It’s a really strange debate this, and I think one that is directly tied to how each of our brains work. Some people say do whatever you want in regards to finish, choose of wood, or architecture, but are strictly ‘new’ in regard to this particular argument. Some are just the opposite. My ancestors would have bought a new gun once every 50 years or so, so patina’d would represent my family gun better than a new one. I also like plain guns as my people would have skimped in every way they could so they’d have something left in the kitty for shoes. I get some people don’t live in the way their ancestors would recognize or otherwise feel an attachment to them, but that’s why I like what I like in my BP guns. Similarly, a feller might come from a more affluent background and like what their ancestor might have carried as well so likes a fancy gun in new condition. The strange part to me is the moral outrage some people have towards patina. Guns like this are no different to me than jeans. There’s a difference between buying jeans that are tumbled to give them some wear and make them more comfortable from day one than buying jeans that are torn at the knees to make a hipster look like he does hard work when he doesn’t know the difference between a hammer and nail..... Pawpaw liked his jeans blue-black and stiff as a board because he had a factory job and could afford to have new jeans and it meant something to him to have them, while I have 5 pairs of his old c1950’s farm work overalls and wear them all the time. That means something to me. It takes all kinds, and like virtually everything else in life, there’s no right answer here.