Jim,
With all due deference, I disagree. Speaking both personally and professionally, my prime use of this site has been to accumulate information on care for the arms in my care; while I have an acute interest in their history, the first priority must always be their preservation. Once they are stable, and their further degeneration has been guarded against, the all-important matter of research can be attended to. The first priority must always be to maintain the weapon's integrity; it's bloody hard work, trying to do research on something you can't see!
I do see your point regarding the importance of the history of our various artefacts; however, I'm not at all in favour of what sounds strangely like a banishment of that discussion to the realms of ad-hoc inter-personal correspondence. Such an approach encourages inefficiency and duplication of effort, while reducing the number of sources readily accessible by the community's members.
A centralised resource, as well as allowing the ready dissemination of this information (coming from numerous sources) would also encourage the consolidation of queries relating to the care and restoration of weapons in one area. It in no way need detract, or distract, from historical discussions on the forum; indeed, so far as I can see, it may make a valuable contribution to them. Have not men cared for their prized machines of war through the centuries? I note that the stock of my latest jezail, though plain in aspect compared to many of its kin, retains some traces of paint; was that paint applied, or touched up, by some long-forgotten Afghan warrior, squinting in the dying daylight as he patiently wielded his brush?
Probably not. But asking "how do I keep it there" in no way prevents me from also asking, "why is it there?"
|