How am I not surprised... good sir, your prejudice against vintage pens precedes you.
Prejudice? I call it unsentimental consumerism, especially when it comes to 'Western' and European products not tied to the craftsmanship of a specific and renowned master of his/her art. I'm more than happy for vintage pen to compete against brash newcomers on value-for-money (inclusive of functional performance, cosmetic presentation, statutory product warranty, and of course price and/or total out-of-pocket expense to the consumer).
Show me a Naginata nib that was crafted by the late and revered Mr Nobuyoshi Nagahara Sr, and I'd say that's worth keeping as it is, even if it's battered and/or worn. That's a piece of history not to be repeated, and re-tipping would destroy what was special about the nib anyway and erode its value.
Show me a vintage (European or other) fountain pen that is NOS from fifty years ago and kept only as a display piece all this time, and I might call agree it is treasure if the model itself is well loved by a generation of users and/or collectors.
A tarnished and 'broken' old nib as shown is neither of those things. As it was, I was the first in this thread to suggest re-tipping in reply to the O.P.'s question (about turning the nib in question into something useful) as a possibility, but I certainly won't be advocating it on the basis of it being a worthy exercise.
Yes, one could do what you suggest but then they wouldn't have restored a perfectly restorable nib to working order (and I call that waste).
That's the thing: waste is okay to me, as long as the return on investment from an alternative selected is better objectively and/or qualitatively to the owner/purchaser/investor, irrespective of how anyone feels (but has no material stake in the matter).
Edited by A Smug Dill, 01 June 2020 - 15:00.
As always: 1. Implicit in everything and every instance I write on FPN is the invitation for you to judge me as a peer in the community. I think it's only due respect to take each other's written word in online discussion seriously and apply critical judgment. 2. I do not presume to judge for you what is right, correct or valid. If I make a claim, or refute a statement in a thread, and link to references and other information in support, I beseech you to review and consider those, and judge for yourself. I may be wrong. My position or say-so carries no more weight than anyone else's here, and external parties can speak for themselves with what they have published. 3. I endeavour to be frank and truthful in what I write, show or otherwise present when I relate my first-hand experiences that are not independently verifiable. If it is something you can test for yourself and see the results, I entreat you to do so.