This was listed on eBay today with a $250 by it now, thoughts ???Attachment 51192Attachment 51193
Printable View
This was listed on eBay today with a $250 by it now, thoughts ???Attachment 51192Attachment 51193
I would like to see better/more pictures. My first thought is artificially aged Riverbank "flipper".
Not a DING on the flip or the top of the base.
Carefully filed outer edges on the base?
Not feeling it.
Better pictures are a must.
FWIW,
Charlie-Painter777
Something to compare. Make your own judgement.
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo..._zps1faf-1.jpghttps://www.milsurps.com/images/impo..._zps1256-1.jpg
Are those casting defects on the side of the base? Sure looks llike bubbles in the mould to me. I'm pretty sure this sight is bogus for a number of reasons, although I think it does have some characteristics of the real deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by phillydude
Originals were machined from a block of steel as are repros. It looks like it had acid etched the metal to me
Steel from China............Quote:
Originally Posted by phillydude
:D
CH-P77
I wouldn't be surprised if any number of old pots and pans and miscellaneous steel scrap wound up converted to many such blocks of "USGI" steel
Looks like vinegar was used to age it.....
is not as tall overall, has more rounded corners and generally sits lower, or appears to sit lower. The S is different of course.
I've never seen a lot of these things in a pile, I wonder if there were variations like this among the individual sights?
Also note that the same seller has a complete selection from any maker. All the sights have the same looking finish but with different maker stamps. BIG tipoff. Salt Flat
To the opening auction, no way would I buy that.
Seller is also offering a W-S'G'.
I don't have a W-S'G' to compare.... but Thanks To Newscotlander I do have a picture of the Repro RG-S'G' MASHED on my S'G' next to a real RG-S'G' marked one.
Sellers S'G' Auction:
M1 Carbine Parts Saginaw Gear s Flip Sight | eBay
Left: REPRO
Right: REAL
STUDY THESE, THEN COMPARE TO THE OFFERED W-S'G'...
Charlie-Painter777
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...compRGSG-1.jpg
LT-Q REPRO...... Nope gotta say FAKE, because the Seller States:
"This is a WW2 USGI original Quality Hardware & Machine Company QHMC, Type II Dogleg Hammer - not a copy or a fake!"
"All parts are 100% guarateed to be as stated, or your money back."
Question: How do you prove to a seller that the part you bought is FAKE?
So you can return for refund.
M1 Carbine Parts Quality Hardware Dogleg Hammer | eBay
Be Careful Out There....
Charlie-Painter777
I love the absolutely horrible photos on some of these auctions! Really?
I probably wouldn't bid on this hammer simply because of the lack of views and poor photo quality. However, maybe it's just me but I don't see any obvious deal breaker in the pics provided. I'm not asking for any explanations but there appears to be some good features on this hammer (as best as I can see). Maybe the humpers have now exceeded my limited expertise. ChipSQuote:
Originally Posted by painter777
Chip,
Compare the LT-Q markings on his real Dogleg. The real one (#2) has clear pics, the FAKE has the Blurry pics.
CH-P777
m21948 | eBay
He got his $125 opening bidQuote:
Originally Posted by tenOC
I think I figuared it out. To make a big sale on a bad part you must use bad pictures. :thup:
I was thinking the same thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by imarangemaster
Look familiar?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...b645d1_z-1.jpg
Hi Harlan, glad to see you're back posting. Missed having you part of the forum. Best Regards.....Frank
As far as the OP is concerned, I don't recall ever seeing an original FOB sight with a serifed S.
Also, my opinion is that JimF4M1's sight is also a reproduction. The milling marks are typical of the Minnesota and California fakes.
Good eye Chris.
I mentioned "something to compare", and it took ten days for someone to say something about it. The font looks OK, but the milling marks are wrong. It's not mine, I took that off an ebay auction from guess who, Riverbank.
I believe most here were saying nothing out of courtesy. There is more than milling marks wrong with the sight you pictured.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimF4M1s
We have never been bashful here before. I was looking for comments so we could address the part. I would hope we can do that in a positive way without hurting someone's feelings. It may be irritating to buy a bad part. But I think in the end anyone would like to know it. I was being too cute, if I do that again I'll word it differently, or more completely.
This can be a sensitive area, especially when we see a part that's apparently fake being posted by a highly respected member. I think Jim handled this very well, but I too missed his original intent - didn't know for sure it was a fake. I suspected it, but thought he might have a stash of NOS originals in that garage of his! The reason I'm commenting on this is that several months ago, a highly respected member (by some) of this forum had an S'G' hammer listed on eBay that I'm pretty sure was a fake, and it sold for big dollars. I posted a picture of it and a real one of mine for comparison - hoping that someone would call him out on it, but no one did. I knew I was taking a risk, but am still not sure if anyone agreed with me, or if they did not want to touch the subject because of who the seller was. It's probably better left alone because if he had been called on it, I know his reaction would have been such that the thread would have been closed, possibly even removed. - Bob