|
Restoration Ethics
- A Survey of Museum Curators
I recently surveyed
a number of curators of military museums from western Europe about their
views on firearms preservation and restoration. The primary theme that ran
through each response was that in collecting or owning historic firearms
was to preserve, conserve and protect. This article is intended to expand
upon these concepts and to apply them to non-museum community.
If you have read the other material in the Preservation section of this
website, you know that surplus military firearms are more than just throw
away antiquated inventory. These firearms are surviving historical
artifacts that are symbolic of significant events in modern history. You
also learned that supplies of these firearms are finite and dwindling
fast. Indeed some have all but disappeared. Understanding the preservation
of these firearms and the associated ethics and standards of their care is
important to ensuring their survival for generations to come.
The following is a sample
of the responses I received:
Concerning
weapons, it is advisable to ere on the less is better side. It is more
important to maintain an artifact's current condition then to modify it by
extensive cleaning and repair. stabilization is the correct goal, as the
piece could eventually be treated by a professional conservator with far
more knowledge and skill than you of myself. As far as restoring an
altered piece to its original intended use, you would have to decide if
the conversion represents a significant historical act which is important
enough to preserve, and do other examples exist which display the same
modification. Again advice would be to only do what can be reversed. Minor
cleaning of metal and wood surfaces is allowable as long as components are
not damaged, materials are not removed, and characteristics such as
markings or grooves are not altered. I hope this information is of some
help. You may wish to contact Mr. Les Jensen, who is the Firearms Curator
at the West Point Museum. His email is leslie.jensen@us.army.mil
Good Luck in
you efforts.
Sincerely,
Steven
Ruhnke
Curator, AD
Museum
DSN 485-6349
The significant point here is the philosophy of "doing no harm" when it
comes to historically significant military firearms. Of course the writer
is referring to exceptionally rare firearms when writing "the piece
could eventually be treated by a professional conservator with far more
knowledge and skill than you or myself." However, the overall message
is a minimalist approach to cleaning up a new acquisition. When the writer
stated "you would have to decide if the conversion represents a
significant historical act which is important enough to preserve, and do
other examples exist which display the same modification." He was
referring to my specific question about the ethics of "restoring"
ex-sniper rifles. Mr. Ruhnke makes the point that if Mosin Sniper rifles
were extremely rare or nearly non-existent, it might be justified but
normally not. Clearly there are plenty examples of these rifles on the
current market and in collections. He follows this with a caution that you
should only alter what could be returned to the original condition. This
basically dictates that an ethical "restoration" of an ex-sniper is
impossible due to the necessary removal of wood and metal involved.
The next
response continues to support the theme of preservation:
Thank you
for your enquiry on the conservation and preservation of military small
arms.
There are no
hard and fast rules for conservation, you have to make a decision based on
your own requirements. Saying that, in museums there are certain things
that we would take in to consideration. The following is what I would do,
and what we do at Derby Museum.
First of all
decide why you want to conserve the item. Is it for display, or just to
prevent further deterioration whilst in storage? One of the most
important things with conservation is to know when to stop, the item may
be 100 years old - should it look like it was made yesterday? Secondly you
need to determine scarcity and importance. If you restore this item,
which may involve replacing original parts with replica parts, are there
others in original condition (with all original parts)? Thirdly, history
of the item. Was the damage caused by use of the weapon in battle? If
so, the damage is an intrinsic part of the object's history and so
restoration should be kept to a minimum. If it was damaged due to poor
storage in recent years, then there is a good case for restoring the
object rather more. Fourthly, how much work needs to be done? Some items
are beyond repair, it may need so much work that by restoring it you are
in fact creating a new item. (The usual example is a clock - to have it
working as it would have been in it's 'lifetime' (before becoming a museum
object) will cause wear and new parts will be required to replace old ones
- at some point you may be left with a mechanism that is wholly
replica/replacement parts, with none of the original item remaining.)
The
historical value of an item is the main concern in museums, so I would
usually opt for conservation work that would stabilize the object and
prevent further deterioration. If there were a number of items the same,
one would be selected for display and restored to show how it would have
looked when it was in use.
