-
David,
I have a slightly different view then you on this debate. You and I are east coast chaps, I very much doubt the shooting/collecting world we live in is all that different between NJ and PA. In the US east coast gun culture, up until about 6 or 7 years ago, Enfields were fairly cheap. As such in terms of how “serious” US collectors view the world, Enfield fans were seen as very much the bottom feeders. That has affected how collectors of Enfields view their prizes. Let me expand on that point:
The five areas of collecting (non-Enfield) that I know something about, based of the fellows I hang out with were as follows:
US military rifles: M1 Garand
US Military rifles M1903 and M1903A3
US Military rifles M1861 and 1863 rifles
Winchester Rifles (M70, post M1894 lever action rifles)
Kar98 K rifles and associated German rifles (G98, Kar98/40, G33/40, G24(T))
Now these areas were big money more then a decade ago, at least in relative terms. In the case of the Kar98K and Winchester rifles, it was common to have all matching examples, which over the years have seen their price go up to quite high levels. Ten years ago, when a correct Australian No 1 MK III was a 100 dollar rifle, a matching Kar98K rifle was a 500 dollar item. I have no idea what a correct Kar98K goes for today, but I suspect a really nice one is well over 1000 dollars to the right guy if it is the desired year and factory.
The same is true of all US rifles. A correct HR M1 or early M1 with pre 1941 features is a 1,250 dollar and up rifle, last time I checked. Likely they are more now. There is a vast difference in price between a mix-master with some early bits and one with all correct parts. The price differential is easily 2 to 1 and might be as high as 4 to 1. In the case of Winchesters the difference between a 100, percent and 98 percent rifle is very significant, at least in the selling price.
In essence the interest for all of these fraternities is to find a correct example of the rifle when it came out of the factory. This reflects the fact that for the most part the above rifles saw use by one army or user only. The collectors want to fill their collection with the best condition rifles in original condition that they can find, and a significant number of such rifles exist. This I am sure you know but I had to state this so that the next point is clear.
In contrast in the Enfield world, at least since 1997, when I first started to really check out the on-line world of Lee Enfield rifles (though my first experience with on line Enfield was Skip Stratton’s site around 1995) more interest was placed in the history of each rifle. Enfields saw reuse by many armies, it is possible to find a No1 MK III that saw service in three armies and up to 4 wars. As many of these rifles flowed into the country from different nations, a lot of effort went into deciphering the many issue markings that would tell a rifles history. The Mosin Nagant collectors are similar, for their sub 100 dollar rifles they are very interested in the issue markings and rebuild markings. A rifle that has evidence of issue in three countries is of great interest, even if the condition is less then pristine. That a rifle was rebuilt and is not original is of no big concern, the history was far more interesting and one that could be tracked through the stamped markings on wood and metal. For both of these types of surplus, there is no corresponding collecting basis for US rifles, issue markings were rarely if ever applied to the extent that they are with Russian, Finnish and Enfield rifles. These ugly rifles that were sold for very low prices and much of what tickled collectors fancy was figuring out what the various markings/features meant. That makes for a very different orientation between US and Enfield collectors.
Now the obsession with finding/verifying “correct” rifles in the US collecting fraternity also has to be seen in turns of the vast difference in price between a shooter and a collectable rifle. Because the gradual or not so gradual difference between the prices of original and “parts guns” the collectors of US arms and Winchesters started to really study the finer points. This was because of the obvious profit motive to be made by restoring parts guns to “original guns” (or arms that could pass as such). If you go on the gunboard forum site and look at the various fakes that have come to light with M1C rifles, Kar98K rifles, re-stamped wood for all US service rifles and Winchester rifle condition upgrades, you will realize that the fakers have really affected the entire market. Having the ability to tell what is correct and what a restorer has fashioned becomes and important part of guarding ones collection and ones wallet.
The same thing will gradually occur in the Enfield market as well, as the value of Enfield rifles climbs ever higher. There are already a few known folks that peddle “enhanced” rifles: one an author in Maryland and the other a well known dealer in New York. Gunbroker has seen a number of No 4 MK I T rifles of dubious vintage with some marking seemingly applied and others enhanced. Peter Laidlers books on the topic and recent discussions on these rifles, on this site have brought to light at least one fake Canadian rifle, with a Lyman scope and mount. The cost of unissued Irish contact and post 1954 No 4 MK II unissued rifles is still rising, what was a 500 dollar rifle 3 years ago now seems to be a 700 and up rifle. Imagine how closely Enfield folks would look at these rifles if someone started selling “enhanced” beat-up rifles that could ape the appearance of the new rifles?
Fortunately there are still many inexpensive Enfield variants that can be collected that are very unlikely to be faked at this time as the price is still too low. Any rifle less then 300 dollars is unto likely to be faked, the return on investment is simply too low. But rest assured in 10 or 20 years when the difference in a few parts or markings can change the price by 1 or 3 times, Enfield collectors will be having the same detailed discussions about what we see as common place rifles that US and Winchester collectors are having today. Sad as that is, it is the nature of collecting.
