Poor workmanship as "authentic". Really?

[Stormrider51]

I've seen a few guns for sale lately where things like rasp or file marks in the stock are touted as making the gun "more authentic".  There's also the use of various chemical compounds to make the metal parts look "aged".  These are really two separate issues so let's take them in turn.  

To me, rasp and file marks in a wooden stock are an indication of poor workmanship.  At the very least, it tells me that the maker didn't bother to go to the step of sanding the stock to remove those marks left by coarser tools.  Did this really happen in bygone times?  Is there reliable historical documentation to back up such claims?

Now let's turn our attention to the metal parts of the gun.  How would the external surfaces of the barrel, lock, and stock furniture have looked when the gun was handed to the new owner?  Would they have been pitted?  Would they have looked 100 years old when they were brand new?  What was the standard?

Just food for thought.

Storm

[Captchee]

For the most part stormrider  IMO , we are way more  concerned with  clean finish work  then  were the makers  of   the firearms we discuss here .
 Yes its not uncommon to see file  or scraper marks  left in originals . In fact I have photos of   pieces made by some very well know masters that have issue that simply would be  frowned upon today .

 IMO even when it comes to locks . The fit and finish we see today  leans much more to the higher end  type of work , then what was many time common  on the general  use firearms .

As to the subject of aging . Frankly I don’t do it .  Simply put , im not spending the time I do on any given piece . Then turn around and beat  it up . This aging thing has never really made much since to me .
 Seriously . If a person  is into  the whole historical aspect .
 Lets say they are depicting a frontiersman in 1780 . Then the chances are very good that their rifle would  be only 10 -20 years old . So why try and make the gun look 200 years old .
 With just a little actual use , a new  piece will  become worn and used looking  
 To be frank , again , I just don’t get it . I have family heirlooms that date back to the 1830’s -1880s that frankly are in far better condition then  what the so called modern aging is depicting .  Seriously these are guns that  were on horses ever day  or wrapped in blankets and dragged  all around this country and parts of Canada.

 What did these guns look like when new Well IMO they looked new . But they didn’t look like that for long im sure . However I don’t believe they  in short order looked like something from an archeological dig .

[greyhunter]

I agree Cap and Storm. A firearm had to mean as much to it's owner in the 1700's as it does to most of us now. I have never used one of my rifles for a pry bar, or left it out in the weather. My life is not dependant, usually, on my rifle, but in the forming of our country, you had best take care of your fusil! To me it is as phony as worming wood to make your fireplace mantle. On the other hand, we all know examples of modern day doofs, that care not a wit about their firearms and it shows! To each their own, I like mine " fine ".

[pathfinder]

Some guy's don't like shinney. To some it's more comfortable to have a gun with a few "ding's",if they put one in it, it 's not so bad. I have a VERY fine spotless gun that I HATE to take out. I DO NOT want to be the one to ding it!

If done with A LOT of restraint, its very attractive,over done,ridiculous!

As far as worm holes faked,as restorer and reproducer of antique and classic furniture, it paid for my kids college!

[prairie dog]

I believe some folks do their research through museum displays and forget to apply two obvious facts:

1.  Items that survived to become museum pieces were most likely not used everyday.  Those "special occasion" and ceremonial items were typically more highly decorated and finely made than "everyday use" items.

2. 200 year old items are going to show the effects of age.  Back in the day, no one would be using a 200 year old rifle or one that looks 200 years old.

[Captchee]

I believe some folks do their research through museum displays and forget to apply two obvious facts:

1.  Items that survived to become museum pieces were most likely not used everyday.  Those "special occasion" and ceremonial items were typically more highly decorated and finely made than "everyday use" items.

2. 200 year old items are going to show the effects of age.  Back in the day, no one would be using a 200 year old rifle or one that looks 200 years old.

 i would add a third

#3) who is to say any such damage , patina  or wear had not or did not happen in the 150 years since its last use ?

 When it comes to worm holes , Knots and such , even mineral stains . Frankly unless the maker was doing a very high end piece , I don’t think they cared .
 But then we also have to remember that the quality of available wood was also much  higher then it is now
 Glossy finishes ?  IMO  depending on the maker ,  but if we look at some of the pieces where types of lacquers were  used . Then  IMO the finish was probably shinny when  new . But with use it quickly dulls .
 Not to mention being subject to salt air  or  the packaging used to ship  guns from Europe all would have played a part in changing the looks of the piece.