All of the
weapons at the Museum have been made safe (so they cannot be used for
their intended purpose), perversely, after what I have just been saying,
permanently altering their state. However, this is a moral & security
judgment that has been made - one, which I have to say, I agree with. So
we would never have a weapon restored to working order.
One last
thing, all conservation work that is carried out on museum objects should
be reversible, and visible. We are not trying to trick people, but
equally a little bit of conservation can help people to appreciate and
understand objects better. For example, a WW1 battle dress blouse has
recently been conserved, the moth damage has been lightly patched from
underneath with a matching coloured material. You can still see that
there has been some moth damage, but it no longer draws your attention
away from the object itself.
There are a
fair few things to think about there, and really that's the point, if the
object belongs to you, you have to decide how much or little work you want
done on it. I cannot advise on the effect that conservation will have on
value, but you should always be open about repairs, as I am sure you
appreciate others being. You should always maintain conservation records
and keep the conservators report of work that they have carried out on the
object. This is important because materials used today that are assumed
not to harm the object, may, in the future, be found to damage them. If
you know how your artifacts have been treated and with what substances,
then you can save yourself some headaches in the future.
The UK
Institute for Conservation (UKIC) has some advice on Conservation
Treatment - they have a web site that may help you. If not, I can
photocopy a page on it from their members handbook and send it to you -
please supply you postal address for this.
For
practical advise on conserving weapons, or preservation methods that you
can carry out your self, I would consult with a specialist conservator, or
you could try contacting the Royal Armouries Museum, Leeds, who have a
conservation department: tel 0113 220 1999, enquiries@armouries.org.uk.
All the best
Vivienne.
Vivienne
Rudd
Assistant
Keeper of Military and Social History
Derby Museum
and Art Gallery
The Strand
Derby
DE1 1BS
tel 01332
716656
Aside from the writer's belief in demilling firearms which she shamelessly
admits is a contradiction to the spirit of preservation, she reinforces
the concept of minimalism, preservation and conservation. Her comment,
"One of the most important things with conservation is to know when to
stop, the item may be 100 years old - should it look like it was made
yesterday?" is telling in that so many new collectors seem to want to
make their rifles look like new when it really removes the history and
character of the firearm. Note the strong caution regarding the
documentation of any repairs or changes made to the object being
preserved. Also consider the note regarding materials used. Every effort
should be made to use period materials and techniques.
The final response I am including in this article is short but very
straight to the point and seems to sum everything up:
As a general
rule, the purpose of conservation is to freeze time and stabilize the
condition of the object in order to avoid further deterioration. Having
that in mind, the sniper rifle should be conserved as it is and not be
restored to its original condition as if it was new. Such a restoration
would have meant the destruction of a large part of the weapon's history
and importance.
I hope this
is of some assistance.
Yours
sincerely
Sophie
Stathi
Department
of Weapons, Equipment and Vehicles
Ms Stathi used just a few sentences to make a powerful argument for
preservation. She doesn't mince words when she cautions against
"restoring" an ex-sniper!
You can clearly see that these professionals strongly advocate the
preservation and conservation of historic firearms. We should all draw a
lesson from their advice. They are in the business of preserving the last
remnants of historical artifacts because time, carelessness and
commercialization has made historic artifacts nearly extinct. The same is
happening to the rifles you own, collect or shoot. I hope this short bit
of research opens some eyes to the importance of collecting ethics and
practices that will keep these historic firearms around for generations to
come!
Restoration & Preservation Ethics
Americans are
instinctively tinkers and innovators. When ever we find something old we
love to fix it up. We are no different with historic battle rifles like
the Mosin. However, we need to consider an important fact. These pieces of
history are not around in infinite numbers. It is easy to believe that an
endless supply exists when you see the ads of almost every major
distributor in the United States. Another factor that shapes the belief
that they are not so scarce is their relatively low price compared to
other collectable historic rifles. For some reason, mostly related to
economic myths, we equate low cost and high availability with a large
supply. However, that could not be farthest from the truth.
These rifles are a gift
from the past and should be seen as unique historic artifacts. For the
most part, these rifles have seen active service during major historic
periods from the Russian Revolution to the Soviet occupation of
Afghanistan. The Soviets kept very few firearms in contingency storage as
they had to equip large standing armies and reserve forces as well as
provide arms to their Warsaw Pact allies.
