Quote:
Originally Posted by KnickKnack
LMAO! I think it's darn funny if a guy has $20 to burn, why NOT!
Printable View
Quote:
Originally Posted by KnickKnack
LMAO! I think it's darn funny if a guy has $20 to burn, why NOT!
One of my friends is a Lionel train dealer. I usually help him watch his tables at the train shows. My friend wanted to do exactly the same thing. (but he never did). Maybe it's something that only affects train collectors. It can be frustrating dealing with the general public at times.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnickKnack
Last show I went to with something to sell Every dealer tht asked to see what I had was told "No.. I know I'll get better offers from the aisle walkers". Most chuckled and agreed. If they still wanted to see what I have then they are really intersted.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick B
As for the historical thing, if a Garand is original as it came from SA or where ever then preserve it. Maybe sell it to someone who has an appreciation for that sort of thing, then get a racker to play with. If you don't feel like selling the item them do with it as you wish, it is yours!
Not exactly the point I was trying to make, but funny.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnickKnack
To put it another way:
If you don't like how I am treating one of my possessions, then I will do exactly what you don't think I should do with it just to prove I can. It's mine.
Whether it's a rifle or a classic car, I can chop it to my hearts content.
A lot of you guys here are hunters. Hunting is just not my thing.
I would never campaign against you hunting just because I don't like it.
In fact I would defend your ability to hunt.
That's really the point. It's your stuff to do with as you please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick B
A quote from Robert Morris, 19th. century British artist & designer applies here: "These old artifacts do not belong to us only; they belong to our forefathers and they will belong to our descendants unless we play them false. They are not in any sense our own property to do what we want with them. We are only trustees for those who come after us."
I've also seen this quote and I understand it. However, my point was that it all can be gone in seconds, so why get that involved in it? I've seen hundreds of "valuable" items destroyed by fires and other disasters in my lifetime. I've seen people that poured their heart and soul into collecting, only to have their collections divided up and sold after they died, and for a very small percentage of what they invested in money. I've seen family businesses that went through generations for years completely destroyed in minutes and gone forever. I've seen the bodies of some of these families pulled from the rubble because they tried to save some "valuable" object. Literally, none of us knows what the next minute will bring. I've had a lot of things that I thought were valuable to me and kept good care of them. Lots of them are gone now, and you know what? I don't really miss them all that much. If someone else is enjoying them, good for them. If they've been destroyed, there is nothing that I can do about it. Who's to say what the next generation will think of these items? Already I see things that I once thought were valuable in my life mean nothing to the youth of today. You can only do so much to perserve what you have and educate those that will come after you. In the end, it will be they, or nature, that will decide the final fate.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Garand Guy
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Garand Guy
I have a few quotes which, in my opinion, trump the emotion of collecting with the objectivity of private property.
A culture without property, or in which creators can't get paid, is anarchy, not freedom.
Lawrence Lessig
A lawyer's dream of heaven: every man reclaimed his property at the resurrection, and each tried to recover it from all his forefathers.
Samuel Butler
Among the natural rights of the colonists are these: First a right to life, secondly to liberty, and thirdly to property; together with the right to defend them in the best manner they can.
Samuel Adams
Some would argue that just because you "own it" doesn't mean you should destroy or use your property. My point is that EVERY time you handle a collectible, you are destroying it, if not just a little. Once you can admit that, we're simply arguing over how much time is acceptable to destroy something.
I have a personal example of this. I purchased a correct grade rifle from a private party, I being the THIRD owner...I don't know what might have happened to the rifle in previous ownership. This I know, the rifle was shot and not cleaned, used and not cared for. The rifle receiver had been allowed to rust and a few other places where more rust had been carelessly buffed off with scotch brite showing bare metal.Quote:
Originally Posted by timshufflin
The previous owner had every right to treat the rifle in this manner, when I purchased it...I have every right to keep it clean, shoot it and maintain it to stop rust from once again attacking the metal. I'm not the previous owner.
It would seem to me that this simplification is overly absolute or at least, a matter of symantics.Quote:
Originally Posted by timshufflin
While I suppose I could agree that the root of what you are saying is not false from a pure scientific point, it would be a leap of faith to blindly jump on this bandwagon and agree with the oversimplification.
To what degree of "handling" is intended by the statement? I would interprete the statement to be intended as absolute and therefore infer that the mere physical handling (touching with my hands) to be destructive, even more so by the act of firing. But, in a reality that does not have the burden of symantics, when does the handling produce measurable destruction? If this destruction is not measurable, how can it be professed to be a horrendous act of erosion? If by simply picking up a "brand new" collectible specimen into my hands somehow truely destroys it, then nothing can ever be "brand new" or "collectible" as it would experience some level of handling prior to it ever even becoming a completed assembly. Further, how can a material as soft as human skin apprecibly (measurably) wear something as hard as steel? Even the act of firing high velocity ammunition thru a firearm produces wear that is not measurable until the act is repeated numerous times until you can actually perceive a measurement. Yes, there may be a visual perception of finish wear to parts that move against each other, but how can it be a quantified "destruction?"
