I wouldn't buy it unless it was offered up at extreme fire-sale pricing. There are several things "wrong" with it to make it a quick-turnaround piece. It's not a Colt. I shouldn't step off the plank and say 'only' Colts keep high resale values, because you'll buy it "used" anyway, and the 'off-brand' depreciation should be built into your buying price. That is to say, you probably won't (and shouldn't) be paying as much for a true-custom modified Springfield as you would a Colt, so you as the used-gun buyer won't absorb any loss for that when you sell the Springfield. However, since it's not a Colt, that could affect the amount of time it takes for you to sell it. That's all I'm trying to point out in this specific example. If you were the original owner, your Springfield "depreciation" would cost you a couple hundred dollars. The appeal of a custom Colt is greater than a custom Springfield. (Especially when the gun has been through a true custom shop; all OEM 'faults' are understood as *usually* remedied--for instance, the shoddy workmanship of some 70 & 80's Colts will have been reworked by the custom 'smith. The result is, generally there's no loss of fan base for a true custom-gunsmithed Colt, even amongst Colt detractors.)
Front serrations on the slide date the gun as a recent production; I'd bet everything I own that it was not produced during the Jim Clark Sr. era. JC Jr. might have a great following, but his reputation isn't nearly as strong as his father's. I've not even heard his name bandied about seriously on any of the 'usual' 1911 forums nor LTW. (and to tell the truth, I haven't read the 3 most popular 1911 forums regularly in 3-4 years, but I read the LTW forum at least 2x weekly. If his name [Jr's] comes up at all, it's mostly similar to this case--wanting to find out about his reputed quality)
Numerous people have discussed the "stickiness" of the front strap 'checkering'. That's old school; one of the first versions of grip alterations performed by Jim Clark Sr. As I recall, it was called 'tiger-tooth' (tiger "something") and was so abrasive that after a couple hundred rounds, the teeth caused slight bleeding because they were so sharp. This was not unusual; the front strap was not checkered, the 'teeth' were separated distinctly enough that they were spaced apart farther than those on a bastard file; and sharper, too. I don't know what caused its' popularity to wane; perhaps customer feedback. The grip was unforgiving--if you pulled the gun with that treatment out of a holster and your grip was misaligned, you damn near had to use the other hand to hold the gun to realign the grip because it was just tough to slide the strong hand's fingers to readjust because the grip really did work! As PMClaine describes, it did look like tiny metal shards embedded in the front strap; however, in actuality, it was metal cut away from the OEM grip with a 'chisel' made by Clark for that specific purpose. The gun pictured will not have that treatment; if checkered at all, it's probably machine-checkered.
Check the amount and severity of the meltdown treatment. Lots of guys dislike the "Clark version" of dehorning, finding it too severe, from an aesthetic viewpoint. That could hold up a quick-sale timetable. (It could also speed your sale if you find someone who really likes it and has been looking for a Clark-meltdown gun. But more likely, that feature would cull a larger portion of buyers than it would appeal to.)
Your picture is too poor to tell for sure, but it almost looks like the pistol is nickeled, not stainless. If it is nickeled, your potential market just shrank by about 80%. The finish doesn't stand up well to holstering and abuse, either. Notwithstanding the 1911-purists' objections over the slide's front serrations, a nickel finish "limits" the pistol to its current modified state. Aside from R&R parts, nothing can be done to the slide or frame without having the nickel stripped first--an extra cost, and it requires special talents and gunsmiths.
Don't let Pistolsmith Guild awards add any weight to your decision-making. It may only be my impression, but it could be that the only 'smiths ever considered for the award are those who pay their dues. That is to say, there are lots of professional gunsmiths who regularly contribute/post on the LTW site who've never been "Pistolsmith of the Year".
Certainly, not every 'best' and nationally-known gunsmith posts on the LTW site, but there are several names that DON'T belong there who never post. One of them I know was a Guild member, and I wouldn't deal with him ever again because of his low quality standards. His apprentice posted over at LTW for a couple years and then disappeared just last year ("to greener pastures"...that's verbatim; I always found it fascinating that the touted "gunsmith" never contributed personally, though). I'm not saying the Clarks are in that group; I'm just saying that membership in the Guild doesn't by default make the member an excellent gunsmith. It does make for an exclusive "club" and limited roster to award from, though.
