FROM THE COLLECTORS:
More on Fakes & Frauds

back to articles

In response to Stuart Mowbray's two editorials in Man at Arms magazine, many collectors wrote in to our magazine expressing support, information, and a lot of great ideas to do with dealing with the fakery and fraud in the arms collecting field. Among these letters, several offered provocative suggestions for the arms collecting fraternity. It seems that in the future of the field, protecting ourselves from frauds and fakes will have to include both knowledge and a collective effort in order to eliminate or at least hinder the problem. Learns as much as you can from books, collectors, dealers, and museums about your field of interest. Learn and share. The following letters are a sample of the on-going dialog with readers published in the magazine (copies of these issues of the magazine, as well as others, can be purchased from our Back Issues page).

From the "Ricochet" column of Man at Arms (July/August 1998)
Just a few thoughts regarding your two recent editorials. I am very pleased that you are calling attention to the fact that our hobby is being inundated with fakes and deceptions. As you probably know, I have been authenticating the U.S. Cavalry and Artillery revolvers for the past ten years or so. Although I am semi-retired, this activity has, in recent months, escalated to the point that I have taken on a nearly full-time occupation!

It seems to me that as prices of these U.S. Cavalry revolvers continues to rise, the fakers are working overtime to produce these revolvers. The big thing today is to take a mismatched Artillery revolver, restamp the serial numbers so that they will match the frame number, then either "stretch" the existing barrel or fit the revolver with a newly manufactured barrel. The grips can have newly applied inspector's cartouches, and the barrel's address can be the desirable "script style." Some of these counterfeits would be very difficult to spot at a gun show.

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that this field of fakery now prevails in our industry. Although I am authenticating the U.S. Single Actions, we need experts in other prime collecting fields like Lugers, Winchesters, Springfield Carbines, Colt M1911 Autos and other fields of collecting where faking is rampant, to take on this challenging work. I would like to see a group of our fellow collectors who are qualified in their particular field of collecting to establish a coalition of Antique Firearms Authenticators. The time is Now, before all the honest collector firearms are forever ruined!

John A Kopec

From the "Ricochet" column of Man at Arms (July/August 1998)
I read with great interest your last two editorials, pertaining to the subject of "fakery" in the antique arms industry...

Stuart, I have been in the business of repairing/restoring these old treasures most of my adult life. I assure you that every time we see another flagrant attempt at forgery I think, how could anyone top that fake job (we call them "hump-ups"), but then another faked firearm comes in that's even better (worse?) than the former one. It never ceases to amaze me when I see the lengths that some folks have gone to in order to create a forgery. Most of this work is mediocre, so it's easy for me to spot. A small percentage of it, though, is simply gorgeous work that can be darned difficult, even for an expert, to identify. Honestly, it is at times impossible to tell. In those cases, when a real master has done his work, the only proof of its legitimacy might come from factory historical documentation. When that is not available...well, is it "real" or not? The final proof could come with an x-ray examination, although I suspect very few gun collectors have one of those machines sitting in their den.
The point is that even mediocre work can easily slip by a novice collector, and hey, even a few of the more experienced folks won't pick up on the fakery...

We have always tried to do what would be termed "authentic" work on a given antique firearm; in other words, work that would be in keeping with what the maker of that gun would have done during the time period of its manufacture. As such, this work is not always easy to spot. For posterity, we have always signed our work, especially in case of restoration work or truly extensive repairs. I've gotten a few protests about the signature on the metal under the grips, or on the tang under the stock, but not many. We always figure it was best to be fair to the gun's future owner, who, left to his own imagination, may well be assuming that the piece is totally original. I believe that most people agree with this practice.

Your editorials in this light are exactly the sort of information the collector needs, most especially the novice. There truly aren't many people in this business who would stoop to the level of fakery. However, it never takes more than a couple of rotten apples to make the whole barrel look sour. You are entirely correct in advising collectors to buy and read the books pertaining to their interests - these are indeed the cheapest, most basic assurances against being fooled. We have advised this also, as well as visiting museum and viewing collections with pristine examples of the type you have an interest in. No matter what the books tell you about these guns, there is no real substitute for the visual recognition by familiarity. If collectors will only take their subject seriously enough to use both methods in unison, they will lessen their chances of being tricked to a large degree.

Man at Arms is a wonderful publication, a treasure trove of pertinent information, and, by gosh, enjoyable to read. Keep up the great work. You folks are making a valuable contribution to collectors everywhere!

Dave Chicoine
Bullet 'n Press

From the "Ricochet" column of Man at Arms (September/October 1998)
In your recent editorials, you have clearly defined the problems which we as collectors are facing because of the rampant counterfeiting of firearms which are being offered for sale at the arms shows and firearms auctions. This fakery is now found in all fields of firearms and blade collecting, wherever the dollar value permits. Auction houses in several instances have even included an "as is" provision in their catalogs, while many of the dealers at the shows have also unofficially adapted a "caveat emptor" theme to their operation.

We have for several years approached this problem by insisting that the buyer receive a money back, written receipt with every purchase. Although this method has been time and time again advocated, unfortunately, it has not come into full acceptance, and we still hear of instances where a dealer will not refund the buyer's money. Only by the threat of legal action can the buyer possibly recover what is due him when a fraudulent purchase has been made.

Now...we believe it is time that we as collectors and dealers come to grips with this problem. Only by a concerted effort of the show promoter, dealer and buyer can we curb this trend of fakery that is devastating our hobby.

I believe that this serious trend can be reversed. It will entail a "where the rubber meets the road" effort on the part of all three involved parties. This new approach will work in the end, if we all pull together and make it work. This proposed program would involve the free distribution of "Certificates of Disclosure" at every show. This "Certificate of Disclosure" would be given by the dealer to, and requested by, the purchaser of every firearm. It would include the name, address, phone number of the seller; name and serial number (if any) of the firearm; and most importantly, a disclosure of what the dealer believes deviates from originality in the firearm being represented. Has it been re-blued? Re-casecolored? Stock replaced? Barrel address re-applied? Recently engraved? Or any one of hundreds of "enhancements" that may have been accomplished. If the buyer will then purchase the item, knowing these "enhancements" in advance, then he has purchased the item with full knowledge and understanding of these recent embellishments. This "disclosure document" then becomes in reality a "truth in sale" agreement between the buyer and seller. A guarantee of full refund should also be stated in this document if other alterations from those disclosed are subsequently found.

These proposed pre-printed "Disclosure Certificates" should be freely made available at the entrance of the show, and available to all dealers at their arrival. Sure, we'll lose some dealers, but do we really need them? Think it over...

J.K., California

back to articles