I cannot understand whay as soon as one adds some patina to a gun it automaticaly looks 200+ years old, :hmm: not everyone had new guns in the past and many would have had guns with a few to many years of use, as early 1700 guns were convertd to caplock, I think Mikes guns look good and represnt guns that have been in use for a while, what I see as ridiculus is a guy doing a 1770 perona with a brite and shiney 1730 fusil because it would not be "honest" to age it :bull: We simply do not know what kind of appearance a random sampling of guns would have looked like back then so anyones interpretation is as good as anothers, I recall some 30/30's in hunting camp years ago with most of the blue gone and the finish pretty thing and some dings on the stocks, if i were to reenact a 1965 deer camp there would likely be old and new guns, but for anyone to think they can say that a gun looks 200 years old because it was not made to look brand new is dumb, offense intended.