 I also think that  sometimes we forget that  only in the last 40-50 years have we began to move to a more disposable society .. Simply put , we don’t on average take care of things the same way as past generations did . Those generations  also not  treating things as well as those before them
  I also think that  all to often people today have no realization of the value of a dollar .
 Now that doesn’t mean  being worth 60 cents  ..
NO SIR!!!n it means  what it takes to make   that dollar and is the item your looking at wanting  worth the  same or greater to you then  the effort expended to earn that dollar .
My father new the value of his dollars . And he taught me  just as my grandfather taught him .
 In fact  I can remember  my grandfather simply shaking his head at what my father would buy .
 My father used to tell me that he could remember his grandfather doing the same thing .

So if  human nature holds true , then could we not expect the average person  looking to buy a working  common gun  in 1790 , to have been  very aware of the value of the money in their pocket .
 Myself , I think so . As such I  believe that their items , while used and used hard , probably  were still cared for very well.

[Hanshi]

Capt, I think you're right on the money.  Growing up poor instilled in me an awareness seldom seen in younger generations.  I knew that whatever I got probably could never be replaced so I had to make it last.  Even today my wife finds it telling that I, for instance, keep and use the plastic bags from cereal boxes rather than buy plastic wrap or wax paper.  When I was a kid we simply didn't throw stuff away and it's been hard for me to adjust to the excess packaging and such.  Liquids came in glass bottles and the bottles were either turned in or reused.

Getting back to the point, I am almost obsessive about taking care of my guns.  I have guns easily 30 & 40 years old that still look brand new - and they have been fired hundreds and thousands of times.  I have a few honest nicks on my muzzleloaders and cringe at the thought of getting more.  They are, in a sense, "pampered".  But they get USED!  I don't want mine to look old; no-sir-ree.

[Uncle Russ]

Interesting discussion.........
The "beat & banged-up look" is not as prevalent today as it was back in the 60's and 70's, IMHO.
Real patina and worn edges are extremely hard to duplicate, and quite often many fakes can be spotted from twenty feet away.

I have come across several "honest fakes" in my lifetime of trading and swapping guns and this is the type I always disliked most.
What I call an "honest fake" is a gun that has many of the above issues you guys mentioned, but sold to a new buyer as original, with some wild story commonly connected, and the new buyer is gullible enough to buy the story, and the gun....hook, line, and sinker.
He now decides to trade or sell this particular gun, fully believing the story he was told about the gun's history, fully believing he has the "real thing", when in reality all he has is a piece of garbage.

Many times in the past I more than likely would not have had much of a comment, that is until the seller tried  to 'hard sell'...then I would likely just walk of, although there has been a time or two where I had to say something because I felt it was really necessary.

Then somewhere around the 1990's I decided to speak up!
If the gun is a fake say it's a fake, if it makes the guy feel bad then that's just the way it is.
This kind of thing has to stop somewhere, and there is no better place than amongst friends.
Just don't expect that friendship to continue after you point it out.

My heart goes out to these guys, but it happens everyday.
Reasonably intelligent people falling for a "Cock & Bull" story that keeps changing with the last owner.

Reminds me of back home in El Paso Texas. Every Pawn shop in town had at least one gun that shot Billy the Kid. Either that, or they had this really special gun in the safe that had belonged to Pat Garret.
And, for $100 bucks more you could get documentation 'papers' that this gun was his hide-out gun.  

However, I do think it's getting better.
Possibly because of my own lack of exposure, but maybe because it's now the "newer the better look".

Anyway, good subject guys!
I don't mean to get you off subject, just wanted to show you how many ways this fake stuff can be used.

Uncle Russ...

[rickevans]

When being instructed by my Master Blacksmith, he always, always, always told me to not confuse "primitive" with "crude". Not having seen up-close-and-in-person many really magnificent 18th century rifles, I am no expert. But when talking of the common man's arms, I would agree with many comments above that the price difference between a good solid hand crafted use-it-every-day-dependable smoothbore or rifle gun and some super-fancy piece of working art would have been beyond the common man's finances... As to trade guns, they were cranked out in pretty big numbers. I bet a basic gun back then was the same as a basic gun nowdays, fully functional, but maybe not a thing of beauty...we need some research.

[Capt. Jas.]

I am holding a mid-eighteenth century silver mounted fowling piece made in London. You can see the scraped surface on the wood. Original tool marks in wood and metal are more subtle than the shoddy contemporary work that some imagine.

[Loyalist Dave]

I agree.  I am rough enough on my guns just going into the woods, I don't need to pay for patina.  I also wonder about folks who buy "aged" powder horns.  I have one horn lightly treated with brown dye that is otherwise plain, and I use that for hunting, as a white horn bouncing up and down near my right elbow seems to me to be an invitation to be misidentified as a deer.    But my horn that I wear for other times, the fancy screw tip, is white.  

LD