Restocked Shotgun - Does it affect the value?

[Gunman]

A single gun is worth the same as a single gun of a pair .Not all numbered guns , No1 for example are actually of a pair as it was common to order 1 gun with the idea of having a second gun made at some future date that may never of happened . I have known of guns being ordered where the No 2 ,3 and 4  have been in different bores but to make a set .The maker may have reserved a consecutive number, but not always .Guns have been made to match an earlier gun but the manufacture dates may be years apart ,yes they are a pair but not a true pair in the spirit of the word .

Any gun must be valued on its merits and if a gun has been reworked and had new barrels and stock by the maker should not affect its value . A 1920 gun re-barreled in 1960 say will still be a 1920 gun but will possibly be of slightly higher value due to its over all condition . 

[Fil]

On 09/06/2019 at 11:56, Gunman said:

Look at this way a gun , any gun with a bad ,worn or damaged stock is less desirable than one with a good stock . It may be that it was originally stocked to specific requirements or that it has bee shortened . Many older guns had comparatively short stocks that do not suit today's needs .

Providing the work has been well executed and the wood is of a quality that compliments , I have seen nice guns stocked in the 60's with lesser wood  that looks awful ,  then it should not affect any resale value and will probably enhance it .

What I do not like is to see a period gun stocked up with wood that is far "fancier " than the maker would have originally used .Purdey used wood that was straight in the grain and very rarely do you see a turn of the century [thats 1900] gun with highly figured wood as they went for strength and weight  ,so many older guns do not have what we now call exhibition wood .

My sentiments exactly. And from a barrel makers point of view I would rather new barrels by the maker (as I think the original post suggests) than the original possibly thin and near proof barrels. In my experience new stocks and barrels (by the maker) add value.  Do you realise how many thousands Purdey charge for a new set of barrels? 

So happy days if I'm buying a 100 year old gun with newish barrels. As long as the action and lock work is in good condition, un polished on the outside!! and the engraving is not faint. Better value than new at £100k

[panoma1]

8 hours ago, Fil said:

My sentiments exactly. And from a barrel makers point of view I would rather new barrels by the maker (as I think the original post suggests) than the original possibly thin and near proof barrels. In my experience new stocks and barrels (by the maker) add value.  Do you realise how many thousands Purdey charge for a new set of barrels? 

So happy days if I'm buying a 100 year old gun with newish barrels. As long as the action and lock work is in good condition, un polished on the outside!! and the engraving is not faint. Better value than new at £100k

I have a 19th century J&W Tolley, breechloading, double 8 bore hammer gun with 4 1/4" chambers, it has been rebarrelled (and nitro proofed) in the 1980's with Westley Richards special steel tubes using the mono bloc method (new breech, lumps, tubes) ........Its my go to coastal goose gun, looked after, It is good for the next 100 plus years!...........Dunno whether this would affect the value positively or negatively?........I'd be interested to know......but don't really care as it ain't for sale!

Edited June 20, 2019 by panoma1

[London Best]

Pictures? We need pictures...........please.

[Penelope]

21 hours ago, London Best said:

Pictures? We need pictures...........please.

Ditto!!!!!

[Gunman]

On 20/06/2019 at 11:56, panoma1 said:

I have a 19th century J&W Tolley, breechloading, double 8 bore hammer gun with 4 1/4" chambers, it has been rebarrelled (and nitro proofed) in the 1980's with Westley Richards special steel tubes using the mono bloc method (new breech, lumps, tubes) ........Its my go to coastal goose gun, looked after, It is good for the next 100 plus years!...........Dunno whether this would affect the value positively or negatively?........I'd be interested to know......but don't really care as it ain't for sale!

Not sure what you mean when you say "mono block method " This implies  that a new breech and lump was made into with tubes were fitted . 

I would have thought this to be a complicated and expensive  way of doing things for a one off and assumed if new barrels were made at this time the normal dovetailed lump would have been used if chopper lump tubes were not available .

PS. Nobody "needs " pictures" . What they mean is , please can we see a picture . 

[panoma1]

2 hours ago, Gunman said:

Not sure what you mean when you say "mono block method " This implies  that a new breech and lump was made into with tubes were fitted . 

I would have thought this to be a complicated and expensive  way of doing things for a one off and assumed if new barrels were made at this time the normal dovetailed lump would have been used if chopper lump tubes were not available .

PS. Nobody "needs " pictures" . What they mean is , please can we see a picture . 

That is my understanding of barrels made by the Monobloc construction method, I am perfectly happy to be corrected if I've been misinformed? I understand mono bloc construction entails a new breech, including lumps (manufactured in one piece?) with new tubes fitted into the breech.......is this not how most foreign O/U's are constructed? Most modern foreign guns made with mono bloc barrels have a bit of engraving around the tubes in order to hide the joint! 

