[Dean Freeman]

As to the question regarding which makes more sense; diligent maintenance of a gun up to and including regular restoration (ala the way the brits might approach the issue). Or never touching the gun except for regular maintenance in order to retain as much "original" character as possible (ala the current American collector ethos). I think the brits have it right. A gun is a gun in their eyes and therefore from their perspective, the guns they have are maintained to the highest standard. The value of the gun is maintained or perhaps increased because the gun is MAINTAINED in ORIGINAL condition, or so the prevailing opinions of the British gun culture might posit. In my humble opinion, it makes sense that a gun would be maintained to an original state. The addition and retaining of wear, use, or love marks can be considered by heirs or collectors depending on provenance, historical importance, or personal and emotional ties to the gun. Collectors and the market at large could determine value on a case to case basis. Coincidentally, this might attach a sense of importance to the maintaining of records for all gun owners (a trait I'll bet we all wish was common among the previous caretakers of our guns). Otherwise guns in the mainstream would be looked upon as items to be cared for to the fullest extent. A paradigm shift that might help current would-be heirlooms last for generations. If our gun culture looked at its guns in this manner, perhaps there wouldn't be so many misused, neglected guns out there. I for one would prefer that more parkers had made it to the present day, and would gladly sacrifice any current equity in my guns to make that wish come true.
I understand both sides of this argument, and agree with points from both camps. The point I make here reflects my wishes for what has happened and my hopes for what might happen. Obviously, however these are merely MY opinions and are certainly apt to be as flawed as I am at times.