I'm looking at a pair of best quality British guns that are in superb condition with great barrels, etc. They have had a first class re-stock job by a respected stocker working independently, with well matched and laid out wood.

The recent discussion about effect on value of guns rebarrelled "by another" made me wonder how much re-stocking "by another" impacts the value of guns that are in all other respects outstanding.

I'd appreciate your opinions. I am a long time reader here and am always impressed by the collective knowledge of this group.

Dave

Unless it was done by a BIG name....Mr. Trevalion, Mr. Hodgins....I feel it dramatically effects the value of a H&H or Purdey. The sales at Holt's etc, seem to prove the same.

I agree with SKB. I recently sent a Holland 20b to Paul Hodgins to restock. He was a stocker at Holland and Holland and 'articled' with them. He does PERFECT work which is reflected in his cost. Still, my gun will most likely be discounted a little as a restock. The original was very short when I purchased the gun which was reflected in it's price, hence I felt financially justified to restock. Restocking undoubtedly depreciates a gun to an educated buyer, less so with quality work IMHO.

How would anyone know they were restocked?
Pics?
Mike,

If you remove locks or stock from the action on old guns the wood takes on a patina from aging and oils. The educated can generally tell even on old restocks. I look when I buy.

Most best British guns and rifles were "made to measure", and some are so made as not to fit the next owner without a restock. Also, over time many great guns have been altered in ways that are objectionable to a new owner, and are then restocked.

If the restock job is done in the correct manner and style of the original maker, and the quality of work, and wood are of the same degree of quality as the original, a restock is not a detrement to value. What is dificult, is to recoup the present cost of best work and wood in the used gun market.

All the best,

Mal

Short answer: yes it does diminish resale value.

But here's another question - Why are you buying the guns? If you want them to fit well and shoot well then resale value isn't the issue. Besides, you can always keep the old stocks and put them back if youwant to sell.

A friend of mine had two 21s restocked to fit him perfectly and people kept telling him that it reduced their resale value. Well, he shot them both for well over a decade and when he died the resale value didn't really matter.

If you want, amortize the decrease over the time you're going to enjoy the guns and it becomes trivial.

Take two identical "best" guns, one that has been well restocked with standard dimensions and the other with an original stock with unshootable dimensions - which takes the bigger hit on value? Obviously this is a hypothetical question, but I think a lot of this depends on which buyers will be most attracted to the gun - collectors or shooters.

Gnonom's point about keeping the original stock is a good one - I was looking at a graded Fox recently that was in very good shape and appeared to have a lot of original condition - it also had about 6 feet of drop in the stock. The seller suggested that approach - the gun was too pricey to justify the restocking but I filed that suggestion away for another opportunity.

Do the guns fit you? If so I do not get that worked up about it. Quality work was done and prime wood was used was it not? A small deduction might be in order but not a major one. I have seen restock jobs done by hacks whose work make the guns almost unsellable. It sounds like your guns were restocked in proper fashion by someone who is respected in the trade. Only thing better would be to have the maker do the work if you are a purist. But so much work is out sourced these days how do you know who does what?

Americans need to get over this obsession with unaltered, factory condition in British guns. There are a few like that but the vast majority have been altered or freshened up over the years. Worse a hundred years of use, even when mild, will make minor touch ups a practical matter. Not one of a seller trying to make a worn out gun appear to be a pristine one. I would never buy a car with 50K miles which had factory oil in it. Why not extend the same to a gun?

One other thing to consider is that that pair was most likely made for a gent who was about 5' 5"- 5" 7" if he was average size. If he was average, or worse shorter than average, the LOP and drop on the original stocks might have been well short of your needs. I have seen a Best pair sit unsold for years because the stocks were 12.5". No seller came along that could use them as is and few were willing to dump 10+K into restocking them. Sometimes original condition makes a gun almost unsellable in today's market.

You might have the stocks bent and extensions added. But consider that some of these guns have been bent by every owner to suit them. A pair near a hundred, might be on the fourth or fifth owner. That pair may have been bent multiple times already. How many bends can a stock take? How nice is a extension to look at? The stocks might have been at the end of their lifespans and had to be replaced. How would you feel if you bought the pair, had them bent again and had problems with them later. Then you would have to have them restocked over here. And the number of trained factory type stockers does not fill one hand over here.

Thanks for the responses guys.

The guns in question are round actions. They were back in Scotland for the work some years ago - I don't know the name of the stocker, but the shaping is correct and the wood is nicely figured but appropriate for the age of the guns such that I don't think it would be obvious to most that they had been restocked. I believe one of the pair had had the stock cut and a decision was made to restock both to match rather than extend the one.

I would be buying the guns to use and to pass on to my son, but they are not cheap so I wanted to find out how the market might view this factor should a re-sale become necessary down the road.

