Dwight,
I'm not sure, but I hope you haven't totally missed my point.
Except for your first sentence, pertinent, but with which I respectfully disagree, I will take the rest of your two paragraphs as general information meant for the crowd, as they do not relate to anything I've said in the two sentences you quoted.
To my disagreement: The Proxibid Luger, subject of this thread, is a clone. It is a "a person or thing regarded as identical to another" the Dictionary definition of "clone". In this case the only difference is in the markings, unless one wants to be anal-retentive about it and find fault in not including those details when describing the gun as a commercial clone of a 1908 P.08. In that case only the next gun off the "production line" could be considered a clone, and really not even then if one considers the serial number will be different. See how ridiculous this can be?
I don't think "clone" is an improper term to use in an informal conversation when referring to an object's lookalike. "Lookalike" is a synonym for "clone". I consider a Model 1914 Commercial a "lookalike" for the 1914 P.08, and therefore a "clone", for example.
I hope you don't find my difference of opinion offensive. It's certainly not intended to be.
By the way, did you ever sell that "1920 Arty "? I noticed you changed the mag.
Jack
|