Ended auction, WWII or repro?

[Ramboueille]

I think I agree with you, but with the exception of the venue type, aren't we actually saying the same thing.

Just so I'm clear ...

You're saying that the way to handle it is for a novice buyer to post good enough quality pics of a rifle with markings that they want to buy, so that other members (presumably more expert), can view them and say the rifle is faked or not? If the answer is yes it's authentic, then aren't the pics posted to get the answer now available to potential fakers anyway, along with a lot of of detailed commentary from members authenticating them?

Wouldn't it be better to completely ban posting any pics of correct pieces in any forums, if your point is to attempt to hide the authentic material from fakers, so that they never know what the real thing looks like? With all due respect, isn't this similar to an argument that says let's ban guns and we'll prevent gun murders?

Am I missing something....

Also, isn't relying upon the good graces of the right experts being available at the time the member is seeking the information a bit hit and miss, especially if the member is wanting to bid on an auction which may be closing soon?

BTW, here's something I said in another thread on the subject of fakes and collecting...



So, in my opinion for what it's worth, having been there and done that with a different collecting field, you are not going to stop fakers by thinking that hiding legitimate pieces from their view or banning their appearance anywhere, will stop their fraudulent ventures. It's about enforcement and exposing the pieces that they've gone to great lengths to fake, so they are publicly available for viewing to the masses, young and old. Hence, my thoughts that a "Counterfeits Forum" has more of a valid place in our gun collecting world, exposing the fake pieces and fakery oriented vendors, then relying on hiding our collections from them.

I'm willing to reconsider my opinion on this subject with an open mind. So, I'm listening if there's a better way to handle this problem, which I think will simply continue to grow as these collectibles get more expensive. My only concern is protecting new collectors from making expensive mistakes in their journey to becoming knowledgeable, so for me, it's about good solid reference materials, whether they be in the form of books, original manuals, magazine articles, electronic on-line articles and gun specific forums in order to interact with other collectors.

Just my two cents ..

Regards,
Badger

Badger,

Here is a fake USMC MC-1 mount on Ebay with a fake base. There is no mention of being a copy as of now:

120475633683

I'm not about to post an authentic detailed photo or elaborate why it's a fake, it's not difficult to correct. This auction was already posted on Garanditis forum. There are avenues and people to contact before bidding but this item may easily be a $2,000 "whoops" before the auction ends unless bidders are reading this or the Garanditis post. I don't know what the solution is but stating "Buying above one's knowledge" is certainly appropriate.

[Badger]

Badger,

Here is a fake USMC MC-1 mount on Ebay with a fake base. There is no mention of being a copy as of now:

120475633683

I'm not about to post an authentic detailed photo or elaborate why it's a fake, it's not difficult to correct. This auction was already posted on Garanditis forum. There are avenues and people to contact before bidding but this item may easily be a $2,000 "whoops" before the auction ends unless bidders are reading this or the Garanditis post. I don't know what the solution is but stating "Buying above one's knowledge" is certainly appropriate.

Thanks partner ...

USMC M1C Garand Sniper scope Griffin & Howe Mount on eBay.ca (item 120475633683 end time 08-Oct-09 05:21:49 EDT)

So, you know this is a fake, but if I was a Garand collector without your expertise, how do I find out? More importantly, if I had one already and wasn't sure if it's authentic or not, should I post pics as suggested earlier, then someone can tell me yes or no?

I'm not sure if there's an answer to this dilemma, but I continue to error on the side of providing enough information to let the individual collector decide.

I'm an Enfield/Mauser collector, so following the principle of not publishing research information on authentic items, shouldn't we frown on the sales of books by Skennerton, Laidler and Richard Law, whose major purpose is to discuss and show authentic examples of collectibles?

Thanks for the feedback ...

Regards,
Badger

[Ramboueille]

Thanks partner ...

USMC M1C Garand Sniper scope Griffin & Howe Mount on eBay.ca (item 120475633683 end time 08-Oct-09 05:21:49 EDT)

So, you know this is a fake, but if I was a Garand collector without your expertise, how do I find out? More importantly, if I had one already and wasn't sure if it's authentic or not, should I post pics as suggested earlier, then someone can tell me yes or no?

I'm not sure if there's an answer to this dilemma, but I continue to error on the side of providing enough information to let the individual collector decide.

