Savage No 4 (T)'s less scope: Less value?

[Seaforth72]

Having a Stevens-Savage No. 4 that was partially converted to a sniper but never had a scope fitted is frustrating for many collectors (so near and yet so far!) unless they are an advanced collector and have a complete No. 4 T set as well or are specializing in Stevens-Savage variations.

I worked in museums for 40 years and I see nothing wrong with buying a bracket and scope to mount on it FOR DISPLAY or FOR REENACTING (in which case a replica set it better). As pointed out by many people, do not expect it to shoot like a sniper with the scope on it. Think of a restored jeep - most Americans add one or more machine guns (usually dummy) to their ex-army jeeps for display even if that jeep was never fitted with one in service.

Please DO NOT forge any markings! That is criminal and permanently damages the rifle thus decreasing its value. I.e. If there is no scope SN stamped on the small of the grip do not add it!

Also, DO NOT pretend that it is a full real sniper when you show it and most importantly when you sell it or trade it someday. Be honest and say it is an incomplete sniper conversion, with a mismatched or replica bracket and scope.

ABOVE ALL, BE HONEST AND DO NOT MAKE PERMANENT CHANGES TO THE RIFLE, SCOPE OR BRACKET.

By the way, do ask the seller if the wooden Small Arms Chest No. 15 is with the rifle or if you can track back through previous owners to try to find it. These were stencilled to show the rifle had no scope and any No. 15 chest is now hard to find and is worth several hundred dollars.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[AD-4NA]

HA! we share the same pet peeve about MB/GPWs Seaforth, especially having done a nut and bolt correct restoration myself.
Half the reason I want the rifle or would post it here is so some bubba does not "improve" it by adding a few extra T stamps.
Now I hope this does not enrage anyone; and Seaforth I honor your long term devotion to museums, would probably kill to have your job, and I think we think alike but I have been mulling over the following generally:
Having thought about all our collections after we move on, it seems the only way to guarantee the continued long term preservation of an item for more than one generation after we're all gone is if it is expensive in the first place and continues to cost too much for the uninformed to buy or want to buy. Published work sure helps too. Some museums are real alternative routes, but some I would not trust with a pile of scrap. But no one gets to enjoy a piece in a vault!
But I do hate it when I hear people say something that basically adds up to or inherently implies "history comes from whatever a museum placard says" or "only museums should have things like uniforms or a functional tank or Gasp! Those unsafe things: Real Firearms! Always puzzling seeing how an Enfield or a BAR behind a glass case is enough for most people. Similar to the kind of person who would teach a WWII history course out of a book for twenty years but never experiment by humping through the hills with an M1 to see what it is really like I guess. Not that a bunch of Farby living historians or reenactors qualify as a better approach though! On the other hand my old professor who taught a course on Vietnam and had actually served there is definitely exempt from the former statement. That was perspective! So on a similar note, thank you for giving all of us some of your time Mr. Laidler!

If any one is looking for some good reading, anything by John Keegan is a great antidote to that sort of history.