does rebluing lower a guns value?
I have a colt 1911 with a few bad places due to pitting. Will sanding out the pits and putting a new finish increase or decrease my guns value.I saw a job my gunsmith did and it looked factory new he said his was worse than mine.
I never gave anyone hell...I just told the truth and they thought it was hell... Harry Truman
I never gave anyone hell...I just told the truth and they thought it was hell... Harry Truman
0
-
Lowers its value to me. 0 -
On any collectable or C&R (which a 1911 is), a nice brown patina is aways worth more than the finest reblue 
Sold my Cow so I don't need any Bull0 -
If it's an original M1911 or a Military M1911A1 in original condition, or has any other collector interest, the answer is yes.....refinishing will decrease the value significantly.
Otherwise, go for it.0 -
Most times any RE-BLUE will lower the Collector Value of a Collector Gun....and for sure taking a piece of Sand Paper to a Frame or Reciever will Cut the Value sometimes more than half...Leave it Original and untouched....
Captain Kirk, Tech Staff0 -
If you take a collectable gun like a Colt Governement Model, or a military M1911 or M1911A1, with poor but original finish worth, say, $500, and spend $100 to $200 having it reblued, you will reduce the value to about $300 and then only to someone who just wants to shoot it. Its collector value will be gone. By my calculation, that means the reblue cost $300 to $400 total and makes the gun very hard to sell. A refinished gun that looks new to the casual shooter will usually stand out like a sore thumb to a collector. The M1911-style pistols, with their dead flat surfaces and fine original finish, are among the most difficult to refinish without being obvious.
I see refinished collector guns sometimes sell greatly in excess of their value so I must assume the buyer was ignorant of the refinish and thought the gun was in mint original condition. That happened recently on the auction site with a renickeled Pre-War Colt Government Model that was poorly refinished, but which still brought WAY more than its value to someone who apparently did not know, or did not care.
In my opinion, NEVER, EVER, REFINISH ANTHING. A poor original finish is always worth more to me than any refinish, with the possible exception of factory refinishes of things like Colt Single Actions, etc..0 -
A famous man once said, "In my opinion, NEVER, EVER, REFINISH ANTHING."
That's good advice.
Respectfully,
Rafter-S
"What is truth? No wonder jesting Pilate turned away. The truth, it has a thousand faces -- show only one of them, and the whole truth flies away! But how to show the whole? That is the question."
--Thomas Wolfe, "You Can't Go Home Again" (1934)0 -
???Never refinish anything??? How about re-refinishing. I just got thru doing that to a 1892 Colt SAA that had been renickeled. I stripped the nickel and gave it a believable reblue and recolor job, looking somewhat used and worn. I think there is a place for that kind of thing as a restoration. Restoration is what I do. 0 -
There is certainly room for two lines of thought in this long-standing and reoccurring arguement. Collectors want their guns in "original condition". Exactly what "original condition" constitutes is debatable, as it was originally in 100% when it left the factory. But, they insist that 50%,40%,30% is original--right down to completely shiney, rusty, and pitted at 0%. The question becomes, "How valuable to a real collector is a specimen in 40-0% of something of which a couple of million were made"? In the case of 1911 pistols made by Colt there exist many specimens in the higher percentage ranges for collecting. There is no irreparable harm done to either history or gun collecting if a lower end piece is subjected to a qualtity restoration and/or rebluing. We're not talking a 10% specimen by North American Arms here, but rather a 10% specimen made by Colt or Remington Rand. The refinished pistol becomes better protected from the continuing ravages of time and use, and provides the user with pride of ownership. And to never, ever refinish anything is indeed a strange position to take. There are many made-a-million sporting firearms with little or no collector value that will have a greater resale value with a new blue job and refinished stock, than with rusty metal and dinged wood. A good finish is part of good maintenance. How many of you maintain your '65 Mustang in a well-rusted condition because you don't want to disturb the original finish? How many purposely let the paint peel off your Victorian-era house because you wouldn't want to replace the original lead paint job with latex? I'll submit that if a large percentage of firearms owners/users did not agree that a place for refinishing exists there would not be people in the business of providing the service. The service is valid, as long as the work is quality. Personally, I like the guns I use to look the best that they can, and refinishing is a definate option. I like the guns I collect to be as close to original as possible, but recognize the fact that they reach a point where desirabilty ends and junk begins. A well done restoration of a scare gun is both acceptable and preferable to a gun that makes you shudder to look at it; and the resulting restoration will fit nicely into a collection or provide utility. This arguement is unlikely to end soon.[:D] 0 -
No one can dispute Der Geb.
I had to correct someone the other day. I said his name means high country hunter, not Hillside Strangler, the serial killer we had here in California.
His note here covers the subject very well.
Indian relic collectors sometimes value a repaired stone weapon or ceremonial piece, a"re-work", more highly than an undamaged one. (That is, done by the original user). It gives the item more character, adds another chapter to it's history.0 -
No, the debate will not end soon! There is much to be said for the line of reasoning DG suggests, but I still disagree in most cases.
Restored cars are not worth near as much as well-preserved originals. While collectable cars in fine original condition do exist, they are far fewer in relative number than guns because most cars had to be used a lot to justify their relatively much higher purchase price, thus exposing them to the hazards of the road and weather. Not too many guns are periodically coated in salt water like cars in the snow belt, with many guns spending their lives in pampered existence in a drawer, only coming out for recreation or defense, etc..
Depending on the car, a collectable car in mint original condition may be worth many multiples of what a restored car of the same configuration and appearance will be worth. Howver, there are not near enough of such original cars to meet the demand at any price, and many are willing to accept a restored car at a more affordable price, so the market serves the restoration buyer.
The idea that there are enough prime examples of a particular gun avaiable to collectors so what does it hurt to refinish those with little finish has some validity, for now. Think ahead another hundred years or so and I think that opinion changes. Suppose a bunch of Colt Models 1860 Army, often found with little finish, had been refinished when they were 100 years old or so. Would we now consider that insignificant because there were others for the collectors? Today, Models 1860 with little finish are still very collectable, but refinished ones are not of interest to most collectors. I think important firearms designs, such as the military Models of 1911 and 1911A1, should be preserved in almost any condition because they are the Models 1960 of the future, when an original gun in any condition will have considerable value.
In inexpensive guns made in large numbers, I agree that refinishing has little impact on the collector market, and, if buyers will pay for the refinished guns, the market has resolved that question. I do not agree that refinishing is needed to prevent further deterioration of a particualr gun. A good preservative will prevent further deterioration even in continued service.
I can understand the Indian relic situation, but it is not the same because there was no assembly line for stone weapons that established the base line of originality. On the contrary, uniqueness is prized.
If superficial appearance is the goal, definitely refinish. If preserving collector value is the goal, definitely do not refinish. I recoginze others may disagree, but I am arguing from the mindset of a collector of Colts and other higher grade firearms.
Next.0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
10 comments