I cannot comment on the cost, But from memory, the when speaking to the former owner at the time, who got the work done (as a gunsmith he did some of the machining himself!) the gun had a bit of history, the guy was well into his late seventies early eighties at the time I purchased the gun, he told me he had an association with C Ashthorpe of Severn Stoke, who he claimed was somehow involved in the construction? I don't know exactly how, but I had no reason to disbelieve him!

He also told me Mr Ashthorpe had a real problem convincing the proofhouse to accept the gun for proof, because of the non standard nature of the construction of the barrels, but obviously, he finally persuaded them, as the barrels now bear Nitro proof marks!

I can prove none of this, but that is the story....and as said previously.......I had no reason to disbelieve the teller!

 

Edited June 21, 2019 by panoma1
Spelled the name wrong...again! 😱

[panoma1]

As requested

Edited June 21, 2019 by panoma1

[panoma1]

Mods please move this posting and the pictures into the SBS section if you feel it more appropriate?

thanks P1

[Penelope]

13 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Mods please move this posting and the pictures into the SBS section if you feel it more appropriate?

thanks P1

She is a beauty!

[London Best]

Very, very nice. They just don’t make ‘em like that any more.

I used to have a Tolley.................best dog I ever had.

[Fil]

On 20/06/2019 at 11:56, panoma1 said:

I have a 19th century J&W Tolley, breechloading, double 8 bore hammer gun with 4 1/4" chambers, it has been rebarrelled (and nitro proofed) in the 1980's with Westley Richards special steel tubes using the mono bloc method (new breech, lumps, tubes) ........Its my go to coastal goose gun, looked after, It is good for the next 100 plus years!...........Dunno whether this would affect the value positively or negatively?........I'd be interested to know......but don't really care as it ain't for sale!

That's sleeving which is another ball game which can affect value. Only due to dealers saying "ooo it's not original". But I say again if you want it as a shooter who cares? I would rather a good measuring set of sleeved barrels for use than a paper thin near proof original set that I have to be really careful with. 

I do find with 8's and 4's they hold value no matter what type of barrels they have. I've sleeved a few in my time and the owners are avid fowlers and want them in working order. Not wall hangers. 

[panoma1]

16 minutes ago, Fil said:

That's sleeving which is another ball game which can affect value. Only due to dealers saying "ooo it's not original". But I say again if you want it as a shooter who cares? I would rather a good measuring set of sleeved barrels for use than a paper thin near proof original set that I have to be really careful with. 

I do find with 8's and 4's they hold value no matter what type of barrels they have. I've sleeved a few in my time and the owners are avid fowlers and want them in working order. Not wall hangers. 

I was under the impression sleeving was done by cutting off the worn out tubes of an old gun, and refitting new tubes into the original (old) breech end,

Whereas  the monobloc system is achieved by making an entirely new breech, including lumps etc and fitting new tubes into this new breech....is this not the way new foreign O/U and a few SBS are made?........or do you maintain these new guns are sleeved too?

Mono bloc is merely a different way of constructing new barrels.....in England they were, for example, dovetailed or chopperlump.......foreign guns were mostly mono bloc!......All are recognised as new barrels!

This Tolley gun would most likely have originally had Damascus or Laminated steel barrels ( approx 1880's) not steel! Usually, when an old gun with Damascus/Laminated barrels is sleeved and blacked, close inspection reveals the Damascus pattern on the metal of the breech shows through the blacking.....there is no such tell tale sign on my guns barrels!

The old guy I purchased the gun off was a gunsmith and was most insistent that the gun was not sleeved, but had new monobloc barrels, the breech of which he claims to have machined himself!......I have no problem whichever method was used.......but, as I said, I have no reason to doubt the old guys story!........this apparantly was what the dispute with the proof house was about, he didn't want the word "sleeved" stamped (which the proof authorities did at that time) into the breech.....because he maintained, it wasn't sleeved.........he won....there is no such mark on the gun!

I welcome responses, and am prepared to be convinced my posting is inaccurate or a load of rubbish! Lol! But please offer proof not just opinion!

[Gunman]

17 hours ago, panoma1 said:

I was under the impression sleeving was done by cutting off the worn out tubes of an old gun, and refitting new tubes into the original (old) breech end,

Whereas  the monobloc system is achieved by making an entirely new breech, including lumps etc and fitting new tubes into this new breech....is this not the way new foreign O/U and a few SBS are made?........or do you maintain these new guns are sleeved too?

Mono bloc is merely a different way of constructing new barrels.....in England they were, for example, dovetailed or chopperlump.......foreign guns were mostly mono bloc!......All are recognised as new barrels!

This Tolley gun would most likely have originally had Damascus or Laminated steel barrels ( approx 1880's) not steel! Usually, when an old gun with Damascus/Laminated barrels is sleeved and blacked, close inspection reveals the Damascus pattern on the metal of the breech shows through the blacking.....there is no such tell tale sign on my guns barrels!

The old guy I purchased the gun off was a gunsmith and was most insistent that the gun was not sleeved, but had new monobloc barrels, the breech of which he claims to have machined himself!......I have no problem whichever method was used.......but, as I said, I have no reason to doubt the old guys story!........this apparantly was what the dispute with the proof house was about, he didn't want the word "sleeved" stamped (which the proof authorities did at that time) into the breech.....because he maintained, it wasn't sleeved.........he won....there is no such mark on the gun!

