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?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[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?

[snapperm1c]

Again, in my previous post, I answered that:


... I'm just glad that they are willing to share their expertise ...


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?

I don't see anybody "sharing" their expertise. Just saying things like "Trust me" or "Without going into detail...."...

And you are quite welcome, I'm always happy to assist with small things like spelling...

And, I anxiously await new books and articles that will point out specific things for M1 collectors to look for...


SN1

[Milsurp Collector]

I don't see anybody "sharing" their expertise. Just saying things like "Trust me" or "Without going into detail...."...

Again, one more time, people will share their expertise in emails and private messages, but not always in an open forum.

If you haven't "seen" it, perhaps it is because you haven't asked through an email or private message for the details.

[snapperm1c]

Again, one more time, people will share their expertise in emails and private messages, but not always in an open forum.

If you haven't "seen" it, perhaps it is because you haven't asked through an email or private message for the details.

Quite the contrary. But enough of this...

Have a good day,

SN1

[cslong1979]

Hi all,
New here, just picked up a new to me Winchester Carbine and has lead me here, what I know is it is Bavarian/Austrian imported by Intrac(small, disdrete looks laser engraved import mark) and in amazing condition. But now what I dont, I am trying to find out if the parts are original to a ser, # 12255xx Winchester or if it was rebuilt.

So is there a reference guide that shows what manufactures used what markings to say they produced the parts?, and what manufactures shared parts; barrels, trigger groups, stock's etc?

Anyway if someone can point me to a book or website/thread that has any info would be appreciated.