[Ruff Hunter]

Its an oft repeated rule of thumb, as reflected in the pages of the Blue Book, that even a properly restored vintage double is discounted about 50% as compared to an original. But I think this statement has been misinterpreted by many. The reference to the reduction in value, it seems to me, is to a comparable 100% original Parker. Some seem to think that a 10% Parker with smooth checkering, brown oxidized barrels, and a silver frame is worth more than it would be if fully restored. I do not think that to be the case in the reality of the market, nor is that the message that the Blue Book (and others) intends to convey. The value comparison is apples to apples, that being an original retaining 100% of its surface finishes as opposed to a restoration showing 100%. I have yet to see an example of an original in 10% condition being worth twice as much as the same gun in 100% restored condition if done properly by someone like Turnbull or Bacheldor. That being said, it also seems to be true that one can seldom recover the cost of the restoration on resale if you've paid someone else to do the work. I'm not saying that it isn't possible in every case, but I've yet to see it happen myself, especially where lower grade guns are concerned. So the lesson there, on lower grade guns, would be to restore a Parker in low condition with little collector value as is, and don't do it for the expectation of profit on a resale, as you will likely be disappointed.