I don't know tons about tools, but a friend of mine sent me an incredibly good explanation on tools, so if I may paraphrase him:
[quote]Regarding your question; yes the totally reproduced tools aren't up to standards. I have posted a picture showing an original tool, on top, and two reproduced tools. Note the thickness differences and the detail on the edges. An original tool should measure 2.5 mm in thickness. This is according to military specifications. The entire tool had to made to spec, the point of the bend on top, the width of the grooves on the back the length of the tool, etc. Over or under would be cause to reject them. The other two in the attached picture are oversize. The bottom one is 3mm thick. Also note the difference in the length of the material at the bend of the tool on the bottom.
One would think that something as simple as a loading tool shouldn't provide any mysteries but that isn't the case. They have been, and continue to be, faked, boosted, enhanced, what ever. Sarco has a decent total repro tool that is selling for $5.65 unmarked and $12.50 stamped with an E/63 acceptance stamp. It isn't a bad effort, wouldn't fool the knowledgeable, but if you want a tool to stick in your tool pouch, it serves the purpose. However, while some of these tools are totally bogus, others are original blank tools that have had bogus acceptance stamps applied . I have heard reports from credible sources and have seen pictures of crates of unissued WWII vintage blank tools that were purchased in Europe after the fall of the East Block and brought into the US... <hr></blockquote>