I was bidding on a Type 38 stock and hand guard (listed separately of course) on Ebay and had "taken the lead" with a bid that I thought was fair.
Imagine my surprise to find that the combination had sold for $250.00 (including shipping) when I checked this morning.
I sometimes wonder exactly who would bid a stock (or any other part) up to pretty near the price of an entire rifle or more than the cost of a reproduction part. And then I consider how we as collectors seem to be cutting our own throats (figuratively speaking) when it comes to "originality."
While we search for the all "original" and "best condition" piece, at a "deal," we also bemoan the raising price of these very artifacts, while we are responsible (so it seems) for those same rising prices. I find it difficult to believe that the purchaser of this stock isn't a collector attempting to "restore" a Type 38 to original condition. And for that the purchaser deserves an "atta boy," yet the purchase price of the stock added to the action he already has possession of will entail that his original cost will exceed the price of a rifle he can already purchase whole. And I must confess, I too, am guilty of the exact same circumstances.
However, as I've discovered, to "restore" a rifle to its "original condition" is frowned upon by some, and considered "fraud" by a small percentage. Of course it's only "fraud" if one attempts to portray the "restored" article as "original," but regardless its worth is considered less valuable than a piece in its semi-battered "original" condition.
I imagine when I get home I'll be purchasing a reproduction stock for the Type 38 action I've been working on, and I'll play with it, and cherish it, and let whoever gets it when I expire deal with the fact it isn't "original."
eb
I sometimes wonder exactly who would bid a stock (or any other part) up to pretty near the price of an entire rifle or more than the cost of a reproduction part. And then I consider how we as collectors seem to be cutting our own throats (figuratively speaking) when it comes to "originality."
While we search for the all "original" and "best condition" piece, at a "deal," we also bemoan the raising price of these very artifacts, while we are responsible (so it seems) for those same rising prices. I find it difficult to believe that the purchaser of this stock isn't a collector attempting to "restore" a Type 38 to original condition. And for that the purchaser deserves an "atta boy," yet the purchase price of the stock added to the action he already has possession of will entail that his original cost will exceed the price of a rifle he can already purchase whole. And I must confess, I too, am guilty of the exact same circumstances.
However, as I've discovered, to "restore" a rifle to its "original condition" is frowned upon by some, and considered "fraud" by a small percentage. Of course it's only "fraud" if one attempts to portray the "restored" article as "original," but regardless its worth is considered less valuable than a piece in its semi-battered "original" condition.
I imagine when I get home I'll be purchasing a reproduction stock for the Type 38 action I've been working on, and I'll play with it, and cherish it, and let whoever gets it when I expire deal with the fact it isn't "original."
eb
