% Finish Remaining - Discussion...
 

Thought I would re-post Dwight's excellent starter-thread on rating a luger's original finish. I think it a good topic for discussion and thought it might be lost in its original posting location (dealing with a gun's dollar- valuation question) :

" I think that this Forum could do with a discussion of just what visual (pictured) condition equates to what percentage (%) condition.

I am not going to dispute anyone else's assessment here, and I am frankly not confident enough of my own percentage assessment ability to judge the Luger pictured above. I will note that comparison of this Luger with the sample pictures in the Fjestad "Blue Book" shows it at 80% or less compared to that scale.

I look forward to the discussion.

--Dwight "

This is an interesting topic. Have you seen what some call Good or Very Good in antique NRA criteria? Grading seems to be very subjective.

I'm trying to figure out the best way to present some guns for this discussion, but in the meantime...

It seems to me that Fjestad's photo-comparison grading system is extremely conservative, and the NRA's system is very liberal.

--Dwight

I had thought of doing a photo show of many different guns (of course, I didn't have the "many"), and wanted assorted pictures from collectors, then get their feedback on the amount of bluing remaining. I still think this would be an excellent exercise, not just the 93% and higher guns, but the entire gamut?

Really nasty up to pristine.

I think that is a long time goal, although if I went through the hundreds of photos I have collected, I could do it for myself... (like to have "permission" from the owner...

Ed the old guy

Grading is tough because although it seems that it would be objective, there is a strong element of subjectivity too. For example, given two guns that have exactly the same amount of wear and handling marks so that objectively they would grade out identically to 95%. Now let's say that one has had less than optimum storage and care so that it appears dull (not pitted or what the dealers call "frosted"), but still 95% original blue, and the other has been well cared for (perhaps a Swiss gun :) ) so that the bluing appears bright almost as new, you can bet that the first one will be graded out at 90-93% and the other probably at 97% or better. And to be practical, the better looking one is really worth more even though they both are "the same" percentage wise.

Is it necessary to grade both on coverage and condition? Perhaps a percentage rating accompanied by the modifiers "dull", "average" or "bright"? Maybe that is what the sellers are trying to convey when they advertise a piece as 97% ++ .

A good grading standard would be a real boon, but as I said at the beginning, it is tough.

This whole area is a lot like arguing religion or trying to teach a pig to sing...it's a waste of your time and it tends to annoy the pig.

Up-close and personal eyeballing is the only reliable way to determine condition and even that gets pretty tricky with the quality of the work that the boosters and fakers are capable of doing these days

Personally, I view such descriptions as merely a way to do a quick weeding out. If the seller describes it as less than 93%, unless it is historically significant, I am not interested. When described as better than 93%, I may buy it so long as I get my 3 day look see. Upon arrival, I don't quibble with the stated per cent condition; it becomes a yes or no decision based on whether I like the gun, which has a great deal to do with authenticity.

My zwei pfennigs.
Tom A

Personally I woouldn't "want" a Navy piece unless it had salt rust pit marks on it!! :D

Seriously this statement by Tom

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I don't quibble with the stated per cent condition; it becomes a yes or no decision based on whether I like the gun...</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana,Tahoma,Arial,Helvetica,Geneva">I almost sent a gun back because it was weimar force matched, but it "called" to me, it has a place in my collection :)

Ed

Ed,

Called to you...I know z'ackly what you mean. Sometimes the things call so loud and so often that my bank account takes a major whipping...oh well, I can always get more money.

Tom A.

Ed,
I agree that it would be tough to come up with a good rating. Like you, I have a Weimar navy that, at first, I thought was a fake. Typical cheap Weimar black bluing, large serial numbers on the frame and rear toggle and an army frame with a small capped rear hinge pin. But it had the Weimar stamp on the left side of the receiver and I liked the gun. At a busy gun show, I would passed on it while looking for something better. But I bought it off of an individual and decided to keep it. Like Tom A, I can always get more money.
Big Norm

To me, the rating of remaining finish is a completely objective calculation, having nothing to do with whether it is glossy or not. It is simply estimating the square inches of surface area and the percent not covered by a surface treatment (bluing, Parkerizing, baked-on finish, whatever). We do the same thing when rating finish on saxophones (lacquer, silver or gold plate) and other horns, and the importance of original finish is the same. Admittedly, it is very difficult to sit there and estimate the total surface area of any irregularly shaped object, but you get a feel for figuring the rough percentage of area where the finish is gone. The gray areas start to become a factor when the finish is very worn but can still be recognized as other than bare metal. I handle these areas by taking half the area as covered. My one and only Luger has a 1920s factory rust-blue refinish of which about 75 to 80% remains. I have a 1953 Colt commercial Government Model with about the same amount of original 'Royal Blue'. I think most people err on the conservative side, actually cutting the percent of finish a little short, because they haven't taken the time to measure and derive the surface area of the gun. Bottom line, seeing the gun in question with your own eyes or via good pictures is the only way to know for sure what's there. I've seen guns advertised as 60% that would go 80% in my book. Of course, most people also take a little off the top when advertising a gun so they don't get in a shouting match about 5% one way or the other, so that's certainly a factor. When I advertise a gun, I state the % of finish as a value, along with bore condition, originality, etc, etc. so the buyer can make an intelligent assessment. I never try to 'sell' anything. I put it out there for what it is. I wish everybody did the same. I agree that the NRA rating system for modern guns and for antique guns has become muddled out in the real world, and a stated condition like 'very good', or even 'mint', has come to mean nothing. What particularly gets my goat is a statement like "Excellent condition for it's age".

Guys, you spoke the truth. The family armadillo gun would be considered excellent(by some standards). It's just an old brown '42 Springfield with a pitted barrel and a bayonet. It works, but really is just a wall hanger. I wonder about my Luger...