Quote:
Originally Posted by John Allen
Back when Askins wrote his article shooters looked on guns as tools first.To his mind he was making a better tool.Now we are more collectors and originality is most important.to answer the question,the gun would be worth much more in original condition today than in its altered state.The fact that it was owned by Askins is really not important because so few people know who he was.Most of the ones that do know who he was are older and when we are gone almost no one will know who he was. Then the gun is just another cobbled up Parker.
|
Thanks, John. This is always an interesting issue, and one that, in the end, the person who buys the gun has the last call on.
I will say, I cringed when I read what Askins did to his gun (and it's what inspired this post), and I was happy to read that when he contacted Parker Bros. they told him to buy another gun. Still, I see provenance as an important issue to many collectors. Maybe not Askins so much, although he is certainly an important individual to the history of shotgunning, but when we look at other figures, such as Annie Oakley, Czar Nicholas, Nash Buckingham, and Teddy Roosevelt (all more prominent than Askins, for sure), it certainly seems to be the case that (a least some) collectors value provenance.
I don't like single triggers or beavertail fore arms, but I understand they are desirable features and bring higher asking prices. I also know that certain provenance, maybe not so much with Askins, also calls for more interest. I remember reading recently of how some of our members thought that the DuBray hammer gun should have sold for more than it did because of its provenance. DuBray and Askins are arguably not in the same Parker collector category, but I think it would be supportable to say that a well documented gun from Askins had more value than the same gun without this gun's history...but NOT the same as the same gun in original factory condition.