Ended auction, WWII or repro?

[Milsurp Collector]

Well,

this is exactly the point, and a very excellent example.

Having only a select few of anonymous internet experts declare whether a bracket is or is not genuine, with no details, is simply disengenuous to the collecting community.

Who, after all, can say that this item is not correct, without identifying exactly why? Has the "expert" seen every example of bracket produced? I constantly read, in the GCA Journal, that "we are still learning" about such and such revelation discovered regarding WWII Garand and Carbine production.

I often read that "such and such" author is "Dead Wrong" regarding a certain cartouche, etc. Why so? No details are given.

As a collector of 20 years or so, and having collected various M1Cs and M1Ds, from credible sources, I have seen enough examples of "variances" to the "Expert"s" declaration.

For example: Bruce Canfield, on Page 87 of his
Complete Guide to the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine", 1999, clearly shows the bottom of the M1C bracket with the number 3592020, and the “3” has a rounded top. On the other hand, McClain, et.al., in the Summer 2008 GCA Journal, state, with authority, that the “3” is supposed to have a “flat top”, and they have a picture on Page 6, stating that “a flat-top “3” is the most common identifier”. So is the example in Canfield’s book not authentic? Or, as is most likely the case, there IS NO RULE at all regarding what is authentic. Rather, “Rules” have been developed based on observing a small set of examples of the items.

I have seen numbers on brackets stamped upside down from the above pic. Does that mean they are “fake”, or does it mean that the guy stamping the numbers, by hand, simply got mixed up one day?

So, getting back to the “fake” bracket on ebay. If I were to buy it, and it be authentic, but some “expert” says it is not, then the value of the authentic object has just diminished considerably, based solely on an individual’s declaration.

So, it would be nice for a collage of examples of “authentic” items to be posted, WITH THE Advisory that these are “examples”, and deviations MAY BE OBSERVED.

Such references as Duff’s books, GCA Journal, and others, are simply that a Reference. The authors constantly state that the learning curve is being constantly updated. So why can’t we collectors be a part of that learning process?

Regards,

SN1

If you read the previous posts, most "experts" are willing to discuss telltales and their detailed concerns with the affected parties, or even those who express a sincere desire to learn, through private messages and emails, but not in an open forum. But you do have to take the initiative and contact them.

While I greatly enjoy and recommend Bruce Canfield's books, they aren't free of pictures of questionable items. In that same book you referred to, Complete Guide to the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine, 1999, take a look at the picture on the top of page 194. Notice anything funny about one of the carbines? (hint: the Irwin-Pedersen). New information has appeared in the past ten years, so a conflict between a picture in a ten-year old book and current knowledege isn't necessarily significant. I would go with the 2008 article over the 1999 picture.

I don't think one individual opining that an item is fake paints a scarlet "F" on it that permanently reduces its value. Even if it really is fake, people who want to believe something is real, or who don't care that it is fake, will still pay good money for it, $1298 in this case CMP Discussion Forum - possible original national postal meter?