In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Rust vs Patina
dodge69
Member Posts: 949 ✭✭
I was out of town when the finals came out on this and I have just one question. If you have a fairly nice and what appears to be original gun with a receiver the color of the second one on Berts trade mark,except it has a few butts dings, but the barrel has kind of a silver look with dark spots that on close inspection is very light pitting, should you have the barrel refinished and maybe rust blued or something.
I see one of the guys said oil will not stop rust so no matter how much I oil it, it is not going to look any better and the rust will get worse
It is a 1885, 32-20 1891.
One other question, is it pretty much normal on these old guns to have a really weak bore for the first 6 or so inches and from there out pretty must a fair to good dark bore. Shoots pretty good.
I see one of the guys said oil will not stop rust so no matter how much I oil it, it is not going to look any better and the rust will get worse
It is a 1885, 32-20 1891.
One other question, is it pretty much normal on these old guns to have a really weak bore for the first 6 or so inches and from there out pretty must a fair to good dark bore. Shoots pretty good.
Comments
Personally I think you will be just pissing your money away. You will never be able to recover the money, on a partially restored 32-20.
Black Powder is bad stuff if the residue isn't cleaned immediately. Its hygroscopic. Moisture will build up in the residue in the barrel and start rusting. Bubba just didn't clean the barrel after he got finished shooting.
I was out of town when the finals came out on this and I have just one question. If you have a fairly nice and what appears to be original gun with a receiver the color of the second one on Berts trade mark,except it has a few butts dings, but the barrel has kind of a silver look with dark spots that on close inspection is very light pitting, should you have the barrel refinished and maybe rust blued or something.
I see one of the guys said oil will not stop rust so no matter how much I oil it, it is not going to look any better and the rust will get worse
It is a 1885, 32-20 1891.
One other question, is it pretty much normal on these old guns to have a really weak bore for the first 6 or so inches and from there out pretty must a fair to good dark bore. Shoots pretty good.
It looks like you are referring to my comments.
Oil or grease over rust (the red oxide type) can seal out most air, so it can help to stabilize the metal from further damage, but the rust is not the same as the "patina" that will develop on something like brass -- that oxidation (some is not actually "oxidation" but a carbonate forming) can actually be working as a "protective" layer. (That was my main point on the other thread.)
On most collectable firearms, original "no finish left" would be considered better than being refinished. Many collectors actually prefer the rust left on steel than its removal. Because I've seen plenty of instances where someone used abrasives, or heavy wire-brushing and buffing to remove rust, I'd actually prefer, in most cases, that people don't try to remove rust.
The problem that happens when most people try to remove rust is that they damage a lot of the underlying and adjacent metal that isn't rusted. You can find plenty of comments on this forum where people suggest using steel wool to "remove rust" -- that creates a lot of damage to adjacent finish and "smooths" still good metal underlying the rust.
There will be pits/roughness from proper rust removal -- and it is tedious to do properly -- but getting the unstable red-oxide off steel is best if one wants to preserve the steel long term.
It seems like a gun is one of the few things I know of that is worth less if it has been repaired.
I guess my problem is with gun collecting it is different from anything I have ever done. I am 72 and was raised as a auto mechanic. If you had something with rust on it but could still be used if the rust was removed and the part repaired then you certainly had something worth more than it was when it was rusted and could not preform as it should. Why is it a gun that has been repaired to work as it should and look a hell of a lot better than it did when it was covered with rust and certainly looks a lot better worth less than it was before it was repaired?
It seems like a gun is one of the few things I know of that is worth less if it has been repaired.
Repair, (refinishing/reblueing) and restoration are two entirely different things as far as collectors are concerned. Whereas a firearm restored by a pro like Turnbull, would be acceptable to many folks. One commercially refinished by the local gunsmith, would be shunned. Even though function wise they would be equal, in all respects. If your not a hard core collector, it's hard to visualize why this is so.
