When to restore or leave as is ??

[tom tutwiler]

When does one make the decision to restore versus leaving "as is"? Does relative rarity dictate that one shouldn't restore? Just wondering as I've got more then one gun I'd consider in bringing back to its orginial life because they either don't fit (stock too short, too much drop) or they have another issue (outside of barrels oxidized badly, no case coloring, beat up screws etc.).

When does one pull the trigger and make a decision. Also assuming cost of restoration isn't an issue (within reason of course) what would folks truly prefer? Just wondering of course. It just seems to me that folks here and on the Fox and L.C. Smith board seem to scream "leave it alone". However, what does it really hurt to have Turnbull or DelGreco or one of the "well known" folks make the gun as it was when it left the factory. I mean the Brits do it and they don't even burp. They seem to think is ok there.

Appreciate thoughts because obviously lots of folks have been down this road for sure.

[todd allen]

Great question! I am curious about that myself.

[Craig Larter]

I am in the leave it as is camp except I will pay to have a complete dis-assembly/cleaning/lubrication. I hate buggered screws so I will pay to have them cleaned up. If the gun needs much more than that (loose ribs, poor barrels, rust) I pass-----run away. If I have a mistake gun that needs expensive work it goes back into the stream of commerce, even if I lose money. There are just to many great condition common American SxS's to consider restoration of a poor condition example.
The longer I am at this the more I appreciate the character of vintage guns even if they have there share of bumps and bruises. I hate to wipe away all those hard earned marks, they are part of the guns history. That being said if someone wants to do a complete restoration and that makes them happy--go for it.

[Justin Julian]

Here's an easy one....when someone has improperly refinished a nice gun, e.g., blued the frame and cold blued the barrels, restore it properly with case colors and rust bluing. That's a no-brainer. The question becomes more controversial when a gun is in rough but original condition. Also, if a gun is already mismatched in serial numbers and you'd like it better if it were restored, go ahead and make it your own. Nothing left to lose since its not original in its parts, IMHO.

[charlie cleveland]

i tend to lean to let the old guns be as they are found but when a gun is really run down and not in shooting shape then its time to change things..several of our members have brought these old scrap parkers back to shootin shape... charlie

[Brian Dudley]

I think that if a gun has some rare features and is in original condition, it should be left be for the sake of preservation and value. It that same gun had some things about it that were not right, they should be made right.

If a gun is not of ultra rare configuration, but has features that make it undesireable to the masses, such as short stocks, high drops and other things that might not make it practical, they should be corrected. It will make the gun more attractive to a prospective purchaser if they can also use it and also admire it.

Case colors are something that are always debated over. It is soemthing that has no actual function in restoring. Even though the colors may fade, the surface hardening does not. I think a frame should only be recolored if all other parts of the gun are to be restored fully first.

An of course, if a gun has finish worn to the point of excellorated deterioration, ie barrel finish that is so worn it is starting to rust, then maybe it is time to blue the barrels. Or obviously if a stock is broken or missing... replace it. It is all part of maintenance and getting worthy old guns back in the field.

When it comes to wood, there is a major difference between restoring and freshening up. You may call a gun original today, but what is to say that the original owner did not add a coat or two of oil finish to the wood after 20 years to brighten up it's worn original finish.

You started this thread with a very good question that many of us debate over all the time.

[John Havard]

The value of the shotgun is degraded with a restoration I would assume. However, if I owned a relatively common Parker and wanted to use it for myself and wanted to spend the money on a restoration I'd certainly do it (have done it and am now doing it).

If I owned a Parker that was collectible I'd be very hesitant to have it restored unless it was trashed from previous neglect.

[Brian Dudley]

Well, the value is only really degraded if the original condition is high or good. A fully restored gun will never rank better than "Very good" on a value scale. As oposed to people thinking they can ask "NIB" or "Excellent" prices for a restored gun. Obviously restoring a "Poor" condition gun is going to raise it's value, but if it is worth it is jsut a matter of economics.