[Michael Zeleny]

Ed, I appreciate the point of trying to keep a restored Luger from being sold 10 years from now as a 98% original gun, when it began restoration as a 90% with a problem. What I find objectionable is the default assumption that one's customer intends to falsify the provenance of his restored gun. More importantly, I question the propriety of defacing a historical artefact with the restorer's signature, outside of the conventional armory practice of certifying its safety with proof loads. Signing a mere cosmetic renovation is sheer vanity.

I own a 1974 Maserati Bora, produced in a series of 549 cars. My car has a second coat of paint, an engine rebuilt with factory NOS parts, and an aftermarket stainless steel exhaust. I would no more allow anyone working on it to affix his signature to the outcome, than I would tolerate a surgeon so decorate the scars that he leaves on my body. If a handgun is to be treated as a classic artefact, similar rules should apply.