I could ensure that sympathetic ageing was part of the process.

But, like you, for "ordinary" collectables it would have to be non-refinished every time.

[micky2]

Thanks for your clear answers Danny. I agree entirely with you about the evils of human intervention, but I must admit I would never pass up a refinished gun if it was extremely rare and there was no chance of my finding another in my lifetime. Also, if the refinishing was totally out of character with the original form of the gun , I would have no qualms about trying to remedy the situation, as long as I could ensure that sympathetic ageing was part of the process.

But, like you, for "ordinary" collectables it would have to be non-refinished every time.

That is the way that l look at refinished guns. l would only buy it, like as you say if it was extremely rare and you are not likely to find another. but l would not have a gun that l owned refinished it just would not have the same appeal any more knowing it was refinished . and l have some very poor condition guns in my collection that some collectors would not give the time of day to. but each to their own.