I'd rather not subject the seller's wares to public dissection at this point, but if anyone would be willing to give me an opinion privately I could email some photos and would be most appreciative.

Thanks,
Dave

I think it will depend on how well it was done ,qulity of wood ,the gun itself and what was wrong with the original stock . Nothing looks worse than restocked good quality gun with an original worn forend wood .Unlike rebarreling by anotherit will only have a minoreffect and in some cases will actualy enhance the value.
For example I have recently re stocked a William Evans ,the original stock had been cut down to 12&1/4 inches ,it had then been extended twice . Was it worth more then or now with 15 inch stock in slightly better than original wood .[forend reovated and re checkered to match,of corse.] ?

Should note that the fore-ends were re-done as well to match.

Re-stocking, if improperly done, is very detrimental to the value of the gun in the eyes of someone who can spot it.

I have often found myself advising a client that a gun has been re-stocked and the stocker got something wrong regarding the stock shape, forend profile, wrist shape, comb shape, chequering border or style.

This matters where the gun is a standard type, such as a Purdey game gun on the Beesley action or a Holland & Holland 'Royal'. Each has a house style and if an otherwise typical gun, perhaps in very good condition which suffered an accident and damaged the stock, has a replacement which looks out of place, it will weaken the appeal of the gun to the knowledgeable.

A stock with poor inletting, clumsy drop-points etc also weakens it, as will one of odd colour or figure or shape. I have a Westley droplock just come in and I won't let one of my clients buy it because he is a collector and needs a good representation of a droplock.

This one has lovely wood with great figure and a matching forend, all done by a man who could work wood very well. The work to metal fit, the finish etc is all excellent. But the stock is wrong for the gun. Many buyers would not know. They would just see a lovely figured stock and a gun that they could shoot well.

The gun will suit someone who ants a nice gun and wants to shoot it and likes it for what it is. It is not a gun for a collection.

In many respects, the distinction is not if the gun is worth more or less because of re-stocking. More it is to decide if it is a gun which will appeal to a shooter or a collector. Potentially the gun will make the same money but will sell to a different kind of buyer.

If a new stock has been done absolutely correctly, forend too, it will not adversely affect the value of the gun.

I'm really glad to hear from Small Bore that if a restock on an English gun is done properly, it will not diminish the value of the gun. That is why I hired the expert Paul Hodgins to restock my Holland Royal, with that hope in mind. I think, however, on American guns, such as the Winchester Model 21 or a hi-grade Parker, the original stock does matter a little more in terms of value, as compared even to a high quality restock. I know for a fact Win 21 collectors value originality above all else. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but a restock on say a 20b Grand American would be a little devalued as compared to one with the original stock.

Buzz, absolutely correct. Americans and American guns value originality over anything else especially Winchesters. We can spot a bad reblue from a mile away. I would not touch a M21 with a restock, even if Trevallion did it.

I bought a Grant one time that had been re-stocked with a nice piece of lumber. I knew it up front going in. The problem was the forearm was original and the wood did not match. After awhile of looking at the gun in the safe and seeing the difference daily I dumped the gun.
Did it fit? Yes Was it a nice job? Yes Did it bother me? Yes
Oh by the way there is a Holland Royal on Gunbroker right now that has been re-stocked, looks nice but you can tell definatly it is not original to the gun and probabley not by Holland.
Take a look fisrt hand and let's hear what you think.

Several high end Parkers around with restocks that the sellers went great lengths to conceal. I'm talking top end guns and dealers here. Restocking a collector high grade Parker is a deal breaker when you're trying to get top money.

+1..... I totally agree Dig.........

So many owners now days pick their own wood rather than instructing an experienced stocker to choose grain and feather for originality....The results are disasterous grade for grade......

In some cases they even change the 'type' of wood and of course the checkering pattern, comb style and on and on......

The gun ends up looking like a Ferrari with a metal flake paint job IMO.....

"If a new stock has been done absolutely correctly, forend too, it will not adversely affect the value of the gun."

From everything I've ever seen, this is not true. All things being equal, I don't anyone who pays the same amount for a restock as an all original gun. The only exception may be a restock that letters as having been done by the original maker. If it doesn't letter, forget it.

But for a fee, I'm sure Dig knows where you can get a stock done absolutely right. Or he can sell you a restocked gun that is worth just as much as an all-original one (at least when you're buying it).

OWD

OWD my reflections are based on my observations of the market in the Uk for English guns.

Perhaps you know better than I.

Unlike barrels, re-stocking is pretty irrelevant who did it as long as it is done right.

Many old guns were very short. Re-stocked to modern preference for around 15" and done correctly, the re-stock makes the gun more attractive. Or perhaps you prefer a gun with 13" of original wood and a 2" extension?

