Visit Brian Dudley's homepage! | |
11-13-2017, 11:11 AM | #3 | ||||||
|
What I have noticed is when it looks like forearm and stock come from two pieces of different wood. A lot of times the for-end and stock came from same piece of wood at the factory when manufactured and will have the same finish, look, grain, feel etc. Also the patina and character of wood on one may not match on the two pieces. Checkering is a giveaway as well.
Like Brian said, if done right then its hard to tell since a high quality craftsman will make both pieces look the same. I was looking at a nice Vulcan Parker 12 ga on 1 1/2 frame that was made in 1905. Gun looked pretty good and locked up tight and gunsmith that owned shop said the barrels were in good shape. Started looking at the stock. The grain of wood, patina, looked a little different. The wood on stock was straighter grained and did not look as worn as the forarm. Started looking at wood to metal finish and it looked good, but at the end of the day it was a restock. BTw this gun shop also had a bunch of old guns. He had also just bought out a gunshop's old inventory of wood blanks from a Perazzi gun dealer that went out of business. He had a whole bunch of some incredible wood that had grain that looked almost unreal with the dark and swirling grain in the walnut. I would hope that the wood was unfinished enough to be used for something else. BTw also agree with Dean and Brian. It is not easy and by no means am I an expert, but I am experienced with old wood since just about every piece of furniture in our home is antique family piece. It is hard to explain and just like playing poker there are tells that expert players will notice and its hard to explain. I think it also applies to picking horses on race day. Remember my granddad going to the track. He was not a big gambler but he knew horses. He would slide off and go to paddock and look at the horses and then place his small token bets and was most of the time was always in the money. He liked betting on the long shots to show or place and very rarely ever bet the favorites. He did score once bet a long shot to win. He would never tell us which horses he was betting on. Asked him one time to explain what he was looking for and he would just say the complete package and nothing about what went into the package. Understanding that, took a lifetime of working with horses and watching them move. Last edited by Todd Poer; 11-13-2017 at 01:24 PM.. Reason: Follow up |
||||||
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Todd Poer For Your Post: |
11-13-2017, 11:33 AM | #4 | ||||||
|
It is very difficult to try to describe in a few sentences or paragraphs that which one develops over years and years of examining and comparing known high condition originals with those that pretend to be.
Some can look at a stock or forend and know immediately if it is original or a replacement. It is a developed skill, not easily described. .
__________________
"I'm a Setter man. Not because I think they're better than the other breeds, but because I'm a romantic - stuck on tradition - and to me, a Setter just "belongs" in the grouse picture." George King, "That's Ruff", 2010 - a timeless classic. |
||||||
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Dean Romig For Your Post: |
11-13-2017, 02:33 PM | #5 | ||||||
|
1. Factory fore ends and stocks are seldom matched on low grade guns.
2. Fore ends are often much more worn on guns that have been shot a lot because the hand slides on the fore end. 3. Have you considered checking the stock serial number? |
||||||
The Following User Says Thank You to Bruce Day For Your Post: |
11-13-2017, 05:22 PM | #6 | |||||||
|
Quote:
Have looked at a lot of old guns and probably never made direct distinction between wear on fore ends and stock. Most if original and well cared for looked equally worn. Some looked worse than others chips and cracks etc. Again its not sole indicator if you were just trying to see if some woodwork replaced. Learning something on Parkers. I know there are several SN stamped into metal parts, but they also stamped the stock's. Where would you find the stock stamp in the wood. I am guessing but maybe under the butt plate? Just looking at a gun would not want that liability of removing something unless its stamped somewhere in the open. Hey I am learning so maybe when I look at other Parkers I know what I am looking at. |
|||||||
11-13-2017, 02:42 PM | #7 | ||||||
|
Well, that of course is an obvious thing to check.
However, you cant always pull the guard and check serial numbers on a gun that you may be looking at, either in hand or at a distance. Besides, any good stock maker that is shooting for a correct job is also going to stamp the serial numbers in the stock in the same fashion, and using similar stamps as the factory did.
__________________
B. Dudley |
||||||
The Following User Says Thank You to Brian Dudley For Your Post: |
11-13-2017, 02:50 PM | #8 | ||||||
|
Is that ethical? I think making something to the same standards is a goal to strive to but to make it 'appear' original isn't. JMHO
|
||||||
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Robin Lewis For Your Post: |
11-13-2017, 07:37 PM | #9 | |||||||
|
Quote:
So does this apply to old guns. The open market will decide and I dare say the vagaries of the market may not be isolated enough to completely ascertain a true difference. Others may disagree. Now if a gun is advertised as mint condition with all parts original and not reconditioned or replaced, then that could be deceptive if some parts were. Buyer Beware. Heck some guns I have seen the actions and barrels looked great but wood was trashed. New stock or greatly conditioned stock would add value but would it be the same to some one that looking only for pristine gun that is rarely fired and action only last seen by craftsman that put gun together nearly 100 years ago. I would dare say there would be a market premium in that case. If someone is trying to pass that off then that does create deception. I guess it just boils down to disclosure. Personally I once saw a good looking Parker that was supposedly all original but had shown wear and use but it looked great. Price on it was $5,000. There was a slightly used Parker Reproduction right beside it but it had just a little more scroll work and it had a price of $5,000. Go figure. The old original just felt right in the hands. The Repro came up the same but it just did not have same feel. Could be the cast or whatever but it felt good as well. However it did create a dilemma. Same question. Do you like KFC original recipe or extra crispy? Heck I liked them all. If I had the means and intestinal fortitude would have bought all four. Maybe I am not as discriminating as I should be but which gun will hold more value over time is the real question. Looks like nobody is making old or new anymore so... Quality and condition vs age and workmanship, plus some other variables. Last edited by Todd Poer; 11-13-2017 at 07:56 PM.. |
|||||||
11-14-2017, 01:28 PM | #10 | |||||||
|
Quote:
However, I have had conversations with gentlemen(not certain that truly applies) who spend large amounts of money restoring a firearm to like new condition. In their opinion on the matter, if they do a restoration the point is to have the gun returned to original like new condition including restoring original markings or serial numbers. In their opinion with the level of work and money put into the gun, they consider it to be restored to stock new condition. When I asked them if it was ethical to present a restored gun as a like new gun, their basic response was if you cannot tell a gun is restored in their opinion it is original. I don't personally agree with their logic, and have never been willing to trade guns with them, for both originality concerns and pricing issues, but that is what they firmly believe.
__________________
"The Parker gun was the first and the greatest ever." Theophilus Nash Buckingham |
|||||||
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|