Why does it have to be aged?

[Stumpkiller]

I try to imagine what a hunting pouch or even a firearm that went through Valley Forge might look like. I doubt it would sell NIB or even "Like New" on Gunbroker. ;-)

Then again, hunting and humping through through milli-flori rose and thorn apple thickets does all I need for aging. Me and the gear.

 

[Pete Gaimari]

I like the well aged look.

Sort of like my face. :grin:

 

[August West]

I see this debated on here frequently and have a bit of a different opinion. I have two guns in my collection that look just as used and aged as anything I have seen on here that was aged artificially and they have looked like that as long as I can remember, even seeing them used in the original owners hands. If I was at home I would take pics, if anyone is interested and remembers I will be happy too in a few months when I get home.

The first is a remington 22 single shot, it belonged to my grandfather. He used it to kill hogs we raised and for coonhunting. I was with him the night he fell and broke the stock at the wrist. He got another stock, I have no idea what gun the new stock came from, and retrofitted it to the remington he also fashioned a metal buttplate for it so he could use it for a walking stick going up steep slopes. The rear sight elevation ladder is also homemade by him. The second is my uncles Iver Johnson 16 ga, the forearm is cracked and fixed with pins and glue and the buttpad appears to made from an old piece of tire.

Both of these guns are still functional and the 22 is a tack driver, however neither has a speck of blueing left and actually look very similiar to some of the "aged" guns I see on here. BTW both of these guns are "Southern Mountain guns" as I am from Western NC, close to the Tennessee border.

I think from looking at hard use guns, some of the M4s in my arms room that have been meticulously cared for, that guns and gear of the time period we follow would look very, very, used even when it was still serving it's original owner. Chris

 

[HAMMERSCHILD]

But dont you dare call her broke in! :rotf:

 

[HAMMERSCHILD]

I'm with Gus on this one.

IMHO, the pioneers of old did buy new items, and often bought a whole new outfit when they returned from their long hunts or campaign season, so having most of one's gear, or all of it new, is historically correct.

Personally, a vast majority of the aging that is done looks like artificial aging and some of it looks down right hokey.

It's usually pretty easy to spot someone uses their gear on a regular basis, compared to someone who seldom uses artificially aged gear, so it's often easy to tell who is posing and who is as real as one can get, in this hobby.

Like everything else, in this hobby, it's a personal choice and everyone has the right to express their own opinion. :wink:

God bless

It would seem to me that an obviously experienced trapper or hunter with new gear would be a testement to his prowess. He had to have money or plews to get all that new gear. while some fella with all aged gear might need to find a new profession. just thinkin