Counterfeit Mauser 98K ZF-41 Sniper Scope & Mount

Printable View

10-11-2009, 03:37 PM
Badger

Counterfeit Mauser 98K ZF-41 Sniper Scope & Mount

In reference to this ad for reproduction pieces, does anyone know if these items are marked by them as being "reproduction"?

I notice that they go out of their way to mention that the CXN scope has period markings, but I see nothing indicating they mark the item as a repro?

Mauser 98K ZF-41 Sniper Scope & Mount (click here)

Regards,
Badger
10-21-2009, 03:21 PM
Ce41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Badger

In reference to this ad for reproduction pieces, does anyone know if these items are marked by them as being "reproduction"?

I notice that they go out of their way to mention that the CXN scope has period markings, but I see nothing indicating they mark the item as a repro?

Mauser 98K ZF-41 Sniper Scope & Mount (click here)

Regards,
Badger

Actually all the items on that page clearly state "reproduction"
10-21-2009, 05:12 PM
Patrick Chadwick

Faking, forgery and counterfeiting

The very sensible question asked by Badger was: Are the items themselves clearly marked so that they are identifiable as reproductions? If not, then fraudulent use is just a step away. To whit, as soon as the items are passed on by a seller who "forgets" to mention that they are reproductions.

If I made reproduction bank notes and offer them around, then no mention on my part of them being reproductions will save me from being prosecuted for counterfeiting.

Finally, the copying of original markings is surely wobbling on the borderline of counterfeiting, as the original marks were proof of manufacturing origin, date, firing proof etc, so IMOH stamping "original" marks is forgery, just as copying an "original" signature on a document would be. For instance, you can buy watches in certain quarters that have "original" markings. The customs officer who finds it when you return from your Asian bargain shopping spree will not be impressed by your protests that the seller told you it was a reproduction - copying the original marking is passing off the item as something that it is not, and is forgery.

Patrick
10-21-2009, 05:33 PM
Ce41

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

The very sensible question asked by Badger was: Are the items themselves clearly marked so that they are identifiable as reproductions? If not, then fraudulent use is just a step away. To whit, as soon as the items are passed on by a seller who "forgets" to mention that they are reproductions.

If I made reproduction bank notes and offer them around, then no mention on my part of them being reproductions will save me from being prosecuted for counterfeiting.

Finally, the copying of original markings is surely wobbling on the borderline of counterfeiting, as the original marks were proof of manufacturing origin, date, firing proof etc, so IMOH stamping "original" marks is forgery, just as copying an "original" signature on a document would be. For instance, you can buy watches in certain quarters that have "original" markings. The customs officer who finds it when you return from your Asian bargain shopping spree will not be impressed by your protests that the seller told you it was a reproduction - copying the original marking is passing off the item as something that it is not, and is forgery.

Patrick

Ah I understand. There appears to be no evidence that they have any other designations deeming them "reproduction".
10-21-2009, 06:45 PM
Badger

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ce41

Ah I understand. There appears to be no evidence that they have any other designations deeming them "reproduction".

Hi partner ... :)

That's what I was trying to find out....

I could see that the Internet page clearly said they were reproductions, but I couldn't tell if the items themselves were marked that way, so I wondered if anyone here had actually handled them and could tell me that.

If not, then I do get concerned when they don't mark the item itself that this kind of selling can lead to young collectors without a lot of experience ending up with one of these thinking they're authentic period pieces.

Thanks ... :thup:

Regards,
Badger
10-21-2009, 08:09 PM
Calif-Steve

This thing is wrong. The real sniper rifle has the scope rail on the sight base assembly. Not on the sight slider base. Just totally wrong. Doesn't need any special marks to show it is a repo. It is simply wrong to begin with.
10-22-2009, 07:51 PM
Pblatzz

Look at these. Hand stamps.....New from egunparts..

http://www.e-gunparts.com/images/catalog/811650.jpg

http://www.e-gunparts.com/images/catalog/811660.jpg

Of how about this??

http://www.e-gunparts.com/images/catalog/983740.jpg

http://www.e-gunparts.com/images/catalog/953900.jpg

Bought one of each, they had no markings on them...

Beware...
10-23-2009, 12:34 PM
Tom in N.J.

In direct response to Badger's question: No there are no markings on the scope or mount to show they are reproductions.
10-23-2009, 01:49 PM
Patrick Chadwick

Can anyone give me an example of a legitimate use for such stamps? I cannot think of one. Can you also get stamps for the flaming bomb and the eagle head? IMHO those stamps are only usable for forgery, ot have I just got a limited imagination?

Patrick
10-23-2009, 02:11 PM
gunner

I hate part faking, because there are a lot of comrades out there wich have payed to much money for cheap faked trash. For me, there is no legal using for such stamps except the new build guns that the makers also stamped and sells as a reproduction.

Regards

Gunner