This ties into my post about when to restore and when not to. If I am going to spend money on a restoration, I'd rather restore a "best gun" rather then a lesser grade.
For the makers that made guns of different levels of quality, how do you define a "best gun"? Are there little things that you only seen on a maker's best gun?
It all depends on the individual. I have paid to have damascus guns restored that certainly aren't considered best guns. But they aren't bottom end guns either. I had them restored because they needed it and I look at them as guns from another era where things were hand crafted and today are considered to be almost a lost "art form". Whatever their value is down the line is not really important to me and was not the reason or a concern when I had them done. In fact, they will likely be passed down to family members if anyone is interested in them. Now if resale value down the line is a big concern, then yes one had better look long and hard at what kind or type of gun money will be spent on. It all depends on the reason that motivates you to have a gun restored. Of the guns I have had done, I know I will never see my money back. But they are a thing of beauty, at least to me. And as mentioned, a best gun can mean different things depending on the time period or type of gun. It may even mean different things to different people.
