Phoenix Gunshow/ M1C

[Calif-Steve]

I ran into a rather sad young man with a M1C at Phoenix on Saturday. He was looking for opinions about the M1C he had purchased at the Phoenix Gunshow 2 years ago. It was a 3.7 million SA with a SA 1948 barrrel. The stock was red, almost pink and uniform as all 3 pieces of wood matched. It had been heavily sanded and bore mint (correct) stampings. You could see the drilling and tapping for the G&H base and see no parkerizing on the holes. The base screws were not staked in. The tappered pins were heavily hammered into place. The young man said everyone who looks at the Garand thinks it is a fake. I told him I agreed with those opinions. The G&H base and mount and the scope all appeared to be genuine. He did not say if he had any paperwork nor did he disclose the price. I think he has a nice criminal fraud case there, but I have no idea what is next in this story.

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.

[Rick Cummelin]

I ran into a rather sad young man with a M1C at Phoenix on Saturday. He was looking for opinions about the M1C he had purchased at the Phoenix Gunshow 2 years ago. It was a 3.7 million SA with a SA 1948 barrrel. The stock was red, almost pink and uniform as all 3 pieces of wood matched. It had been heavily sanded and bore mint (correct) stampings. You could see the drilling and tapping for the G&H base and see no parkerizing on the holes. The base screws were not staked in. The tappered pins were heavily hammered into place. The young man said everyone who looks at the Garand thinks it is a fake. I told him I agreed with those opinions. The G&H base and mount and the scope all appeared to be genuine. He did not say if he had any paperwork nor did he disclose the price. I think he has a nice criminal fraud case there, but I have no idea what is next in this story.

He had a good reason to be sad... On Saturday, the resident GCA M1C expert was called about this particular M1C, and the worst was confirmed - indeed, the receiver is a fake - at least a 95+% chance of it. The bracket and mount had good s/ns, but not the receiver. It was also noted that the stock markings were likely fake too.

[Calif-Steve]

Mind you the stock was heavily sanded but had mint stampings! Go figure. I do want to know the name of the seller. He deserves due publicity. I do feel sorry for the buyer, he got robbed.

[Devil Dog]

Most sellers of "fake" stuf are very carefull how they describe their goods. Very rarely will you hear them use the terms: Real, Original, Genuine, Authentic, etc.
Even if the M1C buyer could find the seller, what could you do after TWO years have passed? All you can do is "expose" him and try to help others from falling for his junk. When I tried to return a $350. fake NFR stock, my seller (Richard A. Pike) claimed I waited to long...10 days. I still have the stock.

[Ramboueille]

Mind you the stock was heavily sanded but had mint stampings! Go figure. I do want to know the name of the seller. He deserves due publicity. I do feel sorry for the buyer, he got robbed.

Steve,

If he bought it more than two years ago, the civil statute for filing suit has expired.

Keep in mind there are two sides to every issue; the seller, depending on who it was, may not have known it was a faked receiver and without proof, naming him publicly would be libelous. Even a criminal fraud complaint would be tough to prove because of that.

[Rick Cummelin]

Guys,

In my opinion, there are way too many unknowns here to start passing judgement on others. Basically, all we know is that this guy was hauling around a most likely fake M1C and was sad because folks confirmed for him that it is a fake.

What we don't know is 1) who he bought it from, 2) how much he paid, and 3) what the condition of the rifle was when he bought it.

While it could be assumed that it was in the same condition as when he originally bought it, and that he paid a small fortune for it, it is just as likely that he paid a paltry sum for it, and did the "restoration" himself.

Anything is possible here and we simply have no hard data on the previous transaction upon which to make any conclusions or judgements.

Caveat Emptor!