doublegunshop.com - home Forums General Discussion DoubleGun BBS @ doublegunshop.com What constitutes "restored"??

In your opinion, at what point does a cleaning become a "freshening" become a "refinish" become a "restoration"? If you put some slacum or tru-oil on the wood does that make it refinshed? If you touch up the bluing on the barrels or furniture is that "restored"? Just tought it would be interesting to see everyone's opinion......

It's all subjective and each gun will be judged on it's own by each prospective buyer or nose picker.

To me, a true restoration is making the gun like it was when new. Replacing parts that need it. Re-finishing the metal to match the factory finish. Refinishing and re-checkering the wood to match the factory... or maybe restocking if necessary. The engraving, if worn down, may need re-cutting. Etc.

That my opinion.

Adam

I second Adam's criteria.............exactly as original or not at all.........including comb of the stock (if new wood), butt plate, metal work, cc, engraving and checkering patterns, forcing cones and chokes and chamber lengths, barrel length and so on - no butchering anywhere......exactly as it left the factory.....preferably lettered with Cody or the appropriate Society..... otherwise IT IS just a modified gun of sorts....with all of the previous owners modifications and add ons.... ............kind of like a fixed up Model A Ford with fiberglass fenders, leopard skin upholstery and a Cord or Pierce Arrow radiator cap.....a far cry from "restored"....the word "restored" is used way too loosely IMO.....restored means "back to factory new".....no exceptions....

Custom and heavily modified guns are in a different category IMO and the word 'restored' would not be appropriate.....owners custom re-worked gun would be a better description.....

There is a REASON that the Eiffel Tower, Statue of Liberty and numerous other works of art are RESTORED, from buildings to battleships.....the degree depends on the individual condition of each piece............old guns are the same.....people bang them up, sweat all over them, let them fall over against a tree or rock, leave them rubbing in gun racks, etc......to me that is not character...........but damage.....

I like, "Bringing back to a former position or condition".
Open enough to allow work to be done, closed enough to define result..
So many guns shown here are not restored. A loose "refreshed" maybe, but not restored. The purpose of restored is original condition.

Example: You open a field grade boxlock and see that the "pet and pest" areas are covered with scratches and file marks. Polishing or sanding them out is not restoration.

I appreciate the responses. I like my guns to look "good" but not necessarily new. I don't have anything of any real value so I clean them up good, re-oil the wood, try to remove any rust on the metal and touch up the bluing. I want a shooter that has character but doesn't look trashed or worn out. I never blue a receiver that would have had colored case hardening prefering to leave it silver/gray as an indication of use.

Phil:
You have what I consider the proper approach. Americans, as respectable as they are, seem consumed with things that are "like new in the box" or "restored to new."

This is fine if you're into such things. But to me, a gun that is 100+ years old (and has not been abused) is a trove of mystery and wonderment. All the dings and cosmetic flaws bespeak its unique and incomparable history. "Restoration" erases all that. And thus, erases my interest in the piece.

Granted, abused and neglected guns, cars, aircraft and homes are often better off with "restoration." But I'd much rather have a slightly "used" original E-Type Jaguar, Mk VI Spit, or Holland Royal than any restored version of same. It's the romantic in me. Nothing more.

You be the judge. That's what this game is all about. Not so much concensus. But it does make an interesting thread.

Best, Kensal.

Think of it like a Hollywood movie star. Lotions and creams to restore somewhat the way it was, maybe a nice tan and you loose a few pounds and get your teeth capped. Or full reconstruction, i.e. Face lift, tummy tuck, liposuction, tatooed eye brows etc. Everything to return you to where you once were and turn back the hands of father time.

Full reconstruction of people or guns doesn't make sense IMO.

PS. Now building a custom gun out an existing platform is different indeed. Just one person's opinion.

Should we add the term "remanufactured" to cover the return to new? AG&L is doing this: new barrels, all lever work up to new, new stock, recase action, etc.

I would characterize AGL's efforts to be on the pelagic end of restoration. Restoring suggests replacing that which was lost or damaged. Saving one pin, and calling a shotgun restored is a stretch.
Remanufacturing, using all modern techniques to modify an old shotgun action is the correct terminology. But it's not a restoration. The entire purpose is to end up with a modern firearm. Not to turn back the clock.

It's that "prior condition" definition that is the bugger.