- Home
- Arms and Armour
- FAKE!
FAKE!
- By Supica, Jim
- Published 18 March 2008
- Arms and Armour
- Unrated
Supica, Jim
Jim Supica is president of Old Town Station, Ltd. Collectible Firearms.
He is (contributing) editor of numerous publications and is co-author of ‘Standard Catalog of Smith & Wesson’.
Old Town Station, Ltd.
P.O. Box 14040
Lenexa, KS 66285
U.S.A.
t. +1-913-492-3000 [9-4 Central, weekdays]
www.ArmchairGunShow.com
The "faking" of firearms
The "faking" of firearms is not a new phenomenon. Back in the 1800’s the practice of peddling shoddy merchandise marked so as to fool the unwary into thinking he was purchasing a quality gun was not unusual. Witness the many 19th century single shot percussion pocket pistols marked "Derringer" or "Deringe" or some other variation of the famous Deringer name, or the European copies of S&W Model 3 Topbreak revolvers that even went so far as to duplicate the S&W barrel address markings.
Faking of collectable firearms with the specific intention to defraud collectors probably first became a significant problem in the early post WWII years, beginning most notably in the Colt field. As the dollar premium paid for high condition specimens and rare variations increased, the monetary incentive to make and deal in faked merchandise has increased, and spread into many fields.
In this article, we’ll look at what constitutes "faking", the extent of the problem, what steps a collector can take to prevent being swindled, and the impact on gun collecting and the market in collectible firearms. We’ve sought the opinions of collectors, dealers, auctioneers, attorneys, restorers, curators, and law enforcement to try to get a handle on this "dark side" of gun collecting.
Restoration or fake?
The question of what constitutes a faked firearm is not as simple as it might seem. Refinishing and repairing guns to restore their appearance and improve their function has always been an accepted part of gun ownership, as has modifying guns to suit the tastes and needs of their owners. With the increase in the appreciation of firearms as "collectibles", beyond their utilitarian nature, the practice of "restoring" guns has become widespread. It’s hard to argue that someone who wants to return a family heirloom or prized possession to it’s original luster should not do so. After all, it’s their gun to enjoy as they choose.
However, you have to throw into the mix the unquestionable fact that there is a sector of the collector fraternity that will pay a premium for original "mint" or "100%" or "New In Box" specimens. And that premium can be substantial. In some models a discriminating collector may be willing to pay double or better the market value of a 98% gun to get a perfect, pristine example -- "the way it left the factory". These guys are not just paying for 100 percent of any nice-looking finish. They are buying, or at least trying to buy, original, factory finish.
Obviously, the question arises of what will happen to a restored piece after it leaves the original owner’s possession. After all, none of us can "take it with us" when we go to that big gun show in the sky, much as we might like to. Plus, tastes and circumstances change -- today’s treasured heirloom may be tomorrow’s trading fodder or college fund.
Beyond legitimate restoration efforts, it’s easy to see the incentive to fraud when the cost of buying a fairly clean example and restoring it to "as new" is far less than the amount a "condition collector" will pay for an original mint gun.
The majority opinion seems to be that so long as the restoration or alteration is disclosed at the time of sale, it is an acceptable practice. It’s easy to project, though, that the "disclosure" may well not accompany the piece the 3rd or 4th time it changes hands. Also there seems to be, perhaps unfortunately, a Clinton military-policy ethic among certain gun swappers -- "Don’t ask, don’t tell". I.e., if the buyer doesn’t specifically ask, "Oh, by the way, is this gun refinished or restored or does it contain replaced parts?", there is no obligation to mention it. Equally common, and equally regrettable, are the well worn evasions "Looks old to me", or "That’s the way I got it".
Now THAT’s fraud . . .
More blatant, and universally condemned, is the practice of modifying a gun to make it something it is not. There are a number of forms this can take, some common ones being --
But the big boys do it . . .
Maybe I tread on thin ice here, but there is a recurrent theme which perhaps should be aired. It has been said that there are practices which when done by an individual constitute fraud, but if engaged in by a major manufacturer, distributor, or importer are Smart Marketing.
The battle over reproduction arms has been generally fought and settled decades ago. What some once considered blasphemy is now generally seen as a desirable means of meeting the demand for shootable historic pattern guns, with the dual benefits of preserving original weapons from the rigors of shooting wear, and encouraging the enjoyment of historical arms for individuals who would otherwise be priced out of the market. And I agree, and enjoy shooting the repops. That said, I must somewhat wistfully note that one of the reasons I gravitated to collecting early S&W’s was that there were no reproductions around to muddy the waters. A new collector was not so concerned about the Velveteen Rabbit question -- "What is real?" With Schofield reproductions on the market and other models supposedly in the works, that is no longer the case.
However, there are some other trends that raise interesting questions, and some eyebrows. Some military collectors are distressed by the marketing of put-together weapons originating not in an army but in a marketing department. "Tanker" Garands and "Jungle type" Enfields have been specifically mentioned. The quest for ever more authentic reproductions, along with wide marketing of authentic modern made reproduction parts, has, some argue, made fakery an even easier proposition. Restoration businesses and firms offering professionally restored firearms are "goin’ jessies" right now -- successful, widely advertised, professional firms offering highly sought after services and products. Finally, while I’m not sure WHAT it means, I’ve noticed that one maker of quality reproduction cowboy arms is working on a sort of Bizarro World anti-restoration -- modern new-out-of-the-box repros that come from the factory pre-aged, looking beaten & gray, as if they’d ridden in an open holster for 50 years already. Sorta makes sense in a world of stone-washed jeans and pre-distressed leather coats. Harrumph.