If we can agree that
these weapons are historically significant and that some day there will be
no more imported, then we can discuss their preservation. I have presented
a section on restoration because I believe that firearms differ from
antiques in preservation. In the antique world, an artifact is left as it
is found. One does not clean it or refinish it or replace broken parts. A
great deal is made about the “patina” of a certain item and its value is
directly tied to the existence of its original finish. For years, firearms
collectors adopted the same standards. I believe that this was because
early on, the collectors were in fact avid antique collectors as well. It
was only natural that they use the same standards for collecting guns.
 The idea was that by
leaving the original finish, a fair value could be established for the
item based on grade or condition. Also, with many types of firearms, it
prevented the falsification of serialized parts. This system may have
worked well for other firearms but it doesn’t fit well with a firearm that
has remained in service from the late 1890’s to the mid 1980’s. As many of
know the Soviets let nothing go to waste. They did not have the
manufacturing base to treat firearms as disposable items. As new models of
Mosin rifles went into production, rather than manufacture completely new
receivers, they simply parted the receivers out on unserviceable rifles
and used them. They had little regard for ensuring that individual
components remained serialized. Therefore is the exception to find a Mosin
that is matching from tang date to barrel date, manufacturing of all parts
and in all serialized parts. It is even more difficult to find one like
this that has not been refurbished at least once. As a result, there is
little value in using the antiquated collecting standards with these
rifles.
Since the old standards
don’t as a rule apply, then it stands to reason that restoration if done
correctly would not diminish the value of a Mosin rifle. That being said,
there are still some ethical points to consider. Where do you draw line
between a restoration and a remanufacturing of a historic firearm?
I have chosen to use the
same standard as many military museums. The rule of thumb is to restore
the piece to its original condition upon retirement from service. That
means that if an airplane was retired as troop carrier but once was a
bomber, it is restored as a troop carrier. If a tracked vehicle was
retired as an artillery platform but once was a tank, it is restored as an
artillery platform. The point is that the history of the artifact is not
being changed by the restoration.
 In terms of the actual
restoration process, care is taken to use what period appropriate
materials are still available today. In doing so, great care is taken to
craft those materials in period fashion. If an aircraft skin was riveted,
it was not welded. If a gun carrier was painted by brush, it is not spray
painted. If parts are missing, it is preferable to remanufacture those
parts using period technique. Of course this is not always possible if
items were forged using techniques that no longer exist. In that case, the
parts are produced with the same look and feel as the period forging.
Nothing gets re-serialized unless it is a regulatory requirement like in
the case of airframe components.
To me, these same standards should apply to firearms. If you choose to restore a Mosin, then do so with period parts, materials and techniques. Don’t fake serial numbers or markings and don’t restore the rifle to something it was not when it retired. Above all, record and disclose all restorations when it comes time to sell the
rifle. When selecting finishes, consult with knowledgeable people as to the correct period finish and application techniques. The rule of thumb regarding refinishing a firearm is that you should only do enough to repair any obvious damage or to remove a finish that was applied recently and improperly.  This does
not include the shellac used on Soviet firearms for long term storage. The shellac is correct for the rifle since it was applied during its service life and retired that way. A big area of contention has been re-bluing rifles. This is somewhat of a gray area as little is known about the standard bluing process used by the Russians and the Finns. It is a sure bet that the processes used today are not the same as
those used 50 or 70 years ago. I would caution against re-bluing unless you are reasonably sure that it can approximate the same method and then only if it is absolutely necessary. Cold blue touchups are acceptable in my mind to eliminate surface rust that is working its way into the metal. 
Another thing to consider
is that like or not, the current thinking on collectable rifles still
parallels the “antiques” mentality. If your rifle is a collectable piece,
it would be wise to be very careful about doing any restoration work on it
if you plan to sell it in the future.
This article is offered
as “food for thought” and is not an authoritative work. It merely
expresses my thinking on the ethical concerns of restoration. I would urge
anyone who is thinking of restoring their rifle to discuss it first on the
forums and get other people’s input.
Up |
