This question reappears often enough and the originality gun is the final consensus. It is a straight forward answer comparing a "benchmark" gun price to a gun completely restored to original specs. 50% seems like a big discount considering the craftsmanship and expense to restore a well used gun to something close to new.

Is any restoration acceptable (i.e., barrels reblued correctly or stock refinish) for adding value to the gun? A lot of people stay away from recase coloring the action.

It sure would be informative -- and interesting -- to know what some of the higher priced restored guns actually go for. We can see this at the auction sites that post the sale price, but don't have that information from the dealers. One would think they put the price somewhere near what they think they can get. How near?

It also begs the question, is a gun's value what it sells for or what experts think it's worth? I could argue both ways...but will leave that to others.

Time may tell a different story.. my guess is that collector grade parkers will always command top dollar but that over time, properly and correctly restored parkers will inevitably increase in value. Supply and demand will govern

I must have studied too much Microeconomics in Grad school. Declining demand while supply stays the same = lower prices. Demand for our guns is declining

This is probably more applicable to restored guns than very high original condition guns. There are only a limited (and diminishing) number of original condition guns while the number of restored guns increases every year... month... week...

We see asking prices on very nicely restored guns but when they sell we are rarely privy to the sell price... while when a 'benchmark' gun changes hands we never even know about it sometimes for years - and the price is subject to conjecture because that is information that is rarely ever shared.





.

Another factor is "restored" or "fluffed up" guns are way too often represented as all original. I have first hand knowledge of restored high grade guns going thru auction as all original and guns being represented by "reputable" dealers" as all original actually being complete restorations. I recently saw a $78,000 sale of all original Parkers latter turn out to be restored guns. This distorts the $$$ paid for what.
David

This is a very interesting post. I guess it boils down to what makes you happy. A well worn but honest Parker has been used for what it was intended for or a restored version of that gun that may or may not simulate what it looked like coming out of the factory. When I first got into buying and shooting Parker's I thought the latter. I was lucky to find and purchase, at a very reasonable price, fairly rare 16 gauge ejector gun, one of 24 such guns made in its configuration. The gun showed plenty of "honest" wear but functioned perfectly. I immediately sent it off to one of the top restoration shops that we all recognize for a total, authentic restoration. The wait for the return of my prize was almost unbearable. The day it arrived I could not wait to open the box and see what a "new" Parker actually looked like. To say my reaction was total disappointment would be an understatement. Yes, the wood looked perfect, the rust bluing on the barrels was beautiful and the case colors bright and colorful. To bright and colorful. The gun looked "perfect" and yet I was totally disappointed with it. The restorer had done nothing wrong or imperfect. Not his fault. I sold that gun within a month of getting it back restored. I now like original Parker's that have mellowed with time. After all, we all have.

The post-war American consumer/collector has always placed a premium on "new" stuff. Specifically, factory-new stuff.

If someone bought a new 1957 Chevrolet convertible and kept it in a garage for the past 61 years, collectors go nuts. Same for a 20-bore AH Parker that was purchased and never used for over 100 years.

But what's the "value" in factory-new? The Chevy was never enjoyed for what it was. And the Parker was never put to its intended use. Both are time-bound relics that no practical collector would either drive or shoot.

Give me an honest double gun that has seen use and care any day. And if it has been used to the point of distress, then restoration is justified.

The English take a different view on guns and gun maintenance. Just check Chris Batha's gun cleaning column in the current Shooting Sportsman...

Some things are maintenance more than "restoration". If the bluing is so worn that it is going to easily rust without contact oil application, then it is time to re-blue them as a form of maintenance. The same can be said about stock finish.

However, if the gun is so worn to where it actually needs these things, then it was not a high value collectors piece anyway. In these cases, the value is increases by performing these maintenance/restorative operations.

There is absolutely no reason to have to do any restoration work to a true 75-80% or better gun.

Fixing a buggard screw or something is one thing. But finish restoration is another.

Any gun truly NEEDING (say... 40% condition or less) restoration is of course going to be worth more restored than it was before. But not as much as an original gun in that same (post-restored) condition.



I tell people all the time, that very few guns are actually "worth" fully restoring from a monetary gain standpoint. You do it because you want to do it. Period. If financial gain can be had in some occasions, great.

And of course, any talk of restoration that I mention is assuming the work is top notch and completely correct. Anything less is not even worth discussing because it does de-value the gun.

I think Brian is correct in that maintance , touching up the stock finish, replace a bad screw. is not refinishing . The value of a restored 40% gun is, IMHO, not more that the gun was originally. First, it diminishes the number of buyers and the owner would not recover the cost of the restoration. If it makes the owner happy go for it ,but from a financial investment view it does not pay off.
David