I wonder…Is that the lowest number Rigby? If so, I’m not sure if I like the idea of restoring it. And no, it’s not because I’m just a stupid American who says don’t re-do anything; that line of thinking is utterly rubbish. I think most fine arms should be kept as close to as issued as possible, and refreshed when needed. I personally don’t have much of a liking for beat up ugly rifles either…but this may be an exception…

To my way of thinking:

If the firearm is truly a one of a kind with something that makes it particularly special (provenance, or earliest known, etc.), then it should be displayed in the condition found and let the condition speak to the adventures it gave its owners. The lowest serial number Rigby that looks like a brand new rifle doesn’t really say anything.

Hey I’m just jaw-boning here; maybe most disagree with me. And that’s okay, I’m often in the minority. If I owned Rigby, that rifle would proudly hang on the wall in exactly the condition it’s in. Above it would be photos of me as the owner hunting with it, just like she is. Below there'd be a little plaque informing the onlooker that this is the lowest serial number Rigby .275; and then something to the effect of; "Look at every scratch, pit, gouge, or dent and just imagine the adventures that took place as this rifle served several owners for the past century. And she’s ready to hunt again, anytime someone wants to take her out." Or something like that.

That rifle is a testament to the practical simplicity of the .275 Rigby. Unadorned, and minimalist in most every way; she has everything she needs and not one thing she doesn’t. That is a pattern for what a REAL sporting rifle ought to be. She’s magnificent just the way she sits!