I guess my problem is with gun collecting it is different from anything I have ever done. I am 72 and was raised as a auto mechanic. If you had something with rust on it but could still be used if the rust was removed and the part repaired then you certainly had something worth more than it was when it was rusted and could not preform as it should. Why is it a gun that has been repaired to work as it should and look a hell of a lot better than it did when it was covered with rust and certainly looks a lot better worth less than it was before it was repaired?
It seems like a gun is one of the few things I know of that is worth less if it has been repaired.
People have asked such questions before: Why is something like a (properly) restored car worth more than an original one with defects, but when it comes to firearms, the restored one -- even if done "properly" by someone with a highly regarded reputation -- can be worth less than an unrestored one with defects?
The simplest answer is that it is about "collector preference" -- but that doesn't answer the question about why such preferences exist.
(There can be changes in preferences. I think there is a growing interest in "surviver" cars, where the car is cleaned up, but left in original condition as much as possible. Some of that market can look similar to preferences in the collectable firearm area.)
The best answers I've heard to the question about different preferences in condition with firearms have to do with considering how they "lived their life" when they were actually being used. Cars required regular maintenance and repair during their life, but firearms -- aside from cleaning and lubrication -- generally didn't undergo significant maintenance and repair.
A firearm also was not an item that was used on a daily basis. While it may have been carried and/or was available for use, it normally wasn't getting regular use in a similar way something like cars receive use. "Non-worn out" firearms are available for collectors, but "non-worn out" cars are virtually impossible to find. There would be very few collectors of "original condition" cars if the same standards as used in firearms were applied to cars.
Also, when considering use, firearms are tools that can be very close to some of the life-or-death struggles people have faced. Those scratches on the side of that Colt 1911 may have been from when the soldier carrying it was shot and he fell onto the rocky terrain of the battle field in 1944. If someone now comes and "buffs those scratches out" and puts new finish on the pistol, they've removed part of the (extreme) history associated with that item.
As a collector, I may not know how all the blemishes got on a specific firearm, but there is a higher probability that such "damage" involved a serious life-or-death struggle, than, for example, the circumstances surrounding how scratches got on the side of a car.
Part of the satisfaction in collecting firearms can be to feel and wonder about the history a firearm has seen. It is likely a lot more "sobering" history than other collectable items (like cars) have experienced. Removing the evidence of the history by doing refinishing removes a certain amount of the sensation I get from seeing and handling an old firearm.
EDIT: With some of the following comments about refinishing when there is little to no collectors value to a particular firearm -- yes, that's true, but only at any one point in time. Collector interest and value can change over time. I've seen old guns that were refinished 30-40 years ago when they had no collector value, that would be worth a whole lot more now if they hadn't been refinished, as collector interest has developed in them now!
I guess my problem is with gun collecting it is different from anything I have ever done. I am 72 and was raised as a auto mechanic. If you had something with rust on it but could still be used if the rust was removed and the part repaired then you certainly had something worth more than it was when it was rusted and could not preform as it should. Why is it a gun that has been repaired to work as it should and look a hell of a lot better than it did when it was covered with rust and certainly looks a lot better worth less than it was before it was repaired?It seems like a gun is one of the few things I know of that is worth less if it has been repaired.
There is some truth to those highlited words...However, if you ever noticved the Barret-Taylor auctions, it is always the ORIGINAL MINTY cars, outselling their restored counterparts. Same goes with guns, especially Colt's, and Winchester's.
Best
EDIT 1
quote:Two things impact the value of a piece; rarity and condition.
That is not totally correct. RARITY, means the lesser of occurances of such a piece. You can have a one of a kind, and you have the only supply, and unless there is DEMAND for it, the price will not follow the high range. So, it is SUPPLY and DEMAND, that dictate price. Yes, there is condition, that also plays a high factor, too, but unless there is DESIRABILITY, for it, RARITY, is seldom a factor.
Best
Its not "repair" per se, but finish that's the issue here.
The quick answer to the question is that the prime value for old firearms is collectors (not functional) value.
With something like a modern car part, either the thing can work as a part or it can't and if it can't its virtually worthless. So there, function is everything.
