>As to markings, the M1912 didn't have many, and the one I have has
>even less. As with some of the other older and odder pieces in my
>collection, my M1912 is a bit of a beater. It's been refinished at
>some point in its life, which, while decently done, has lowered its
>collector value to the point where it was within easy reach. (Gun
>finish is one of those things like on Antiques Roadshow, where
>the man tells the old lady the plate would be worth more if she
>hadn't glued it back together. If you have a collectible gun
>that has 5% of its original finish remaining, odds are it will retain
>more collector value than if it has been perfectly, professionally
>refinished.)

I've always found it fascinating - and aggravating at the same time - that some collectors will prefer a completely original BUT EFFECTIVELY UNUSABLE piece, even in furniture, than something that has even seen a simple recoat or having the fastening hardware replaced so that it can actually, say, hold up a piece of paper in the case of an antique table. And have the money to actually make it stick, so to speak, by driving up the sell price of not doing any sort of restoration/remediation.

Certainly, I can understand why - replacement finishes can be done improperly, and will be of different chemical composition compared to the original anyway, and may not even appear accurate. But I tend to be somewhat more pragmatic about the idea, and it pains me to see some things that could still be leading a useful life not being allowed to on account of "it won't be original any more!"