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

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.

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.

raceratb wrote on Feb 21^st, 2016 at 7:17pm:


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.

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

This has been a truly interesting discussion.

Everything has its' shades and nuances - what is OK for one is not for another, and there sometimes is a VERY fine line. For me:

Repairs, with original parts, are OK. Replacing screws is OK. Stock-stretching is OK with disclosure. Cleaning and re-oiling wood is OK.

Refinishing of original (obviously you have to do a stretcher) wood, especially with a non-original material, varnish, synthetic, etc. is wrong. Rebluing is frowned on - over-buffing and applying a modern 'black chrome' finish should be a felony.

Adding marks is wrong (and kinda self-delusional in a way). Changing parts to create a scarce variant is wrong.

Of course, when one starts with a butchered gun, a lot more can be tolerated because one is actually making a net improvement - I guess where I draw the line is screwing around with a complete, correct original, whose only sin is showing its age.

I could write several pages.

I guess I would have to liken it to a Bannerman.  I have a Bannerman Trapdoor.  Does it look correct?  To an untrained eye, yes (it fooled me and my dad).  Is it correct?  Not by any stretch of the imagination.  By the way, Dick is the one that helped me to correctly determine it as a Bannerman Trapdoor.