Any Thoughts on Professionally "Restored" WWI Handguns?

[Vettepartz]

I have wondered about the fair market value of some of the very early M1911's that have been restored by folks such as Turnbull or Bill Adair or others. I understand that the costs are $2000 - $3000, and the finished product looks almost like a brand new original hand gun. I am wondering what they are selling for out there on the open market.

[ignats]

Anytime you make alterations to just about anything that's potentially collectible it loses value to a collector. One of the problems with those type of restorations is you really don't know what you have unless you were the one that sent it to the resto shop. Bill Adair's work was never as expensive as Turnbull's. I have seen any number of Turnbull resto jobs on various gun auction sites that went unsold due to the high price. In the end, what you have is a nice shooter grade pistol but that's about it and you have to gauge the price accordingly. This not an elitist attitude on my part, it's the general consensus among most collectors I know. The bottom line is, the gun is never going to be original. So, you have to decide, do you want a shooter grade gun or are you looking for a collectible gun? If you just want a representative piece of a particular era in history, I would rather have an original one with warts and all than something that was redone. However, if you want one that's nice and spiffy, then go for it. As far as these never ending "what's it worth question" my response is it's worth what the buyer is prepared to pay and the seller is willing to accept.

[dave]

The problem, as I see it is that down the road that gun will be sold as original, intentional or maybe not. Not being a 1911 collector I would not be able to tell if genuine or not. I have two but neither are original or worth much and a glance by a collector would know.

[dsk]

Some things out there, like vintage automobiles and Colonial-era homes are frequently restored because exposure to the elements alone degrades them over time. With small objects like guns, coins, furniture, etc. a collector wants the item to remain in its original "as manufactured" condition. A Turnbull-restored 1911 may look pretty, but by removing the old finish they have essentially removed its history as well. There's a guy on YouTube showing how he restores old 1911s, and sadly some of the guns he "restored" were worth more when he started than the final product he showed off in the end.

I've only had a vintage 1911 refinished once, a long time ago when I was new to the game and wanted a pistol that looked new again. The gunsmith did a very good job, but afterwards I was left with the feeling that I should have left well enough alone. When I first bought it (a 1918 Black Army with maybe 50% finish) it looked and felt like a piece of history. Afterwards it looked to me like a recently-made replica. I'm now of the opinion that old guns are supposed to look old, and if you want one that looks new just buy a modern replica that truly is.

[Johnny P]

The Turnbull restorations look over restored. More a caricature of an original pistol rather than a faithful restoration back to it's original appearance. Turnbull also does roll die markings now, so as ignats posted, your beautiful Navy restoration may now be sporting an Army slide with new Navy markings.

[Vettepartz]

Good point on the slide, Johnny P. I didn't think these notable restorers would go as far as altering parts to make them 'correct' for a particular handgun. I was thinking that they would only work with what they had in 'restoring' the parts.

I realize that something is only worth what someone else is willing to pay for it. This has been discussed many, many times. That is why I was asking about the 'fair market value' here. I guess that is a semantics issue here. Thanks to all for the replies.

[ignats]

Not so much semantics as relative. To some people $1000 is a lot of money (me for instance) to others it's not. So, Daddy Warbucks lays down $5000 for a gun I wouldn't give $3000 for because he wants it and can easily afford it has just set a new value. Don't we see this with Singers and other guns on the various auctions fairly frequently? The prices continue to go up so trying to establish what the "market value" is doesn't make much sense. Pay what you feel like it's worth to you.

[Johnny P]

The next post down features a Model 1911 Remington-UMC "commemorative" with all the roll marks. You can bet those won't be destroyed when the run of 1000 pistols is finished.

[da gimp]

at least 1 auction of old Winchester lever rifles & other antiques, featured some near mint rifles......... the sellers adamantly denied that the rifles had been refinished.......... well before the auction....... several people who intended to bid on them. came up with the serial numbers & called D. Turnbull.....& Turnbull confirmed they were his work.......... & he notified the auctioneer of it too....... it is my understanding that the rifles were pulled from the auction.............

