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...)

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.

[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 ?

[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]

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

[Frederick303]

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.

[1942No4Mk1]

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

[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.