Froggy;
I agree with both of you gentlemen wholeheartedly. However, I have some "strange" friends that have "aged" firearms in the past to match the period of competition in both Cowboy, Buffalo and Muzzleloading events. They had absolutely no intention to deceive but merely wanted to truly "look the part". Frankly, I prefer to let my firearms, of any type, age naturally (at all times trying to keep them pristine). It does take all kinds, I guess.

I also have a couple of VERY talented friends that have made period correct items from powder horns to tomahawks to firearms and never trying to pass them off as original items. They have commented, however, that others have taken their stuff and sold it for original stuff. In fact, one of them has several items in various museums around the country. He has NEVER misrepresented anything, but others have...

I must admit that I have absolutely marveled at the work of my friends. Absolutely true craftsmanship.

Outright fraud is NOT to be tolerated, period. 

Dale53

Any time money and prestige get involved there’s always fakery. Some of the most famous hoaxes are “The Piltdown Man”, “Hitler’s Diaries”, enumerable documents and fine paintings have been faked. Many forgeries have fooled the experts for years, indeed the successful fakes never get discovered. I knew a couple of old shooter-collectors years ago who set back and rechambered the barrel of almost every single shot rifle they owned, and they owed a great many. To add insult to injury, they became so skillful, that it was very difficult to spot their work. I know for a fact that many of their rifles are out there in collections and that the owners haven't a clue. Winchester parts are pretty much interchangeable and Ballard parts are close. At a gun show a few years ago, I remember looking at what appeared to be an excellent original J. Stevens barrel for sale, but when I started asking questions, the owner admitted that he had made the barrel and put the Stevens stamp on it. I was impressed because it looked good! I don’t know what to say except to be very careful.

Bob   

Marlinguy;
From my viewpoint, you have performed a "rescue operation". That is commendable and you have ended up with a FINE rifle. Congratulations!

Dale53

Quote:


Dave,
Got a call from the seller last night, and it looks like he is accepting my offer! I'll pick up the gun at our singleshot show Sunday, and then I can see if barrel dimensions match with your barrel! I'll send you email with my dimensions.
Vall

Vall:

That is a beauty! You just don't find a lot of DST Hepburns laying around these days.

It sure is a shame that someone saw fit to chop off the barrel, but every cloud has a silver lining. Personally I rejoice in finding such a specimen as it it an opportunity to restore a wonderful piece. The fact that someone has already done harm to it as a collectors piece makes it an ideal subject for restoration.

I tend to disagree with the conventional thinking that an old rifle should be left old and untouched no matter how bad of shape it is in. I am a advocate of sensible restoration.  I am not talking about a buffing wheel and caustic blue here, but workmanship of at least of the quality of the original work.   

It is of course yours to do with what you desire, and if SS Dave's barrel works out that certainly would be a good way to go. However, should you desire to restore it I don't think there is any real reason not to.

Congratulations. I am as green as a Frog.

Glenn

I just got around to reading this thread.  And I'm trying to figure out how to make a Journal article out of it.  maybe I'll just mention it and post the URL for it.   I think it is a VERY valuable discussion and provides a lot of food for thought.  the topic of fake/fraud/restoration comes up in a number of areas that I am interested in.  One common sense idea that crops up in all of them is "was there intent to defraud?" 

However in our area where our "restored" toys may get passed along in the future they could get misrepresented.  While I would want my heirs to  get fair value for my few guns I would not want to be remembered as a "faker", got enough other black marks already.

My personal choice is to either add tasteful but nonauthentic minor features (like the non-Win style wedding band on my 'wall's barrel even though 'walls can be lettered) and/or to make hidden markings that indicate the origin.
 When I was in the museum business I created a number of very authentically finished replica early 18th century French militia flintlocks for our reenactment group.  All metal parts were stamped internally or under the wood with modern dates and names and the same was written in indelible ink under the metal on the stocks, and then sealed with CA glue.  Even though it is clearly a modern made arm, as I am finishing up my Earle/Wesson I will be marking things internally and on the wood under the metal as I have done on the 'wall.  If nothing else it'll help ID the ownership of the gun in the future.  how many times have we wondered who those initials gouged or pecked into an old gun represent?
DWS

I'll tell you fellas, my intent when I asked my original question was not aimed at any person in particular but rather to clarify an issue that I still find unresolved for myself.

I'm fairly certain that most of you recall the passages in Gentry's book on John Browning where he had already sold the rights of the High Wall to Winchester and then decided to use up what parts he had left to assemble a few remaining firearms.  He was visited by Winchester and asked to desist since it was their firearm.

Browning's actions were not those of someone intent on defrauding  but reflected the 'no waste' of the pioneers and those who valued what little they had had to struggle to accumulate.  Common sense.

Certainly the rifles he made up of existing parts left over were authentic Brownings and there are none to dispute that.  They were made with parts they had manufactured and right after the time they had legally had the right to manufacture them.  Seems simple... no?

So, now you find a cache of original parts manufactured by Browning... either parts that were never used, parts that had accumulated from Browning's original firearms that had been stripped out of damaged firearms over the years or parts from a number of damaged firearms you have managed to collect.

You assemble the firearm and an irreplaceable firearm has now been ressurected from the ashes.  We are all greatful since the originals are in short supply and there is a limited number to be spread over an ever widening group of folks fascinated with the Browning firearm.

1. Is the firearm a Browning?  Note I didn't say 'original'.

2. Is it wrong to think of it as an original since it really is made up of original parts and and there is no intent to defraud by including modern parts?

3. If you do identify the firearm as 'made up of original parts', you will take away the serene pleasure of owning such a firearm from the group as well as the individual.

4. If the parts were put together by Val Browning from his father's cache... is it any less of a Browning than an 1885 restored or modified by Winchester before 1900?

5. What is the 'cutoff date' for Browning or Winchester in restoring or modifying wherein the firearm is no longer considered 'original'?

6. By building a Browning or an 1885 from authentic original parts (and I am including every part... lock, stock & barrel) have you violated an ethical standard?  All you have done is give back to the fraternity a firearm that is not only a collector's piece but may well be a 'shooter' that is used on the range and in the field.

When you accumulated the the 'parts' they may well have cost more than the selling price of the original firearm (as in how it cost 3 times as much to buy an automobile when you purchase it in parts).  Certainly there is no 'intent to defraud'.  And if you never sell it... there can be no 'intent to defraud'.  It becomes a family heirloom that might never be sold.

What does provenance really cover?