Further, does it really have to be as black and white as this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by 13Fox
Line up every Chinaman in China, line them up shoulder to shoulder and do this;
Take a brand new M1 Garand in collector condition
Have each Chinaman hand it to the person to their right
After the 2 billion hand offs have been completed you will NOT have a new gun.
Those 2 billion hands will have destroyed steel, have destroyed wood. The mere act of handling will have taken that collector grade and turned it into a heap.
Yes, you are correct and further illustrated my point.Quote:
Originally Posted by timshufflin
It would seem to me that this simplification is overly absolute or at least, a matter of symantics.
While I suppose I could agree that the root of what you are saying is not false from a pure scientific point, it would be a leap of faith to blindly jump on this bandwagon and agree with the oversimplification.
To what degree of "handling" is intended by the statement? I would interprete the statement to be intended as absolute and therefore infer that the mere physical handling (touching with my hands) to be destructive, even more so by the act of firing. But, in a reality that does not have the burden of symantics, when does the handling produce measurable destruction? If this destruction is not measurable, how can it be professed to be a horrendous act of erosion? If by simply picking up a "brand new" collectible specimen into my hands somehow truely destroys it, then nothing can ever be "brand new" or "collectible" as it would experience some level of handling prior to it ever even becoming a completed assembly. Further, how can a material as soft as human skin apprecibly (measurably) wear something as hard as steel? Even the act of firing high velocity ammunition thru a firearm produces wear that is not measurable until the act is repeated numerous times until you can actually perceive a measurement. Yes, there may be a visual perception of finish wear to parts that move against each other, but how can it be a quantified "destruction?"
Further, does it really have to be as black and white as this?
Sir, I only know one way to argue, science. The mere physical handling of any artifact will destroy it, the defense rests.Quote:
Originally Posted by 13Fox
Tim,
I think we essentially agree on everything except your world of black and white and my embrace of the grey.
While the arguement between science and religion has been with us for 600 years, science is in many ways like religion. Don't allow the facts to debunk the "real world." In other words, see the forest, not just the trees.
Be well,
John
Yes John, I am a very black and white kind of guy. Just remember something, you can count on that sort of person :)
HELP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I WENT TO POST A REPLY TO 13fOX'S POST, & THE COMPUTER TOOK HIS MESSAGE AWAY AND GAVE IT TO ME! MODERATOR: PLEASE REMOVE THE POST FROM MY NAME & GIVE IT BACK TO 13fOX!
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Garand Guy
You are a moderator LOL! That's how you were able to make the change to this post. What I don't know is HOW you did it. You have a gift Tony LOLOLOL
The thing I find funniest is those trying to defend doing as they please with the rifle only to no allow others what they feel is ok. Now that there is some funny sh&t.
Reminds me of those against guns but think drugs are fine cause they say so. Key is most things are fine in moderation but to go full tilt usually ends up badly. Rick B
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Garand Guy
Very much this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick B
Not this.:(
Just curious. If I'm reading you correctly, you are saying the mere handling of a rifle is not a destructive action. Why then do museum curators wear white cloth gloves when handling artifacts?Quote:
Originally Posted by 13Fox
I cannot answer this question with any authority as I am not in the museum business.
My thoughts are that the white gloves are to protect the artifact from the oils and other contaminants of the hands. Again, my thoughts are that handling objects do not produce a quantifiable destruction. Yes, handling an object two billion times will destroy an object from originality. My point is to be realistic, not overdramatic.
I may be wrong.
These "things" (be them rifles, jewels, hand-me-downs) have an intrinsic value to the owner. Intrinsic value varies from person to person. Some are driven by extrinsic motives. To say one is right and one is wrong is impossible since the value of an object is so different.
Almost everything degrades over time. Hell, I have fossils that are ~10 million years old... they're rocks plain and simple but I place a high value on them since I found them.
The only thing you can do to preserve an item is limit the speed of degradation, not stop it.
Another example of destroying by touching, and my favorite, playing cards LOL.
Anyways, I do know for a fact that touching an object degrades it, albeit SLOWLY. My original point is, if we can all agree that we all degrade these rifles, then who are any of us to tell another that the way they degrade is more savage or more noble then the next guy?
I'll admit I'm taking this to the extreme by using handling BUT I am not taking this to the extreme talking about people shooting their Garand or other military rifle. Each shot is a detriment to the rifle and could be the shot that cracks the receiver heel or does other damage. Forget casual wear which simply wears out the barrel, bolt, oprod, receiver, sights...
OK so riddle me this We are having this heated discussion about destroying historicle artifacts. Specificly Garands, To believe that every single one is somehow a treasure beyond measure is silly. Is a completely mismatched arsenal rebuild incorrect. Who can say if there were any CORRECT rifles ever. I also understand that some might see a Mimi-G as an abomanation. However I give this example: A few yers ago I purchased a National Match Garand The 1957 DCM papaer and all. Well sometime around 1963 the guy had a Griffin and Howe scope mount installed. To me this is still a fine example of an early NM rifle. However the local self appointed garand expert railed against how the previous owner had destroyed a valuable collector rifle, but before he saw the scope mount, he very much tried to low ball me to sell it. So I guess my question is did he destroy a valuable historical relic( remember it is still a documented NM) or simply do with his rifle what he wanted and needed his rifle to be?