[Johnny P]

A few years back I stopped by the table of a collector I see at the Tulsa show, and he had an obviously Turnbull restoration of a Model 1886 Winchester. I ask if he had just bought the Turnbull restoration, and he immediately told me it was original. I just let it go at that. You just know that he paid more than what a Turnbull restoration would have cost.

[colt thompson]

My first "old" 1911 was Turnbull restored 4 digit Navy. I still have it and it's my least favorite.
I'd rather have a pistol that is factory original in the condition I can afford.
Regarding value, I paid about $1500 for the Navy.

[Johnny P]

The 1911 restorations rarely sell for what the restoration cost. In the heat of the moment a restoration may have sounded plausible, but they rarely affect the buying public that way.

[Scott Gahimer]

The only way I can understand having a restoration done is if you have a butt-ugly old pistol that has been permanently altered, has no collector value and no appeal...even as a shooter. Then, I might understand why someone would restore. Breathing some new life into an old, tired dog for the right reasons is an honorable thing to do. Making repairs and restoring finish isn't a bad thing in itself. But one must have all the correct parts to begin with, or I'd never consider a restoration. I'd flat tell the restorer to only use the parts I furnished, too. I'd require some form of accountability on that issue, too.

Buying a gun that's been restored without absolutely knowing all the parts were original, or at least authentic and correct, is a major mistake, IMO. Far too many pistols are humped up with incorrect, and even modern parts, simply because the right parts weren't readily available. That's when a gun is no longer a restoration, but is a fabrication, reproduction, commemorative, clone. The incorrect replacement parts stick out like a sore thumb to anyone who knows what an authentic pistol looks like.

Concerning value, if you value a restoration that you know has authentic, correct parts, as a 0% pistol with issues, then add the actual cost (not retail price) of the work...then I think you're probably pretty close to what most collectors would perhaps pay. And you'd have to have something rare enough to justify a restoration to begin with. If you can go out and find an original pistol without too much trouble, then it would be a loser financially.

Some restorers might furnish before and after photos. But how do you know if those before pictures are of the gun you are considering to purchase? That's why I'd only use my own pistol.

What is a good restoration? IMO, it's something that looks like an original. If it doesn't look like an original piece, well...then it's not a good restoration. I'd never consider a restoration on an early Colt pistol because I've never seen a good restoration on one. No one has managed to master capturing the look. Surface prep and finish just isn't right, when compared to an original. Brushed blue is probably the easiest to replicate, but a lot of guys still don't use the proper tools and methods to get the polish right.

If I were going to send in a pistol for restoration, I personally would only have major parts restored. I'd secure dead original finish and correct small parts to complete the project. Even as obvious as most refinishes are, small parts almost never look right. The less restoration required, the better the job. Knocking the finish off the high edges isn't really too convincing. Blued guns that are 70-100+ years old all have an element of oxidation. When there is no aging in the finish and visible wear patterns, they just don't look original.

I certainly agree with most of the comments here. Restorations don't bring at auction nearly what they sold for "new" from the restoration gunsmith. Don't buy one thinking it is an investment. You'd be better off with 2-3 plain-jane brown wrapper original Remington Rands five years later.

If I want a Ferrari, will I really be satisfied with a VW kit car? No. If you start to fool yourself about what you want, then it's time to back up and rethink things.

[stan4]

Let's say you can afford that original collectible pistol, car, or whatever. And, it is involved in an accident. The "doctors" then repair/restore it. Will you be happy with it?

OTOH, let's say you just want to shoot the hell out of it, drive the hell out of it, or whatever the hell out of it. And, you want it to look "----". Will you be happy with what the "doctors" provide?

Best Regards,

[Wick]

If you start to fool yourself about what you want, then it's time to back up and rethink things.

That's some first-rate advice, right there!