I welcome responses, and am prepared to be convinced my posting is inaccurate or a load of rubbish! Lol! But please offer proof not just opinion!

There is only one way to settle a dispute and thats to have an experienced gunsmith examine and pass opinion. Any thing else is merely conjecture and should be treated as such . 

It really does not matter how the barrels were made   as long as the gun is safe and usable . I did misunderstand one of the original posts , reading that it had been re barreled by Westley Richards rather than it implied  the tubes made of or supplied by them .Hence my original question . A case of not knowing all the relevant factors .

Problem is with forums is that we, myself included , sometimes  misread /misinterpret posts , some  express opinions and dont want to have minds changed .Having spent my working life in the gun trade I have seen things done to guns  that have in turn amazed and appalled me so I discount nothing until I have seen it myself or have the opinion of some one I respect .

 

[panoma1]

1 hour ago, Gunman said:

There is only one way to settle a dispute and thats to have an experienced gunsmith examine and pass opinion. Any thing else is merely conjecture and should be treated as such . 

It really does not matter how the barrels were made   as long as the gun is safe and usable . I did misunderstand one of the original posts , reading that it had been re barreled by Westley Richards rather than it implied  the tubes made of or supplied by them .Hence my original question . A case of not knowing all the relevant factors .

Problem is with forums is that we, myself included , sometimes  misread /misinterpret posts , some  express opinions and dont want to have minds changed .Having spent my working life in the gun trade I have seen things done to guns  that have in turn amazed and appalled me so I discount nothing until I have seen it myself or have the opinion of some one I respect .

 

Thanks for that gunman, I agree! I have no interest in trying to prove my story, it does not matter. I am satisfied that what the previous owner told me is correct, the gun is sound, proofed and in excellent condition...both bores still measure 21.2 (.835) nom 8 bore which is the same as at proof......I only posted about this gun because I found its history interesting and thought it may be of interest to other PW members too?

[Old farrier]

16 minutes ago, panoma1 said:

Thanks for that gunman, I agree! I have no interest in trying to prove my story, it does not matter. I am satisfied that what the previous owner told me is correct, the gun is sound, proofed and in excellent condition...both bores still measure 21.2 (.835) nom 8 bore which is the same as at proof......I only posted about this gun because I found its history interesting and thought it may be of interest to other PW members too?

And very interesting it is 

a lovely gun and I’m sure a pleasure to own and shoot 

all the best 

of

[panoma1]

Just now, Old farrier said:

And very interesting it is 

a lovely gun and I’m sure a pleasure to own and shoot 

all the best 

of

👍 of

[London Best]

Yes, agreed, a very interesting post.

[panoma1]

3 hours ago, London Best said:

Yes, agreed, a very interesting post.

👍 LB

[Fil]

On 27/06/2019 at 15:13, panoma1 said:

I was under the impression sleeving was done by cutting off the worn out tubes of an old gun, and refitting new tubes into the original (old) breech end,

Whereas  the monobloc system is achieved by making an entirely new breech, including lumps etc and fitting new tubes into this new breech....is this not the way new foreign O/U and a few SBS are made?........or do you maintain these new guns are sleeved too?

Mono bloc is merely a different way of constructing new barrels.....in England they were, for example, dovetailed or chopperlump.......foreign guns were mostly mono bloc!......All are recognised as new barrels!

This Tolley gun would most likely have originally had Damascus or Laminated steel barrels ( approx 1880's) not steel! Usually, when an old gun with Damascus/Laminated barrels is sleeved and blacked, close inspection reveals the Damascus pattern on the metal of the breech shows through the blacking.....there is no such tell tale sign on my guns barrels!

The old guy I purchased the gun off was a gunsmith and was most insistent that the gun was not sleeved, but had new monobloc barrels, the breech of which he claims to have machined himself!......I have no problem whichever method was used.......but, as I said, I have no reason to doubt the old guys story!........this apparantly was what the dispute with the proof house was about, he didn't want the word "sleeved" stamped (which the proof authorities did at that time) into the breech.....because he maintained, it wasn't sleeved.........he won....there is no such mark on the gun!

I welcome responses, and am prepared to be convinced my posting is inaccurate or a load of rubbish! Lol! But please offer proof not just opinion!

Yes you are quite right on how sleeving is carried out. If you truly mean new mono block barrels then that is very interesting and a fantastic bit of gunmaking for a one man band if that who the gunsmith that did the job is.

 

Yes I do count modern mono block barrels as new sleevers despite the breech block being new as well which is also why it bugs me dealers say sleeved barrels de value a gun and that's the sort of topic that can go on forever. I made some of the new mono block barrels for Boxall and Edmiston and felt they were every bit as good as chopper lumps but half the work!

 

Thanks for posting. Good debate and interesting history.