-
I think Ridolpho kinda got it right when he says: [the highlight/bold is mine for emphasis of a point] "Isn't the real issue that we, as collectors, are trying to identify and preserve guns that demonstrate partial or (maybe) complete systems as they were designed and issued."
I would like to say that (in my own opinion) that when i hear phrases like say, 'original condition' or many others as used in this thread, the way i myself tend to think of these words is the same as saying (in simpler terminology) that "the rifle is the same now (or today if you like?) as when it left the original armoury where it was created all those years ago . . ." if you can see what i am trying to mean here?
I mean to say, surely it would be much simpler to think of those words in the same way when refering to say, an Enfield that has lovingly been restored back to the format in which it was when it was first made - wether this would mean that it has several parts made by company A, B, or C; or in fact wether all parts were made by just company A?
I can understand the sentiments of both the thread, and it's reasonable arguments that have been posted thereby. Take my own No4 Mk1* - when i purchased it, it had a god awful cut short bottom stock, and no top timbers, no bands, no magazine, and for that matter, no fore or rear sights. But i am trying to return it once more to its former glory - i am doing my very best to obtain and order the parts that are considered or indicated to be the most authentic for this mark of rifle. It matters not that greatly to me who makes the bands for instance - but what IS important to me is that the bands i buy say, next year would be the closest possible match if the original spec ones were not available to me at that point in time. For all i know, in a years time, the bands i get hold of may well have been made by the very same company who made the original ones that sat upon the stock of MY rifle, but hey, they have simply been in storage for all those years?
Do you see what i mean folks?
To me, terms as used in this thread mean to me that a rifle can be termed to be in that state as when it left the armoury when it was made - contain various items it was made with at that time - the 'default' items, if you prefer.
Thats just my take on it, and my own opinion on it - it is up to you to reach your own conclusions i think?
Bye for now,
Terry
-
I have read through this entire thread and I am even more confused than I was when I started, and that's saying a lot.
I only own ONE absolutely unfired rifle, a Long Branch 1944 Number 4. It has no serial number and the nicest wood I have ever seen, but it has a Long Branch-manufactured British-pattern safety and that's the way it walked out of the factory. Is it original? Likely. I also have a few brand-new Long Branch Canadian-pattern safeties, but I don't think I'm going to start switching parts around.
To me, a Number 4 should have all Number 4 parts. It should have no Mannlicher parts, nor Berthier parts. I suppose that it might have Mauser parts if it's one of those which were converted by the Israelis but, otherwise, it should have all Number 4 parts. DEFINITELY no Vetterli parts!
I am starting, generally, with rescued junkers and a very limited budget. I try to keep English parts on English rifles, Canadian parts on Canadian rifles and so forth, but my SMLE Mark I*** does have an Australian barrel-band, a relic of my very first (rather ignorant) search for "original" parts. Oh well, it COULD have happened during the Great War, I suppose..... and the rifle likes it, so it stays.
As far as I'm concerned, if a troopie of the time when the rifle was in Service could pick it up and find nothing out-of-place about it, it should be good enough. It certainly was good enough to fight a war; it darned well ought to be good enough for me to shoot at a tin can.
I suppose that in "collecting" circles that makes me rather much of a heathen, but that's the way it is.
I thank you ALL for this most informative (if confoozin') discussion. If only we could do this around a table, with a keg of Dos Equis Negro!
.
-
Frederick,
We are not at all far apart on our views, I appreciate the time you have taken to post.
Perhaps I should have been more detailed in my posts but I was trying to stay focused on a particular issue which seems to be the question of what is considered "original". I just felt the thread was leaning more towards a point to be shown that no such animal exists because of the use in subcontracted parts so why bother to worry about it. Also, I was trying to shed some light to those who don't collect the mind set of a collector. Naturally, there will always be those who try to get over and I am very much aware of the rooted out suspects you mentioned, having 6 or 7 rifles from one of them. I was at no time trying to suggest that collecting "as built" rifles is the only way to go as a collector and I have many rifles in my collection that are very much beat up but contain certain markings I considered historically significant to own. One in particular is a Mk.III which has South African and Oster markings. It all matches except the bolt, which happens to have the correct number stamped on the top of the bolt handle but it is well beaten up and you can tell it's been there quite a long time. The fact that is doesn't have all it's original parts matters not at all to me. I have many others that fit this bill and am happy to own them.
-
SpikeDD, I wasn´t attempting to "get" at you! (you stated in your original posting that you are a "shooter ... like me). Of course the interest shown in this Forum is in maintaining and adding to the history of the weapons we own and collect. But I still believe that purely monetary interest often is a negative and corrupting influence that distorts and even sometimes falsifies what we are attempting to achieve. And Peter L´s contribution has shown how this attitude can lead to erroneous decisions as to whether a rifle is "genuine" or not.
