mac

It is a difficult call in some instances. I have drawn my decision criteria from the criteria used by a few museums that have done an outstanding job of preserving and maintaining artifacts in a wide variety of conditions. I strongly err on the side of leaving a gun as is, even if in relatively rough condition. Time favors such treatment. In 100 years, the rough gun will be of more historical and technical value and importance than the restored gun even though in the short run the restored gun might have more market value. That situation is rare but may happen once in a while.


That does not mean I think you should not have restored the 1914 Erfurt, it is a judgment call and depends also on the skill of the restorer. Just any old "restoration" would not be acceptable--most look awful, way too dark, too pretty and too "plastic" (no respect for machining and other details). Some look like the well-known "licked lollipop" reblue. I have come to admire the refinishing work you are doing and appreciate the effort and research you are applying to it. I certainly do not criticize your decision.


1914 Erfurts, though popular collectibles, are not so rare that we don't have original examples to study. If you think it needed rework--and your photo suggests a lot of pitting was present--then that was what was needed. My concern is with guns that retain important information about their manufacture and history--I don't recommend removing that information through rebluing.


I thank everyone for their comments--a very knowledgable group with passionate opinions about history and arms.


DM