Possible Gale Morgan restoration mark?

[Frank H.]

Hi Tom, and thanks again for your help last week -

One thing I've learned is the difference between "point and shoot is good enough" in photography, and actually taking decent photos of a Luger LOL.

That one up above was taken at night indoors with a flash under fluorescent lights, that whole batch of photos had a shiny and darker finish than the gun has.

Then I took photos outside in natural light, but I'd done a light wipe-down with RemOil, and that ended up with (of course) photos that gave a more polished out shiny look as well... That North Carolina auction guy sure has the lighting and camera technique! I know I don't.

Here's a somewhat better look at the finish, and it's got the sideplate "line" going up vertically from the back side of the "hump" that Dwight had pointed out earlier, for what it's worth it's a characteristic he's seen on Gale's work.

It's always going to be an unclear issue I guess (or one with differing views), to mark clearly as restored and by who, or just let the piece talk for itself as best it can, relying on whoever can sort out the subtleties. I guess one view is that no matter what gets stated on a forum, or even if Al Gore hadn't invented the Internet yet (LOL), improving guns that need improving and doing restorations is going to be asked for and done, on everything from old paintings and old cars and old Lugers.

"Don't clean that dirty table, you'll ruin the value!" (Antique roadshow, with a table that looks to have held up a chicken coop...)

The real friction on it is when someone sells a piece "withholding" that it's been restored, though some just don't know. I've heard it's a real topic of interest as well with the old single action revolvers.

Frank H. in Oregon