I didn't want to add any more contention to the yellow leggins thread so I thought it might be best to start a new one for these thoughts.
I have noticed at least three different schools of thought among rendezvous folks in regards to the appearance of the items they reproduce and use. I don't believe any are more or less "right" just different. And it has had me thinking as I build my own outfit.
It appears to me some folks build their rifles, knifes, shooting bags, clothing and what-have-you with an intentional "antiqued finish". Those antiqued items are very attractive, but to my eye they look like they belong behind glass in a museum. I can't imagine that anyone would have actually been wearing or using items which had one hundred years of "antique patina".
Another style I notice are those who make their items look like they were just dug up from an archeological site. For example; the Old Hickory knives that get buried in the back yard, dug up, and abused with all types of citric acids to make new ones look old. Again, I can't imagine a backwoodsman carrying a relic that looks like it spent the last 100 years buried under a chicken coop.
Perhaps these fake finishes are done to give the user the appearance of having spent many years in the backwoods? If so, I would think that a very lightly
used look would be better than a heavy patina?
I am not condemning any of these styles. It just makes me wonder what the maker was trying to achieve? Was he creating a reproduction of a museum piece or a reproduction relic? And would a person be carrying or using a relic as an everyday tool?
For my self, I've decided to avoid the antiqued finishes and just allow time and use out-of-doors to rub off the "new".
Have any of you any thoughts to share? Antiques, relics, or new?
BTW, next rendezvous you attend look for me. I'm the dude who looks like a greenhorn.