Originality. A few home truths

[spinecracker]

Still waiting for beans to be spilled....6 months later, and I am still beanless - Mr. Laidler, please give us the beans!!!! (Delayed gratification is not my strong point...)

[Peter Laidler]

If I'd known i was that important I'd have come in earlier. There was a modification to Mk1* rifles that ensured that as the bolt was lifted out of the slot in the boltway track, the rear end of the extractor spring didn't strike the underside of a small projection under the bridge charger guide. For your interest, I'm sure it was EMER C-507 mod instruction 4 of July '51 if anyone has the detailed print!

All UK Mk1* and 1/3 rifles were modified at field, Base or FTR level and in NZ they were done too. While based at the big Ordnance Depot at Ngaruawahia in NZ, I found a couple that hadn't been done so took them over to the workshops and did them.

I'm not sure that any other nation would have even bothered with the modification. So in respect to the valuable and collectable NZ marked Mk1* rifles, I'd say that while anyone could stamp an NZ on one, not many would have even known about the modification or had the wherewithall to do it. That's one little identifying feature of the real McCoy. It's another feature to look out for to those who say that their rifle is brand new, never used all original etc etc. Look for the sharp edge under the bridge charger guide that will punch out the extractor spring from behind

[arado]

There is only one truth. CONDITION, CONDITION. That is what I look for. And use my judgement. I buy the best I find. it is usually by blind luck .... gary

[SpikeDD]

Gentleman,
Let me start by thanking Peter for continuing to contribute a wealth of information that would otherwise not be known in his absence. Having had the privilege of being turned loose in the Small Arms School in Warminster was an experience I will never forget and always appreciate.

After reading this entire thread, an obvious and long standing trend presents itself, which is, the lack of understanding the difference between a shooter and a collector. It could even be taken a step further to the absolute refusal of the aforementioned. It's almost as if there is an obsession with the obsession of a collector. Given this board is mostly comprised of shooters it stands to reason why most things are one sided and this topic seems to be mostly a confusion on the part of shooters.

The lack of understanding of anything in life is of course the spawn of "question" and it can be applied to everything. What I have read in this thread is just completely the opposite. The majority of the posts here aren't asking a question but are rather the "stating" of facts and supporting posts to the stating of facts to somehow point out that the only perceived reason why a collector would collect a rifle for doesn't exist therefore is pointless. The key word being " perceived " which is again, a byproduct of the unknown. There was even a poster who stated the only reason someone would want to pursue the acquisition of a all "original" rifle was because of it's monetary worth. Apparently, he's got it all figured out without so much as asking a single question. From where I sit, Bullshit. I've never in over 20 years bought a rifle worrying about what I could get out of it monetarily and have in fact paid much more for a particular rifle I wanted. Why? Steady now, here's where the confusion sets in... because I'm a collector and that is what a collector does, which brings us to the real question at hand. What do I collect rifles for and what do I look for in a collectible rife or rather, what do I consider to be collectible about a rifle. If that question had been asked of me the answer would be long listed so, to keep in topic of the thread, I'll address originality.

Originality: To suggest that collectors are unaware of the fact that most rifles are produced with outsourced parts is, to put it quite bluntly, asinine. For that matter, to suggest it of a shooter is quite the same. We have all been in this game for a long time and apart from the newcomers, I think it safe to say it's common knowledge. Given the fact of what we all know to be common knowledge, how could ANYONE, a shooter or collector, be confused about what the term "ORIGINAL" represents? If a particular situation exists, ie... rifles manufactured with outsourced parts, then by default we are left with only one option... as it left the factory. Which in short, would be my answer. As it left the factory.

I have a hard time understanding the confusion about this subject. In all that we have learned from each other which has shed a fantastic look into the mind boggling detail of the history of these rifles... why is anyone confused about the different aspects that draw us to them ?

[villiers]

"There was even a poster who stated the only reason someone would want to pursue the acquisition of a all "original" rifle was because of it's monetary worth."
If that wasn´t me ... it could have been. And if there´s no truth in the statement, please explain all those references to the "market value" of a "collectible" item and how the "market value" is reduced if some minute part is not marked according to the expectations of some "expert". This thread is of interest as a genuine expert has now revealed that many (most?) "original" weapons are very often a mongrel concoction of a seemingly endless collection of parts made by any number of manufacturers, some of whom no longer exist.

