Stock stamps

[raceratb]

Does anyone in the group loan/rent stock stamps? I have a 1902, and I'd like to freshen up the stamps after I refinish

[butlersrangers]

'raceratb' - That practice would run contrary to the Ethics of most Gun Collectors.

[raceratb]

If you were trying to pass a replica off as original, but if it is already there, it's already there. There are other techniques to deepen it, but a stamp is easiest. There are some dents that need streaming, and they are close.

[Dick Hosmer]

What you propose is, in my opinion, unethical. Stop and really, really, think for a second - who, exactly, are you truly fooling??? It MAY look "better", but there is also the possibility that it will look worse. The stamps marketed by the scumbags on Ebay and elsewhere are NOT perfect copies, so, your comment that it is already there holds little water, and anyone who sees it will know it is not right.

I would not re-stamp it even if I had the original SA die!

I'm not the administrator, but I am a charter member of KCA, and, I will say, right up front that if any member did assist in furthering this effort, I would strongly recommend they be reprimanded, or asked to leave.

Nothing "personal" at all - IMHO, it's just wrong.

[raceratb]

Would you consider replacing the cut forend fraud, refinishing? Metal refinishing? Replacing parts, a screw, a barrel? Any repair not done by the arsenal isn't original, I would like to have a nice shooter that looks like it should have. I bought a cut down, and it would like to put it back to what it looked like when it was first made. I'm going to refinish the wood, some of the metal and replace the cut down barrel. I know it's not original more would I try to pass it off as original. I wouldn't consider this fraud no more that restoring a car would be fraud, it's restored. If I kept it a carbine it would be a replica.

[psteinmayer]

Sorry... but I gotta side with Butlersrangers and Mr Hosmer on this one! Making a cartouche appear deeper and more prevalent is like trying to make it look new... and this is a rifle that is over a century old. ANY krag rifle at that age would look worn unless it spent it's entire life in a museum... and there just ain't no such of a thing! This is NOT like restoring a car - A restored car is worth much more than one that is original and beat up... UNLESS it spent it's entire life in a museum. Rifles, like Krags are always more desirable and in demand when they are original, including looking worn!

I mean no disrespect... but I gotta go with unethical also.

[Mark_Daiute]

Would you consider replacing the cut forend fraud, refinishing? Metal refinishing? Replacing parts, a screw, a barrel? Any repair not done by the arsenal isn't original, I would like to have a nice shooter that looks like it should have. I bought a cut down, and it would like to put it back to what it looked like when it was first made. I'm going to refinish the wood, some of the metal and replace the cut down barrel. I know it's not original more would I try to pass it off as original. I wouldn't consider this fraud no more that restoring a car would be fraud, it's restored. If I kept it a carbine it would be a replica.

I asked myself all of these questions reading this thread as all of my Krags are "restored". They are all stretched back to their original military config but funny, I would not add a cartouche that is not already there. I'll have to puzzle that one out for myself just so that I understand my own thoughts on a rational level.

I can say, without any puzzlement, that for me adding or dressing up a cartouche just aint right. True, I put the forestock back on my rifles but adding the cartouche, well, the only word I can think of is counterfeit. It's adding something, taking something to a level that just isn't there. I have a model 1898 I restored that has a beautiful cartouche and circled P, they were there, I did not have to add them.

I guess, as I think about this, repair is one thing, embellishment is another. Adding or enhancing a cartouche is a step towards falsification in the view of most of us.

Come to think of it, I don't really "refinish" my rifles, ever. If they have dents and dings I'm ok with that. I do try to match the existing the finish that is on the rifle as best as I can.

[raceratb]

Do you consider a Mitchell's mauser a fraud, or a replica? What about adding a stamp to the inside indicating rework, as many shops do? Plus any rework would be easily identified since it wouldn't bear the signs of age. Is a new production barrel? At a certain point, a restored gun is worth more than something beat (unless it's uber rare), depending on the market, and I've seen refinished guns go for more than original if it's bad enough. While I agree fraud is fraud, it's interesting to see where the line is drawn. For some, any change at all from it's its original state is fraud. For some it's anything, that isn't fraud. Always interesting to touch a nerve.

[raceratb]

Here is an even more interesting hypothetical, what if a gun does have historical significance, but it was altered along it's way significantly. Would it's restoration be acceptable, and I mean a complete documented restoration, stamps, finishes, as if it just came out of the factory...
And if you do accept this, can you still say no to one without the history, assuming the same transparency

[Mark_Daiute]

Here is an even more interesting hypothetical, what if a gun does have historical significance, but it was altered along it's way significantly. Would it's restoration be acceptable, and I mean a complete documented restoration, stamps, finishes, as if it just came out of the factory...
And if you do accept this, can you still say no to one without the history, assuming the same transparency

For me the answer is no.