Relum.
Rubbish.
Im not known for my subtlety.
I was thinking about a previous thread and the merits or otherwise of “doing up” tired collectable guns, and it occurred to me what a great language English is for subtlety. I could think of no less than five “R” words that apply to the subject (there may be more):
Reclamation
Resurrection
Regeneration
Renovation
Restoration
I wonder how you would define these terms when they are applied to “improving” a truly collectable gun (as opposed to a gun that is intended for regular use)? And under what circumstance would any of these different approaches be justifiable?
I will start the ball rolling by saying that “reclamation” and “resurrection” are probably much the same thing and would apply to a total wreck that was destined for the skip (or may even already be in it). In which case, IMO, anything you did to it to get it working would be justifiable. I think the other terms need more thinking about though.
Relum.
Rubbish.
Im not known for my subtlety.
Founder & ex secretary of Rivington Riflemen.
www.rivington-riflemen.uk
Perhaps the most important word Rust!
Last edited by Binners; 18-11-2020 at 04:17 PM. Reason: being daft
More important to some sellers than any word on that list
'Remuneration'
Revivification
Also:
reactivation, rebirth, renaissance, renascence, renewal, resurgence, resuscitation, recrudescence, revitalization
All from memory of course.
Vintage Airguns Gallery
..Above link posted with permission from Gareth W-B
In British slang an anorak is a person who has a very strong interest in niche subjects.
“Refinishing” is a good one that I had forgotten.
As far as “renovation” and “restoration” are concerned, I always feel that renovation ( = rejuvenation?) should be a much less invasive process than restoration, probably involving nothing more than a general clean-up, removal of surface rust, replacing seals, lubricating etc. Nothing that ought to offend the purist.
Restoration, on the other hand, is a more thorny question. Most collectors on here are very vocal about their dislike of refinished vintage guns. Is that only when the new finish is obviously wrong, or would even a refinish that perfectly matched the factory original still be frowned upon?
It strikes me that there are two types of collectors. The first are represented by collectors of vintage cars or old-master paintings. In both cases, restoration is perfectly acceptable, and in fact is deemed desirable when needed. Then you have collectors of porcelain and china, where any form of restoration is regarded as a no-no, and can have a disastrous effect on value. Do the majority of us airgun collectors really fall into the second camp? Are we snobs rather than realists?
Start with a bit of reparation, continue with a tad of restitution and finish with a mild dose of reinvigoration! After that you can go clean your gun.
The difference is that it is virtually impossible to buy a classic car in 'mint' condition, whereas the majority of models of old airguns can be found in a condition (albeit at a cost) where most of the original finish remains.
Also an old gun with time worn patina can be attractive - an old car with time worn rust is not, plus it will only deteriate further.
I've had a couple through my hands that have needed remanufacture ! One or two I've reincarnated (came back as something different to what they were in a previous life). And one I reclaimed from a skip.
Always looking for any cheap, interesting, knackered "project" guns. Thanks, JB.