doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com When is Restoration O.K.?

I hate to be the language police here, but sometimes it matters. I own a few custom upgrades but I don't own what I would call a restoration.

Nor, of the three beautiful Foxes pictured in this thread, would I call any of them a restoration, as in "having been brought back to its original condition.".

FWIW. I'd be proud to own all of them and certainly don't think "refurbished and upgraded" is in any way disparaging.

The "Early A" Fox is a great restoration candidate because of the great fit of metal parts on most of them. Later Foxes were not fitted quite as well except in exceptional examples.

Thanks Chuck. I'd like to take credit for it but I just paid the bill. The work was done by a couple of Canadian members on here, whose expertise I value highly. Like you I really love the early engraving. Stupidly I passed on a lovely B grade with the early engraving about 5 years ago. Oh the guns we missed on!

I'm no expert (in anything) but I tried to do a restoration to my Fox. No change, just a return to as close to factory new as I understood it to be. CCH, not cyanide because that's what I thought was done at the time (1909-1910), re-blue and re-finish the original stock and forearm.

I don't have any problem with upgrades or refurbishing either and I'm not about to enter the Fox in a "best resto ever contest" but that was my intention, to bring it back to original condition, not to change it.

Mike,
I think by your strict definition, no gun with new wood could be called a restoration. The wood, being a natural and unique organic substance, can never be replicated.

That Crass has a piece of wood with figure, debateably, appropriate to the grade. The AE of mine, well above the A grades I've seen. To me, restoration runs from replicating every piece and finish to fixing the non-functioning parts and leaving the rest as is. I use the term loosely. I done foresee I would restore a gun with 3" drop. So if that isn't a restoration in your book, I have no arguement. But it is a restoration in mine, just not a totally faithful restoration.

The Mona Lisa has been repainted on the bottom in the 50s. Xrays show it has 3 versions of the painting in the layers (heck Leo himself coulda done all 3 before he was satisfied or not). I'm not sure what I'd call all that, but the art people call it restoration.

I'm not policing the vocabulary either. Restoration to me means brought back as close as possible to the original factory specs. About the same stock dimensions, browning/bluing, case colors etc... The chokes and forcing cones can't be restored if they have been altered. A broken stock can be replaced with one with finish, checkering, and figure appropriate to the original.

Best,

Mike

I think restoration is great when someone else has paid fot it and now I get to buy the gun at a reduced price because it's no longer "original" .
Steve

Chuck,

Close, but not quite. A restoration of anything is typically one that is returned to original condition, not necessarily with original parts. Otherwise, there would be no restored automobiles, airplanes, or oil paintings.

Lots of people use the term loosely, that's why I interjected. Seems pretty germaine to the title of the thread. IMO, the term restoration should be clear enough without qualifiers. So, if we have restorations that are not "totally faithful", I suppose it's fair to call them totally unfaithful restorations. But restored to what?

If I replace the original, somewhat plain, 3" drop stock with one that is far fancier, with features unique to a different model, and with considerably different (perhaps unique) dimensions and call that a restoration, what should I call custom?
In the end, people are perfectly free to call a Chevy Bel Air with Cadillac trim restored, though probably not totally faithfully restored.

Not to pick nits here (but it is fun), what about a "restored" gun with original wood that has been bent for drop? All else as it came from the factory.