We can also speak of all those evil people who sportarised 03s, mausers, P17s, ECT......these people did not see historical relics, they saw rifles that were a whole lot cheaper the Model 70s and the like. I would sugest that we think before we judge others by our personal version of right and wrong.
Just my opinion I could be wrong.
Mike
I have collector grades from the CMP auction, yet my favorite is a WIN2 with a SA52 barrel and SA52 stamped on the receiver heel.
Let's use a pristine condition gas-trap Garand for example. It's in my possession and I own it. I want to build a JCG rifle and plan on modifying the Garand I have for this project. That would mean changing the stock, sights, barrel and gas cylinder in the least. maybe I want to do a nice repark because I prefer zinc over manganeese... whatever. So now you get wind of my plans and think it's an abomanation and demand I stop. Here is what I am going to tell you: Buy it from me or shut the hell up. I'll take the $ you purchase my rifle with and buy another to modify. If preserving these rifles mean that much to you put your $$ where your mouth is and preserve it for yourself. I have enough respect for these items to at least do that. If you can't then you're SOL, and so is the rifle I guess.
You are absolutely right! It is your place to decide what you do with your property. I know that if it were possible for me to own an original gas trap, I would. Frankly, for me it isn't that simple, though I wish I was able.
One thing I have learned over the years of designing 2-10 million dollar homes is that just because you have money, doesn’t mean you are smart. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt that you are just trying to piss us off and don’t really intend to butcher your investment!:D
To me I don’t care either way and you are free to do as you want but there is no reason to flaunt it for the simple purpose of irritating others. Honestly I would laugh my butt of at someone who would destroy a rare Gas Trap. I know for a fact they would regret it when the reality sinks in. You can argue till your blue in the face but it will bother you sooner of later. Also the more gone the more expensive those left are going to be.
But to get upset over someone’s passion is a bit ridiculous also. To try and piss them off more is shear ignorance. I teach my kids to think about what they are doing and if they wouldn't like it then don't do it to others. I see a few here never learned that lesson. I am surely not going to waste my little bit of valuable time left on this earth to try and go out of my way to upset people. :) Rick B
Guys.... I do not own a gas trap and probably never will. It was just an example. I think I'm going to have to work on my communication skills, I've been getting misunderstood a lot!
Canes7, I understood you didn’t have one so no worry. Biggest issue with internet typing is it can be perceived in many ways. I have tried to open my voice chat room up for evening chats but no one responds. It would be a good way to understand how folks are when they type. I can bet Tim has a different outlook on what I say after talking with me. It makes it easier to understand people most of the time. I can bet some are thinking I am slamming my fist on the table while typing or that I am upset but this is not the case at all. I enjoy bringing things up in order to have others bring up issues I may have not thought of. I was once on the band wagon of no Garand should be harmed but I had an epiphany, :):):):):):):):):):):): Rick B
Wait, wait, wait... let's not talk gas traps:
The arsenal mix-masters have their own history. "Correcting" them to as-issued configuration is just wrong! Even the CMP built/re-built rifles have history that should not be changed!!!
LOL.. I remember that arguement over on the CMP forums from quite a few years ago. Remember the arguement people were having about how one should never remove the lower band pin? IIRC it all started over someone trying to remove their rear handguard.Quote:
Originally Posted by cuppednlocked
BTW - Congrats on post 777.. you should go play blackjack somewhere.
I will stick by the barrel band pin as if the rifle is orignal and you would like to make some money that is a key to knowing if it has not had a barrel change. Nothing worse than an orignal lend Lease with the barrel band pin knocked out. It can be considered a put together at that point.
No, I understood you perfectly. :)Quote:
Originally Posted by canes7
Here's another hypothetical. The factory is producing M1 rifles in a given serial number range. During production, an employee stumbles upon a box of 100 safeties that fell behind a shelfing unit. He decides to start installing them, even though they are not the same number lot as the current ones he was using. Now, 50 years later, one of this rifles somehow manages to stay "original, as manufactured". The current owner is proud of his prize, but some "expert" examines it and bursts his bubble by saying that his safety is incorrect for the date of manufacture, therefore the whole rifle is suspect.
So who's "correct" now?
Damn, too late. I should have gotten the lottery ticket before replying!Quote:
Originally Posted by canes7
Simply put, sometimes the experts don't always look at the big picture and will not apply double loop problem solving. Single loop is easy to apply, rifle is made at a certain time, part is not from that time...therefore part is wrong and added later. I work in a manufacturing environment, so I see this type of thing on a constant basis...installing 20 year old NOS parts. 1 part on an otherwise new rifle would qualify for this...a whole trigger group I could not.Quote:
Originally Posted by KnickKnack
Would you shoot this rifle? I would...sparingly. I was going to post it on the CMP boards, but I would most likely be chastised for doing so...ruining someones bid on a public auction. :(
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/Vie...Item=272353921
A true collector knows the part can be correct as I and have stressed if you know me. You folks are generalizing everyone which is what i see arguments about.
Its getting like a dog chasing his tail. Rick B