What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Wanton vandalism?

Hi Rich,
I agree with you there, why would anyone want to do that, to replace it with a non original part is beyond me.
Best regards Weasel.
 
It seems the original is merely remnants as these caps are usually corrodede to the point where only the space between the core and the projectile body is filled with what is lef of the cap.

A few dropws of acid will solve the whole problem.
 
I know the projectiles in question and can tell that there is less than 10% badly corroded remains left of original magnesium alloy caps, exactly as EOD said above. Thus removing the rest does not much drop value of the projectiles. Another question is how much, if at all, replica caps would increase the value.
 
I think replica parts do not increase any value. It just will bring joy to those who can not collect or research (if they are researchers at all) items which do not look shiny and cool.
 
I spent 10 years trying to find a 28/20 and when I did it had a fake cap, I was pleased to buy it. It took another 7 years to find one with the correct cap. I guess it depends on how much you want to pay and how much of a rush you are in. I've had some of the relic 28/20's in my collection over the years, they're great as space fillers, swaps, for sectioning etc. All the fake caps on 28/20's I've come across have been really easy to identify, some people think they make the round look better, others not, its a personal choice. Its not like the projectile itself is getting damaged by the addition (assuming of course you're not butchering a perfectly good magnesium cap which wouldn't be the case hopefully).
Dave.
 
EOD said:
I think replica parts do not increase any value. It just will bring joy to those who can not collect or research (if they are researchers at all) items which do not look shiny and cool.
Click to expand...

I can't judge the subtleties of this particular projectile because it's not my topic.

But if this statement is meant generally, it is (with all due respect) nonsense.
 
I don't believe we will reach the same consensus. The discussion on the forum referenced doesn't elaborate on how badly corroded the original magnesium caps are. If they are as EOD has described, they would look really bad in anyone's collection, and repairing them would make what we would call a counterfeit projectile. Typically we call it counterfeit because there are then a number of unscrupulous people that would sell it as original to make a huge profit. I hate fake or conterfeit items, but the real question, is what is the definition of restoration, refurbishment, or repair? Some of us remove rust which is the oxidized original material from the item. Museums will fabricate the missing pieces from an item, such as a wing for an airplane, the missing pieces of a dinosaur skeleton, etc. We don't look upon these restorations as fakes or counterfeits. They are "restored".

I think the real question is if restored items should be required to be labeled "restored"?
 
To bring more light in the discussion here examples of similar condition what the fellow on other forum means. These have quite nice steel surface with clean markings but alloy caps are more or less gone.
For my own collection I also have made replacement caps on these - not to say they are original but to look better.

On the other hand if one just removes the alloy residues it's possible to show the Tungsten core which also is important.
 

Attachments

  • Gerlich-2.jpg
    Gerlich-2.jpg
    43.7 KB · Views: 36
  • Gerlich-1.jpg
    Gerlich-1.jpg
    40.8 KB · Views: 33
sudelmuk said:
I can't judge the subtleties of this particular projectile because it's not my topic.

But if this statement is meant generally, it is (with all due respect) nonsense.
Click to expand...


That makes the difference between researchers and collectors...
 
Very interesting to see the varying opinions on this.

One thing that is clear is the passion that everyone feels for collecting, which is great. There are always going to be differing opinions on what is termed restoration, and just how many replica bits can be added to an original item before the 'original item' is more replica than original.

I think in this case it is a point of interest to see just what remains of the cap in a percentage. At what point do you say restore or replace.....or indeed leave as is?? I am sure that consideration has been taken before anything has been done. From what I see, apart from the corroded caps the rest of the round is in nice shape. If there were 50% or more of the cap remaining then I would be reluctant to remove it, however in this case there is very little remaining, and I think if new caps were made they would be enhanced, however not for deception only display. I would also say it would always be worth keeping at least one of the best examples back to remain as is, just as an example of originality.
Of course, as always what anyone does will always conflict with someone elses opinion and at the end of the day, the owner is the one to decide for themselves. I am sure in our own ways our only aim is to preserve as much as we can the objects we own, however we go about it.
As another point, I have seen some fantastic sectioned items on this and other forums, that wouldnt have existed if someone hadnt taken the effort to cut into an 'original' piece. So would one consider this destruction of originality, as part of the original item is missing, or creation of something better for display?

Opinions will sometimes clash, but at the end of the day what shines through is the passion we all have for the preservation of these items, in whatever way we choose.

regards Kev
 
Nice thread.
Personally & i would like to have one of these in my collection & would be happy with a corroded one! Come on guys - they aren`t used anymore, are 70 odd years old & been dug up - it is what it is.
I would gladly have one & yes, I would be on a `bit` of a crusade to find a complete original one, but I would try to be sensible.
If I had an original corroded spare & got a replic cap to show how a `complete` item should look then I would do that as well.
On a bit of a tangent, I rebuild 1970`s Kawasaki`s - but I like them to be put back on the road, not just on show therefore I use non original parts if required & things like stainless spokes & fasteners. Most shows now will not allow this as concourse as it is not 100% original. So what? If it looks the part & is a good representation of it`s former self then as long as I`m not trying to BS it off as original then if it is the only one of it`s type then why not let it be displayed?
If someone else has a complete all original item then good for them & I may be slightly envious, I would though take umbrage if then I heard that person was bad mouthing my `incomplete/non original` item.
As several other members have said here, this is a point of view that wil always stir some emotions. If Jiipee wants to dissolve the remains of the cap - what the hell- it`s his to do as he sees fit with & if he is happy then who`s to judge or be a purist?
 
Exactly what type of acid is best for dissolving the cap? I have a lamp project here Ive been meaning to get too...
28][20 003.jpg28][20 006.jpg
 
Wow, that's a stunning example Lou, but would look a whole lot better with some coloured LEDs on top.

So whats that worth in the US do you think?

Rich
 
Very nice Lou, I think I have the perfect shade for it, you will just need to send it over here to be fitted :)
Best regards Weasel.
 
@ Weasel - Shades. So yesterday. I would drill out the head & hang it in the hall with an art nouveau chandelier.
If you send it to me I`ll do everything for free!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top