doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com To refinish or not to refinish - pros and cons?

I don't want to hijack that other threat, but I think this would make for an interesting discussion.

So...what are the pros and cons of refinishing or restoring a gun?

Please share what you think.

To me, old doubles in original condition are very special (especially when the guns are 100+ years old).

I believe that keeping them as-is (except for functional/mechanical issues) shows a great deal of respect for the skill and tradition that went into making them.

It also gives future owners the chance to understand and admire how things used to be done.

Also, if a gun is in sound mechanical condition and its current finish is not damaging it or causing the gun to deteriorate, is there a practical reason to refinish?

Thanks

OWD

Old topic, but I believe that those finishes were put there to protect the gun, add good firm grip, etc., and in England and Europe most of your better guns were sent in every year or so to be maintained. This included touching up the bluing, lapping bores,touching up worn checkering, rubbing a bit of linseed into the stock, etc. To me then, lack of these finishes only shows lack of proper care. This extends to repairs done improperly as well. If you're doing or getting things done in the original fashion, and properly, you're not denying anyone the chance to see and understand how things used to be done. In fact you're enhancing the experience.
JMO,
Jim

I agree with Jim. Americans are obsessed with as-original antiques and collectibles. Europeans are meticulous about annual scheduled maintenance and touch-ups every year are to be expected.

I personally like to buy shotguns that are "living legends" in that they are built like Swiss watches and would cost in today's dollars, about $100k-$250k when new 100 years ago. I like them "ruined" (restored) because it liberates me to use them in the field without worrying about natural wear and tear. Every so many years I'll have the stock touched up or some other detail reworked without fear of negative financial impact.

Put simply: Restored or not-quite-original English shotguns are an incredible value and are meant to be used and worn, properly serviced and repaired, and then used again.

I remember going to a car show years ago where I looked at a bunch of old rust buckets with gold ribbons and trophies adjacent to the cars. It was the "unrestored, original condition" section. While it got many ooohs and aaahs from some people, the fully restored section that contained cars that looked like they just came off the assembly line was far more inspiring to me. It's just a preference and I'm sure many people on this forum will disagree.

I think it comes down to whether you view guns as tools (perhaps the most aethestically refined tool there is) or historical artifacts to be protected accordingly. If you view them as tools, then they need to be maintained accordingly, as is generally done in Europe. Obviously, there are some historically significant guns that should be left as is - Lord Ripon's Purdey hammerguns should be left in the condition he shot them obviously.

Me personally - I view my guns as beautiful tools to be maintained as needed, and think refurbishing should be viewed as giving the gun the respect it is due (not to mention Trafalgar's point about protective finishes and slippery grips). But buyers, especially here, generally pay more for original condition, reflecting that there are a lot buyers who view leaving the gun in original condition as being more appropriate (and vaulable).

Depends on the gun. Different details, different conclusions.

Generally my rule of thumb is: Don't do a damn thing but repairs.

Best,

Mike

Restore, but don't pimp it.

In my view, Mr. Mike has about nailed it. Fix the faults, balance that with the existing patina and let a grand old gun be a grand old gun... not a tarted up object that is devoid of character.

In a way, I've regretted every gun I've ever "restored."

Reblack,rechequer,rebrowne/blue, and service.
Was that not part and parcel for a British working gun?
Having said that,I had the privilege of handling one of the Kaisers' doubles awhile back.
Guns with such provenance should be carefully waxed and put away.
So really depends on the gun to a great extent.

I'm as torn on this as anyone. I do like some of the better condition guns that haven't been messed with. I also have some completely restored guns. I like them for what they are. They are original guns and have a history. They aren't replicas just because they have a new finish. But replacing stocks does make the stock a replica...I'll concede that. I think that enough badly done refinishes have been generated over the decades that any refinishing gets a bad rap.

I like the idea of taking an otherwise mistreated gun and restoring it. I have 3 that come to mind that fit this bill. A Fox AE that had a broken badly made replacement stock no finish and a malfunctioning ejector, a Parker GH that had a broken stock and no finish, and an Ithaca NID Grade 3 factory SST ejector that had no finish a bad wrist splice on a butt graft and some mechanical trouble. All are neat guns now.

I'm with Mike, if you have to "restore" a gun, just do one. Dont make a practice out of "restoring" a bunch of them...Every nick and dent and wear point in those old guns has been earned..If it breaks, get it fixed and shoot it....