|  | 
| 
 | |||||||
|  | 
|  | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes | 
|  | 
|  25th July 2008, 12:26 PM | #1 | 
| Member Join Date: Aug 2007 
					Posts: 293
				 |   
			
			Jim, the information you provided is interesting. Indeed, advances in science has the power to bring forth new information (never thought possible to obtain) and destroys old paradigms and limitations. My primary reason for collecting is to preserve objects for future generations. This is why I try to as much as possible do minimal "treatment" (if any at all) of these weapons. My thinking is that I might destroy any important materials on the specimen, which can be important in the future. I prefer to preserve the object with everything on it, while balancing this with the goal of arresting any destructive element (e.g. rust). I personally dislike weapons that have obviously been heavily polished and cleaned. I feel that such processes destroy something about the object for future use, and primarily serves the interest and aesthetic/display objectives of its present owner. It is interesting that one can be provided a clue (though unverified) as to the owner's priorities and objectives for collecing, by observing how they keep their collection. IMHO only. | 
|   |   | 
|  25th July 2008, 10:54 PM | #2 | 
| Arms Historian Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Route 66 
					Posts: 10,662
				 |   
			
			Thank you so much for acknowledging my post Nonoy Tan, it is very much appreciated. I enjoyed doing the research and relocating old notes and was hoping that the information might be interesting to someone since the topic is quite intriguing.  All very best regards, Jim | 
|   |   | 
|  | 
| 
 | 
 |