|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 19, 2011, 01:42 AM | #26 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 13, 2007
Posts: 375
|
I still don't see anything "dishonest" about it, if a guy wants to prematurely age a new gun to look old what is the big deal? He said it was a modern reproduction of an old military gun......so......let's say somebody is at a gun show and buys a new but worn Kahr M1 carbine thinking it's an old one,and feels all sad because they didn't know any better... I guess they should have done some research! NOT ONE PERSON on this thread right now would make that mistake. I think altering markings, or serial numbers, or telling lies IS WRONG, WITHOUT A DOUBT!!! but just sanding on a new gun......seems odd but nothing sinister about it (in my mind)
|
November 19, 2011, 08:15 AM | #27 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 24, 2008
Location: Orange, TX
Posts: 3,078
|
FYI...I know a little about Fender's "relic'd" guitars. Generally, when Fender does this, they aren't just charging you for messing with the finish - these guits are put out by Fender's custom shop and they are sourced with as close to the original components (pickups, bridges, boddy and neck woods, etc.) and finish (usually nitrocellulose, whereas guitars manufactured today are finished with polyurethane). They certainly are not mechanically identical to standard production guitars, and that is why players and collectors pay a premium for them. Are they worth the premium? Depends on the player, I guess. But it would be a mistake to presume they are just run of the mill guitars someone has taken sandpaper and a cigarette lighter to.
|
|
|