[Rumpelhardt]

My No.4 was an abused homeless 71 year old gent who was in need of some restored dignity in the form of a caring home, a decent change of clothes, regular meals and some occasional exercise in a home free from further abuse.
Originality never really entered the equation but it is an interesting topic.

[Patrick Chadwick]

If a particular situation exists, ie... rifles manufactured with outsourced parts, then by default we are left with only one option... as it left the factory. Which in short, would be my answer. As it left the factory.

Forgive me for tweaking you just a teensy bit, but that would seem to suggest that only rifles in the wrap count? And anything that has been touched by Peter and his colleagues has been devalued?

[SpikeDD]

Hello Villiers,

I'm thinking you may have slightly misunderstood the point of my post. Everything has a market value, that's a given. Market value of a certain item, whatever it may be, is affected by many things, condition, rarity, etc.. A rifle in it's "as left the factory" or "as built" status carries a certain "market value". Any deviation from that would lessen it's "market value".That doesn't mean I want it because of it's higher value...I want it because it is "as built". Peter's post is spot on for what it represents, an absolute fact of certain production circumstances. That circumstance does not translate to something not being " as built " or "as it left the factory" does it ? How could it possibly mean that ? Can you also explain to my why that would also translate to the only reason a collector would want such a rifle ? I've clearly pointed out I take no monetary consideration in the purchasing of rifles and I can hardly believe I would be the only one.

A rifle which has been assembled from a collection of parts that had been outsourced from different subcontractors and assembled at a given arsenal doesn't translate to it not being genuine or original, it's just a matter of fact to it's production and it carries a certain "market value", a far different story to say a 1942 Maltby which is now sporting a Fazakerley barrel, isn't it ? If you are in fact talking about a Maltby rifle sporting a Fazakerley barrel or trigger guard, etc, then I would have to say that those "minute parts" not being Maltby marked would certainly affect it's "market value".

Please, lets call a apple what it is... a apple. If we were to accept that a rifle couldn't be a genuine Maltby, BSA or Fazakerley as it leaves the arsenal because some of its parts may have been made by a subcontractor, then it should also stand to reason that every stamp collector has been mislead as to their stamp collection being genuine because I'm pretty sure the Post Office doesn't own a paper mill which would make every stamp just a cobbled up mess of ink on paper with no genuine originality to the Post Office.

[SpikeDD]

Forgive me for tweaking you just a teensy bit, but that would seem to suggest that only rifles in the wrap count? And anything that has been touched by Peter and his colleagues has been devalued?

LoL, Patrick. I'm not feeling tweaked a bit and rather enjoy a good discussion.

A rifle in the wrap, as Peter suggested, is more than likely a 100% Fazakerely produced rifle which doesn't fit the argument. Now, if Peter were to say fit a rifle with parts that were subcontractor marked it would be hard to tell if it didn't leave the arsenal that way originally because that was how it was done, correct ? But, if Peter fitted a Longbranch marked bolt to a BSA rifle, well, I would have to say it didn't leave the arsenal like that originally and would certainly devalue it.

[Ridolpho]

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. This may be for our personal edification or for future generations. Total originality is less important than documentation via research that all or part of a gun conform to and exemplify some model or mark or illustrate an important modification, etc. For example, I have a nice MLE MarkI (1896, BSA) that has never been through a formal re-fit and, hence, allows one to examine a very important model. The fact that its bolt is not matching the action/ barrel serial number doesn't concern me. Another example is a Martini-Enfield that appears to have been originally converted (from a MH MarkII) at the Henry Barrel Factory then re-fitted (in some manner) at the Citadel in Egypt. Far fom original but a complete provenance is available through study and is a fascinating story (and shootable!). On the other hand, I recently posted a brief description of a 1903a3 on the appropriate forum looking for a bit of insight into its history and all I really found out was that it's NOT ORIGINAL!! I think responders were thinking I was trying to validate some $ value for it when, in fact, I wanted to decipher its past. If I have a point I guess that it is lets focus on the positive info that can be gleaned from a Milsurp and emphasize references and documents that allow newcomers to the pastime to start gaining independant expertise so that when all the old experts are gone there will be some new hands to preserve our treasures.

Ridolpho