about Mitchells Mausers

[Digger]

Well the tankers are kind of cute in their own way.

[mchl13]

I am happy with my M-48 from MM with 2 exceptions. It shoots nice groups about a foot high @ 100 yards unless I bury the front sight in the rear V and use a 6 o'clock hold. The other complaint is that the magazine floor plate has been tack welded shut making it a pain in the *** to clean especially after shooting corrosive ammo. What's with the bayonet on, or the cleaning rod in but not at the same time?
The extra accessory package however is a waste of money.

[Johnny Peppers]

Check out the prices on these jewels. That makes for very expensive boxes.

P08 Luger

[dj*]

I sold my (Mitchels M-48 A) to Cabela's for 250.00$ three months ago..
Just thought some of you might like to know how much they are going for
on the street lately.

[billt]

I sold my (Mitchels M-48 A) to Cabela's for 250.00$ three months ago..
Just thought some of you might like to know how much they are going for
on the street lately.

If Cabela's paid you $250.00 for it, they're going to turn it around for at least 20% to 25% more than that. So in reality you are looking at a customer paying in the neighborhood of $300.00+. They'll get it, quickly. Guns don't gather dust on Cabela's racks. Bill T.

[Harlan (Deceased)]

Ditto the P38 they're selling Johnny. Why would anyone ever pay this much?
Walther P38
I have an all matching 1943 BYF in original finish I gave $550 for and that seems about the average price.

[bulldog_mack13]

This thread saved me from buying a 2nd hand MM today. Thanks guys. Not to say MM is bad , I was just looking for a historically correct one. - Jay

[Patrick Chadwick]

Gentlemen!

I invite you to take a few quiet minutes and meditate a while on the words “falsification” “faking” “forgery” and “fraud”. I must beg your indulgence for a post that is somewhat lengthy, as it covers a theme that cannot adequately be dealt with in a couple of snappy sentences over a beer.

Without being as nitpicky as a lawyer might be, I think the following practical working definitions, by analogy with the world of archaeology, art and antiques, might help some people to come to a judgement on certain artefacts without getting all steamed up in the process.

1) Falsification.
- is the first stage of deliberate alteration of an artefact from its “original” condition. I write “original”, because this word alone could occupy a long discussion. Original - as it was made? Original - as it was found? Original - as the people of those times would have known it? It is worth consideration, because there is a slippery slope leading from innocent falsification to downright faking.

Falsification means that the artefact is altered in some way that would cause a reasonable observer to say that it is no longer original. Archaeological artefacts often must be altered to preserve them, where preservation in the "as found" state would lead to their deterioration or destruction. For instance, the waterlogged wood of the wreck of the Mary Rose has been, for years, undergoing a procedure that is vital in order to preserve it. The water in the wood is being replaced by a melamine-derived resin that will eventually harden and allow the wood to be removed from the tank and put on display. Without this extremely slow process the wood would long since have dried out and crumbled to dusty fragments. Similar treatment must often be applied to artefacts in stone (old sandstone being particularly vulnerable). The objects that have been thus treated have, in effect, been falsified - the material structure has been altered - but it is necessary in order to preserve them.

The most frequent ground for argument here is in the matter of cleaning. In forensic science, cleaning of an object may destroy vital information as to how it came to be where it is and in the particular state in which it was found. Palaeontology and prehistoric archaeology can have similar problems, as cleaning means detaching the object from the context in which it was found and thus a loss of evidence. Without getting into a scientific treatise on the matter, the trend today is only to clean the object as far as is required for preservation.

In the matter of old firearms, collectors may follow this ideal. Active shooters, such as myself, will rather say that the object has to be cleaned so that it is functional once more. Dirt is not original, and should be removed, patina acquired in the original usage does not prevent function, and can be left, but corrosion must be dealt with - not only to achieve operational status, but also to avoid further deterioration.

Although there may be a purist vs. practical user argument here, there is no real problem, until someone adds something to the object. This is falsification, even if it is necessary. A table with a missing leg may have a replacement leg added, so that it can stand again. Or the gaps in fragmented frescoes may be filled in, so that the observer can understand the complete picture. In the rigorous world of archaeology, such restorative additions must be clearly identifiable - even for a layman. And reversible!

In the art world, things are often not so cleanly defined, and this is the cause of endless trouble, as it slides into:

2) Faking
- which is deliberate alteration or addition to create a false impression, with the intent to deceive.

To manufacture a replica, if it is declared as such, is not faking. To manufacture a replica and not to declare it as such, thus allowing others erroneously to believe it is an original artefact, is faking. So to create a painting in the style of a known artist is not criminal or even immoral, if declared as non-original. Many of the world’s great artists copied the works of others as part of the learning process. So if you copy a Picasso and say "this is a painting in the style of Picasso, made by me" that is OK. There is no intent to deceive.

However, if you let another person believe that the work is original, and do not undeceive them, then you have presented a fake. And to do that deliberately, for gain, is quite definitely fraud. Have you ever wondered why some very dubious items are offered for sale by people who claim "I have no idea about these things, I just want to sell it" or (very popular) "I'm just selling it for a friend"? They are preparing the get-out route for the event that the fake is detected.
A common dodge in the antique world is thus to feed the fakes into a plausible surrounding, such as a sale from an old country house, and let the buyer think he has found a "sleeper". The fakers let the buyer fool himself, driven by the search for a bargain, and feign ignorance ("I had no idea it was not genuine") as an excuse not to undeceive him.
However, faking requires some technical and material skills, is often not sufficient to get the buyer hooked, and as there are plenty of people around who have more money than expertise, a quicker result for less effort may be achieved by:

3) Forgery
- which is the faking of an item that has the character of a document. So faking a signature, a stamp, a marking, a seal, or similar elements that certify an object as genuinely being that which it appears to be, is an act of forgery. It matters not whether the object is a fake will, a deed of sale - or a certificate of quality. The last is especially relevant with regard to fake automobile spare parts, for instance. If the creator of the painting in the style of Picasso actually imitates the signature, then the painting that could previously have been considered an academic exercise of skill, so long as it was declared as such, becomes a forgery. The fake signature, stamp, or whatever, cannot be excused as an exercise of skill, it can only have the intent to deceive, since it denies the declaration of the object thus marked as being a replica or duplicate.

In this connection, I see that it is apparently possible to purchase fake stamps in some countries. Even fakes of stamps previously used by US arsenals seem to be available. I imagine that the legal situation varies according to the jurisdiction in which you live, but I am amazed that no US authority takes action against this trade, as I cannot conceive of a legitimate use for such stamps. If someone were to offer stamps for sale with which one could print currency bills or make coins, I imagine that the reaction would be prompt and drastic!

However you judge the various activities I have outlined above - whether as falsification, faking or forgery, when they are conducted with the intent to deceive and for gain, then this is

4) Fraud.
And fraud is a crime, wherever you live.

Consider these points, make your own judgement, and act accordingly!

Patrick

[Patrick Chadwick]

Ok everyone I now have the straight story.

Well it's not quite perfectly straight Paulm, but you have made the first important step: realizing that there is something to be learnt. And for this purpose, there are 2 absolutely first-class books to get you started in "Mauserology".

"Mauser Bolt Rifles" by Ludwig Olson, Brownell & Son
and
"Mauser Military Rifles of the World" by Robert Bal, Krause Publications.

And take the opportunity to handle as many genuine rifles as you can. With some basic knowledge and hands-on experience you will soon find yourself laughing at a lot of online auctions.

Patrick