On the other hand, gun collectors aren't collecting the guns with function as the primary purpose. They're not even collecting the gun with appearance as the primary purpose.
Instead collectors are usually looking for historical/period authenticity. So they prize original condition over almost everything else. Most collectors don't shoot their guns let alone actually drag them through the bush and carry them. So while function is nice to have, it actually more of a secondary consideration.
The bottom line is, even though a refinished gun may LOOK nicer than a worn one left in original condition, and indeed even though it may PERFORM better, by removing the original finish, the value to a collector is decreased by the refinish.
Edit: Agreeing with Jonk, below. Not every old gun has collectors value to begin with. Which do and which don't and why or why not, is mostly about supply and demand, and beyond the scope of this post, but if a gun doesn't have any collectors value to lose, obviously, its not going to lose any with a refinish or rebuild!
Assuming zero or minimal collectors value, then you're basically talking about a "shooter" whose value is purely in its actual working function as a gun. For something like that, a new finish or rebuild will likely improve the guns value. . .not necessarily by as much as the cost of actually having it done, but that's a separate matter.
As to the rest: it depends.
Let's examine military rifles for a moment, as they are the subject with which I am most familiar.
Let's take three guns for example.
On one hand we have a beat up, mixed parts M1 garand, with wood that is pretty dinged, poor stock fit, import marked, etc. Blue Sky imports for those who know. Bore is shot, pitted, with ME of 9 and TE of 8. Functionally it works, but is of little use otherwise. Market value for a piece like this is no more than $400 or so, give or take given different localities. Now take what the CMP does; new barrel, new wood, re-parkerize, suddenly the gun has doubled in value. Granted, about $400 worth of parts and work went into it, but re-building and refinishing certainly didn't detract from the value of the piece.
On the second hand, let's consider a fairly uncommon, though hardly rare, German G 33/40 945 code carbine. Even in similar shape to the Garand above, it's worth perhaps $800 as it sits. Reblued, refinished, possibly rebarreled, it's worth no more than that, though odds are it won't go DOWN in price either if the work is well done.
Third is the same type of gun, a G 33/40, but this time in VG overall condition, matching numbers, proper bolt, sight hood, most of the original blue and wood finish present. Refinish that to make it look factory new, you've taken a roughly $2000 gun and cut its value in half.
So what's going on?
Two things impact the value of a piece; rarity and condition. It's a sliding scale, and both factors should be considered in evaluating whether a gun is worth refinishing. For very common pieces, that have already reached the lowest possible point in their value- worth essentially whatever usable parts they are composed of- refinishing won't hurt the value, but won't appreciably increase its value either; perhaps marginally. Same with even some rarer but still not-hard-to-find types; if you reach the bottom of the barrel condition wise, refinishing won't hurt things.
However, as rarity increases- due to age, limited production, or condition, you start to lose any marginal gains you might make in refinishing. Partly this is due to collector interest in having a piece that has 'been there, done that;' partly it is due to the fact that it IS rare, in and of itself. The reason why the one surviving .45 Luger is worth millions is, it is one of a kind, plain and simple. You wouldn't take the Mona Lisa and re-paint over it with the same colors of paint; cleaning by those who know how to do so properly would be risky, but ok. Same thing here.
Similarly, as quality increases- see the example of the 33/40- rarity does as well, and the above applies.
So to sum up: while there are a fair number of Da Vinci paintings still around, you don't mess with them. Granted, even the finest rarest gun is no Mona Lisa, but the same principle applies.
I meet a collector once that had only new in the box stuff. His enjoyment was looking at them once in while. Some day some lucky shooter will get to be the first person to put them to work.
Even looking at them can decrease the value. Well, not exactly looking at them, but removing them from the box, working the action, oiling them, & wiping them will eventually produce noticeable wear. Most gold plate on guns is only 1-2 microns (i.e., millionths) of an inch thick, & easily wipes off. Original cartons/display cases are often made of highly acidic material that will eventually destroy the finish of the metal or wood.
Neal