Makes sense to me Small Bore. Holy cow, there are so many English guns out there with short stocks, mainly sub-gauge but plenty of 12's too. I have heard the reason being many of these guns are long-lived, passed from generation to generation with alterations, usually more than once and the sub-gauges were meant for women or children. I once had an Arthur Howell 20b with the safety way posterior on the top tang. It was terribly awkward. I finally decided this gun must have been made for a woman or child with very small hands. I couldn't handle that safety and traded that gun off...and don't miss it a bit.

That's the way I look at it Dig. Every gun I look at is personal. If I like it and I think re-stock I don't give two hoots about what anyone else thinks. It's for me. Usually I get it right, people buy my guns, although it was NEVER my intension to sell some of the ones I hav but as you know circumstances change and Marie doesn't want 15 Vintage Shotguns sitting around!
T

Maybe too little too late, but if done right I don't think it matters on British and Continental guns.

On American guns originality is everything.

But you knew that...

A useful distinction to make though Rob.

It indicates the difference between shooters and collectors nicely. A collector will be happy with a totally original, near mint gun, which does not fit, as he won't shoot it. a shooter will pay for a beautiful gun, which he can shoot, even if some finish/parts are not original.

It appears that the American gun market if far more collector focussed than the British gun market.

What I know about American guns and the collecting scene regarding them is almost nothing (I'm just reflecting on what I have learned here).

I wonder if there are more Americans that own British guns than British?

That's a really interesting question to ponder, Chuck; I know in my part of the world a lot of fine British guns were bought new by colonial settlers with money from gold and wool; other parts of the Empire like India and southern Africa would have had a lot too; many have been hoovered up and sold overseas by dealers, but many remain.

Or perhaps the American market is less impressed by big names and fancy lineages and more concerned with quality and value.

I'm a hunter, not a shooter. I only pursue wild game (really wild, never released). I value a gun that fits me (although I think fit is a bit over rated).

Because I need to be very smart with my money (I'm a working Joe), I need to make sure that I stretch my dollars as far as they'll go.

I can't afford to lose money on guns, and I don't want to be throwing cash down money pits (aka "restorations" and "projects"). Consequently, I'm acutely aware of what holds its value and what appreciates.

That why I insist on all original. I've watched the markets on both side of the pond long enough to know that nice, all original guns always bring the best money.

I've been tempted to restock/rebbl guns, but every time I do the numbers I realize it's smarter to wait for a gun with better dimensions and more original condition. They cost more up front and they're harder to find, but in the long run they're be worth more dough.

OWD

Original condition guns, as a religious value is like virginity, overrated.
While I cannot and do not encourage immorality, if the gun as is, is unusable it is reasonable to make it right. While some changes to original condition take away from a gun. Done right I encourage anyone thinking of changing a gun to carefully consider the effects. Yes one of the effects is resale, another of the effects, which I value most, is utility. Can I shoot the gun well or not.
The question of spending money that cannot be recovered at resale is a tough one. You seldom get what you don’t pay for, and often failed to receive what you did pay for. The value lost by changing the “original” gun is part of the cost of gaining performance. Only the buyer can determine how much they are willing to pay for increased performance.
I believe that guns are meant to be used. For some the use is holding them in a nice gun room and looking at them. For some it is on a range. For some it is in the field. For the latter two, gun fit may or may not matter. A poorly fitted gun might only cost you a few birds out of 50, or it may make a gun unshootable. It is a personal choice as to how much you can afford to spend and not recover.
As for buying guns that are not original, it is a matter of taste and what you value.

Given the obsession of consumers with brand name in America, as well as many other markets, I highly doubt the accuracy of that inference.

Given the number of new clients from the US who ask for a 'Holland, Boss or Purdey" in their first contact, I'd say the average US buyer is very much wedded to brand value.

Until they learn a bit more.

For most shooters, brand name is a first learning; example of first learning (in this case called imprinting) - the first thing baby goose sees move is accepted as "momma" and nothing is going to change baby goose's mind. Most shooters have only a vague idea of brand value, original quality, or current condition. Therefore, left to their own devices, they will depend on brand name as a shortcut indicator of value. "Did Mortimer Snerd make good guns?" is exactly such a question. The shooter has heard (first learning) of Mortimer Snerd - Gunmaker and seeks confirmation that all he has to look for is the Snerd marque. Now, Snerd supplied whatever the market would fork over money for - best work London pattern SLE to colonial/farmer grade BLNE. The hazard to the buyer is that he pays the price of a high original quality grade in high current condition and gets a low OQ grade in low CC - - - after all, it is a Snerd and EVERYONE knows Snerd made good guns!

DDA