I'm an Enfield/Mauser collector, so following the principle of not publishing research information on authentic items, shouldn't we frown on the sales of books by Skennerton, Laidler and Richard Law, whose major purpose is to discuss and show authentic examples of collectibles?

Thanks for the feedback ...

Regards,
Badger

Badger,

The proper contacts with photos can be done via email privately. The key here is to contact before the purchase, not afterward. Most books do not show enough 360 degree detail to complete a successful forgery, something is usually missed. I know I wouldn't post or publish 360 degree details clearly for the fakers to see.

If I was going to contemplate an expensive Mauser or British Commonwealth item with the little knowledge I have about them, I'd know where to go and who to ask!

[Milsurp Collector]

I think I agree with you, but with the exception of the venue type, aren't we actually saying the same thing.

Just so I'm clear ...

You're saying that the way to handle it is for a novice buyer to post good enough quality pics of a rifle with markings that they want to buy, so that other members (presumably more expert), can view them and say the rifle is faked or not? If the answer is yes it's authentic, then aren't the pics posted to get the answer now available to potential fakers anyway, along with a lot of of detailed commentary from members authenticating them?

Wouldn't it be better to completely ban posting any pics of correct pieces in any forums, if your point is to attempt to hide the authentic material from fakers, so that they never know what the real thing looks like? With all due respect, isn't this similar to an argument that says let's ban guns and we'll prevent gun murders?

Am I missing something....

Also, isn't relying upon the good graces of the right experts being available at the time the member is seeking the information a bit hit and miss, especially if the member is wanting to bid on an auction which may be closing soon?

BTW, here's something I said in another thread on the subject of fakes and collecting...



So, in my opinion for what it's worth, having been there and done that with a different collecting field, you are not going to stop fakers by thinking that hiding legitimate pieces from their view or banning their appearance anywhere, will stop their fraudulent ventures. It's about enforcement and exposing the pieces that they've gone to great lengths to fake, so they are publicly available for viewing to the masses, young and old. Hence, my thoughts that a "Counterfeits Forum" has more of a valid place in our gun collecting world, exposing the fake pieces and fakery oriented vendors, then relying on hiding our collections from them.

I'm willing to reconsider my opinion on this subject with an open mind. So, I'm listening if there's a better way to handle this problem, which I think will simply continue to grow as these collectibles get more expensive. My only concern is protecting new collectors from making expensive mistakes in their journey to becoming knowledgeable, so for me, it's about good solid reference materials, whether they be in the form of books, original manuals, magazine articles, electronic on-line articles and gun specific forums in order to interact with other collectors.

Just my two cents ..

Regards,
Badger

In most cases, because the number of fakes out there, when people post pictures, it is of a fake. Usually no details of the telltales are given in the public forum. If the questioner wants to know why something was recognized as a fake then they can PM the person doing the assessment. In that case the buyer avoids buying the fake and there is no information given to the faker as to what tipped off the expert(s).

In most cases that's as far as it goes. In most cases someone just wants a quick thumbs up or thumbs down before buying something or making a bid, and most people accept the assessment.

Sometimes, unfortunately, someone has already bought something and they are showing off their new "find". When told they have unknowingly bought a fake, the most common reaction is denial, which can sometimes go to extremes bnz 44 single rune RC - Gunboard's Forums
MINT G98/40 jhv 43 RIFLE - Wehrmacht-Awards.com Militaria Forums

Other times, a minority unfortunately, the item is legit, and again people are simply told that without going into details. Usually such instances are scattered, so it isn't a goldmine of information for a faker. They would have to scan the forums constantly, diligently collecting a database of photos of legit items to learn from. I'm not sure too many bother as long as their wares are selling.

But, bernie-attorney was proposing making it really easy for the fakers by creating a concentrated exhibit of legit markings, cartouches, etc. that they could study should they wish to. Make it that easy for them and they will take advantage of it.

An alternative to posting questions in a public forum is to do it all privately through private messages and email. If you spend enough time in the various gun collector forums you learn who is good at spotting fakes. For example, for K98s I run things past some of the guys on the gunboards.com K98 forum using email and private messages.

For newer collectors I think they just have to be constantly reminded of how commonplace fakes are, and that they should run things by more experienced collectors in a forum or through PMs or email before spending a lot of money.

Here is an example CMP Discussion Forum - possible original national postal meter?

