Real S'G' Rear Sight ?

Currently on a Auction site, currently @ $230.00 with 5hrs to go.

M1A1, That A Boy,

Funny, I saw this sight earlier today when I was looking at the sellers trigger housings he has listed, I thought to myself $230 is a lot of money if that sight is fake. Don't know enough about flip sights myself but his other items looked real to me.

Dr. Flip Sight has taught me well, but there is much to learn. It's always buyer beware whether a part or carbine. It's on us as collectors to learn. Just knowing a part is fake or suspect is valuable information. I took the advice of advanced collectors when I first started by compiling a library of confirmed fake parts. Collect enough, study them and one just might be able to tell when something is real or fake like a barrel band, flip sight, dog leg or fat boy hammer. No guarantees though as original stays original while fakes get better. A fellow collector of carbines, chickens and eggs once told me that to know what is original, one must acquire something original. A catch 22 if you will.

Many here and other places have helped me learn and for that I am grateful. Knowledge takes effort.

m1a1fan wrote: Dr. Flip Sight has taught me well, but there is much to learn. It's always buyer beware whether a part or carbine. It's on us as collectors to learn. Just knowing a part is fake or suspect is valuable information. I took the advice of advanced collectors when I first started by compiling a library of confirmed fake parts. Collect enough, study them and one just might be able to tell when something is real or fake like a barrel band, flip sight, dog leg or fat boy hammer. No guarantees though as original stays original while fakes get better. A fellow collector of carbines, chickens and eggs once told me that to know what is original, one must acquire something original. A catch 22 if you will. Many here and other places have helped me learn and for that I am grateful. Knowledge takes effort.

m1a1fan,

This is not intended as a challenge, nor to cast any doubt on your assessment, but I'd be interested to know how you determined this is a reproduction flip sight.

For others who may not know me, I take a proactive stance on identification of reproduction items. I presented a lecture on the subject for another firearm genre (Thompson Submachine Guns) in 2010, and drove the adoption of a reproduction item standard for a collector association. (The American Thompson Association)

I mention this, and include associated links below because I would like to see more reproduction items documented for other firearms. I think Carbines have huge opportunity in this regard.

I realize that many Carbine collectors are reluctant to share specifics of identifying reproduction items, and while I understand the reluctance, I think it is better to get the detail out in the open for the wider Carbine community.

Here are some links to my work on reproduction item awareness:

http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=9657

http://www.machinegunboards.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=12358

Lecture pdf download link: (Cut and paste into your browser)

http://www.sturmgewehr.com/dalbert/TATA/2010/Repro%20Lecture%202010.pdf


The American Thompson Association (TATA) Reproduction Thompson Item Standard:

The American Thompson Association is a group of collectors dedicated to preserving the history, collecting, and promoting the safe operation of legal Thompson Submachine Guns. The club has a responsibility to future collectors, and recognizes that many artifacts and accessories associated with the Thompson are reproduced, or have been reproduced in the past. As a result, TATA assumes a stewardship role for future collectors, who, upon encountering reproduction items now and in the future, may not be able to reasonably determine their originality. This can have the effect of reducing collector value of original specimens, as well as present unintended (or intended) ethical issues among the Thompson collector community.
The American Thompson Association adopts a standard consisting of marking any new Thompson Submachine Gun reproduction items with a name or other distinguishable identifying mark that indicate the manufacturing entity, and at least the year of manufacture. The marking should be easily visible, and made in a manner that the item can be readily identifiable as a reproduction, such as die stamping in metal, firmly stamped wood markings, readily accessible publisher marks inside the front page of a paper item, permanently painted markings on canvas material, or other reasonable and permanent marking method. (An example for stock markings is to mark such items under the buttplate, and on top of the grip, as these are already standard methods, and will not detract cosmetically from their presentation on a Thompson.)

TATA members must comply to the standard, and any reproduction item made by a member after notification of the adoption of the new standard in the club newsletter should be marked according to the TATA reproduction marking standard. (Failure to do so could effect membership status)

Method of Introduction for Acceptance:

Items may be presented to the TATA Board by members or non-members (via live sample, or high resolution (300dpi or better) photo or scan that details the product effectively) for inclusion on an online list that details them for public access. (This list currently resides in a pinned post at the top of the Thompson board at Machinegunboards.com) Items are presented to the TATA Board via e-mail to the TATA President or Vice President, who will convene the board online via e-mail or telephone within 60 days of receipt of a request for inclusion. A list consisting of 3 categories of Thompson reproduction items will be maintained:

A. New reproduction Thompson items that conform to TATA marking standard, to include known manufacturer information.
B. Existing reproduction items that conform to TATA marking standard, to include known manufacturer information.
C. Reproduction Thompson items that do not conform to TATA marking standard, to include known manufacturer information.

At a later time to be determined, once greater experience has been gained with managing a marking standard, TATA will present their standard to the NRA as a potential best practice. The standard may also be introduced to other NRA affiliated collector organizations who might want to adopt a similar standard. (End of standard)

Thanks!

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

tenocee,

I disagree completely.

David Albert
dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

Dave,I am going to have to side with Tenocee on this one. We have a club policy and our only recourse it to remove them from the club. Club rules state that you agree to disclose if something has been corrected or if reproduction. Do you think that a seller on the river or one of the many aliases would capitulate and stop making faked parts?

Many buyers don't have ears to hear. And was the buyer really cheated in that S'G' flip? Give me a listen on it here below.

Example of documenting: That reproduction sight sells new on R - - - -bank for $180. Everyone in Carbines knows those are repops because we document it over and over and over on all sites for everyone to understand. Someone resold it for $230 on eBay. (1) Extreme documenting/educating didn't stop it. (2) The buyer only overpaid by $50 over the 'bank's price. (3) It might end up on a Gunbroker Carbine and be resold yet again from a well documented seller that people keep buying from who sells stuff full of repops. So, if that flip sold to an Alabama reseller who will put it on a Carbine with other fake parts, was the buyer even screwed? Yeah, think about that. No. It's the next buyer who is probably going to pay the price because he didn't do his easily found research.

The Carbine I got rooked on 2 months ago has one of those sights. I was suspect of it, but the rest was promising enough to overcome it if it was as accurate as the seller's description. Hey, unethical sellers are going to misrepresent the rest too. I could write the document, but I still got BSed because people will BS you.

Documenting won't stop the bleeding. We always advise the unknowing if a part is real or not at no charge. It even costs some of us when we now have to compete at auction bidding against the person we just helped.

David Albert wrote: . My main caution is that I don't want scans of the documents to get picked up by the sellers of firearm manual information on CDs, etc., where the information is seen as public domain, and my time and effort in scanning the information ends up being sold at a profit. However, I am willing to let researchers come and see it, and I could potentially be open to a club effort to publish and distribute the information with appropriate credit. David Albert dalbert@sturmgewehr.com

Dave, you make an excellent point. The illicit taking of the information you accumulated is exactly the same as the knowledge some of us cultivated through long hours of study and very significant expense by investing in real and fake parts for study so that we are armed with the knowledge to protect ourselves, and we don't want other people taking and publishing what we worked so hard for. It takes years of study. Literally, years to see all the parts types and there are still some I've never seen yet. We go above and beyond to help people learn for themselves even though we don't have to and it costs us on auction prices in competition.  See the exact parallel to your statement? Except we don't ask for credit in teaching others.

David Albert wrote:     Reproductionists should be called out for what they are.