Faking of collectable firearms with the specific intention to defraud collectors probably first became a significant problem in the early post WWII years, beginning most notably in the Colt field. As the dollar premium paid for high condition specimens and rare variations increased, the monetary incentive to make and deal in faked merchandise has increased, and spread into many fields.
In this article, we’ll look at what constitutes "faking", the extent of the problem, what steps a collector can take to prevent being swindled, and the impact on gun collecting and the market in collectible firearms. We’ve sought the opinions of collectors, dealers, auctioneers, attorneys, restorers, curators, and law enforcement to try to get a handle on this "dark side" of gun collecting.
Restoration or fake?
The question of what constitutes a faked firearm is not as simple as it might seem. Refinishing and repairing guns to restore their appearance and improve their function has always been an accepted part of gun ownership, as has modifying guns to suit the tastes and needs of their owners. With the increase in the appreciation of firearms as "collectibles", beyond their utilitarian nature, the practice of "restoring" guns has become widespread. It’s hard to argue that someone who wants to return a family heirloom or prized possession to it’s original luster should not do so. After all, it’s their gun to enjoy as they choose.
However, you have to throw into the mix the unquestionable fact that there is a sector of the collector fraternity that will pay a premium for original "mint" or "100%" or "New In Box" specimens. And that premium can be substantial. In some models a discriminating collector may be willing to pay double or better the market value of a 98% gun to get a perfect, pristine example -- "the way it left the factory". These guys are not just paying for 100 percent of any nice-looking finish. They are buying, or at least trying to buy, original, factory finish.
Obviously, the question arises of what will happen to a restored piece after it leaves the original owner’s possession. After all, none of us can "take it with us" when we go to that big gun show in the sky, much as we might like to. Plus, tastes and circumstances change -- today’s treasured heirloom may be tomorrow’s trading fodder or college fund.
Beyond legitimate restoration efforts, it’s easy to see the incentive to fraud when the cost of buying a fairly clean example and restoring it to "as new" is far less than the amount a "condition collector" will pay for an original mint gun.
The majority opinion seems to be that so long as the restoration or alteration is disclosed at the time of sale, it is an acceptable practice. It’s easy to project, though, that the "disclosure" may well not accompany the piece the 3rd or 4th time it changes hands. Also there seems to be, perhaps unfortunately, a Clinton military-policy ethic among certain gun swappers -- "Don’t ask, don’t tell". I.e., if the buyer doesn’t specifically ask, "Oh, by the way, is this gun refinished or restored or does it contain replaced parts?", there is no obligation to mention it. Equally common, and equally regrettable, are the well worn evasions "Looks old to me", or "That’s the way I got it".
Now THAT’s fraud . . .
More blatant, and universally condemned, is the practice of modifying a gun to make it something it is not. There are a number of forms this can take, some common ones being --
- Aging and modifying a modern reproduction or replica firearm to pass it as an original.
- Altering a common model to make it appear to be a rare model.
- Adding modern engraving to an older gun, and passing it as original period engraving.
- Creating false historical documentation or attribution of historical usage.
- Altering a firearm to a more valuable configuration - for example, rare barrel length, uncommon finish, special grips or fancy stock, rare caliber.
- "Upgrading" a low grade gun to resemble a higher grade by the same maker.
But the big boys do it . . .
Maybe I tread on thin ice here, but there is a recurrent theme which perhaps should be aired. It has been said that there are practices which when done by an individual constitute fraud, but if engaged in by a major manufacturer, distributor, or importer are Smart Marketing.
The battle over reproduction arms has been generally fought and settled decades ago. What some once considered blasphemy is now generally seen as a desirable means of meeting the demand for shootable historic pattern guns, with the dual benefits of preserving original weapons from the rigors of shooting wear, and encouraging the enjoyment of historical arms for individuals who would otherwise be priced out of the market. And I agree, and enjoy shooting the repops. That said, I must somewhat wistfully note that one of the reasons I gravitated to collecting early S&W’s was that there were no reproductions around to muddy the waters. A new collector was not so concerned about the Velveteen Rabbit question -- "What is real?" With Schofield reproductions on the market and other models supposedly in the works, that is no longer the case.
However, there are some other trends that raise interesting questions, and some eyebrows. Some military collectors are distressed by the marketing of put-together weapons originating not in an army but in a marketing department. "Tanker" Garands and "Jungle type" Enfields have been specifically mentioned. The quest for ever more authentic reproductions, along with wide marketing of authentic modern made reproduction parts, has, some argue, made fakery an even easier proposition. Restoration businesses and firms offering professionally restored firearms are "goin’ jessies" right now -- successful, widely advertised, professional firms offering highly sought after services and products. Finally, while I’m not sure WHAT it means, I’ve noticed that one maker of quality reproduction cowboy arms is working on a sort of Bizarro World anti-restoration -- modern new-out-of-the-box repros that come from the factory pre-aged, looking beaten & gray, as if they’d ridden in an open holster for 50 years already. Sorta makes sense in a world of stone-washed jeans and pre-distressed leather coats. Harrumph.