People explained their concerns about the carbine, and I sent the original poster an email with a link to a slideshow of the fake cartouche on the carbine he posted along with some real cartouches. He didn't buy it, but someone else on the CMP forum apparently didn't care about authenticity and paid a lot of money just because he liked the cosmetic appearance of the carbine. As long as he knew what he was getting (and isn't in denial) that's his perogative.

[Badger]

Thanks for the feedback guys ...

I'm not sure there's an an answer, but this whole situation does feel like deja vu from my military medal collecting days 40 years ago, except besides the color of my hair, technology has advanced considerably.

I remember that we used to try and ban the publication of medal pics in our monthly paper based club journal to try and dissuade fakers from understanding what correct impressing looked like. Unfortunately, the fakers were also collectors out to make a quick buck, so they didn't need pics as they had the "real deals" to make measurements of impressions and copy from.

Anyway, there does seem to be consensus that publishing pics of fakes without explaining why they're fake, plus links to ongoing auctions or sales of counterfeit items is helpful.

Regards,
Badger (Doug)

[snapperm1c]

Badger,

Here is a fake USMC MC-1 mount on Ebay with a fake base. There is no mention of being a copy as of now:

120475633683

I'm not about to post an authentic detailed photo or elaborate why it's a fake, it's not difficult to correct. ...

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

[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?

[snapperm1c]

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.
[/url]

Thank you for reinforcing my points.

You said

"New information has appeared in the past ten years, so a conflict between a picture in a ten-year old book and current knowledge isn't necessarily significant". (Spelling corrected)

I read the posts. My point is very simple... whom are we to PM?

Who are the holders of the " current knowledege "?

Specifically, what are the qualifications of these experts, and is there a list of experts we are supposed to PM? If I PM one "expert", will his answer coincide with another "expert"? Do all the "experts" have the same opinion of what is or is not a fake?

What if a NON-"expert" finds something that is trulyauthentic, but the experts disagree?

Other fields of research are credible because they involve writing articles/papers describing the "new knowledge" in a field and letting the "peers" review the research. That's how true knowledge is expanded. Not by a few anonymous folks who "claim" to have the knowledge.

Regards,

SN1

[snapperm1c]

Not wanting to beat this horse any more, but here is an example of folks sharing their knowledge, regarding, for example, the M1C and MC-1:

Griffin & Howe MC 1952 Mount - Gunboard's Forums

Just an example of what can(and should) be...


SN1

[Milsurp Collector]

I read the posts. My point is very simple... whom are we to PM?

Who are the holders of the " current knowledege "?

Specifically, what are the qualifications of these experts, and is there a list of experts we are supposed to PM? If I PM one "expert", will his answer coincide with another "expert"? Do all the "experts" have the same opinion of what is or is not a fake?

Again, in my previous post, I answered that:

If you spend enough time in the various gun collector forums you learn who is good at spotting fakes. For example, for K98s I run things past some of the guys on the gunboards.com K98 forum using email and private messages.

Within the K98 community there are even specialists. There is one guy who the guy to go to for G33/40 questions. Another guy is the late-war K98 expert. If I have a question about Garand cartouches, Rick borecky is my go to guy. For M1 Carbine questions BQ97/BrianQ (Brian Quick) is authoritative.

But you don't have to use the people I choose to trust, you can choose your own panel of experts, or none at all if none of them meet your lofty standards.

Is there some kind of American Board of Gun Collecting that certifies "experts" with credentials and certificates suitable for framing? No. But if you spend enough time on this board and others, and read what people write, and see pictures of items in their collections, you develop a sense about who to trust and who knows what they are talking about. I'm just glad that they are willing to share their expertise and that the Internet makes it so easy and convenient for them to do so. But people who approach them with a "what makes you such an expert" attitude they probably don't get much help. No one is forced to consult with these "experts" before making purchases, they can spend their money any way they want, at their own risk.

While there are rare controversies that can make for interesting reading, one thing I have noticed about these resources/experts/gurus call them what you will is how often they do agree on items.

Some of the Internet "experts" have published articles in the Carbine Club newsletter, GCA Journal, and some are working on books. Again, no one is forced to consult with them.

And thank you so much for pointing out that you corrected my typo, I really appreciate it, it adds so much to the discussion. Sometimes, if I quote someone and I noticed there is a typo or *horrors* a misspelled word in the quote I will correct it for clarity, but I would never point it out. That would be tacky, don't you think?