It never ceases to amaze me the different perspectives that collectors and dealers bring to authentication. It has been my observation that collectable firearms sellers, Internet or otherwise, bitterly resent any objective arguments that even begin to question their wares. This seems to apply to firearms in the general market as well, because exposing fakes in a public forum such as this can (and does) cause market trepidation that might cost them money indirectly. Whether the item in question is for sale or not is irrelevant. (Hell, the owner may want to sell it eventually.) In a way, it’s in a dealer’s best interest (even if it’s not his item) to argue for uncertainty. The old, “It may be, or it may not be” that we see here. Because coming to a conclusion might be bad for business. And routine counter-arguments tend to always be the same, “Show me proof that it’s a fake”, or other such claptrap when they are well aware in advance that providing conclusive fakery proof for an oddball item is usually impossible. Makes me wonder if the lone dissenter to these obvious fakes is really seeking the truth here, or trying to prevent money-costing skepticism from creeping into the marketplace.
|