Good for you Bert. Most of the time these well known fakers remain anonymous because folks think they will get in trouble for slander or something else. As in the case of the really faked up M1892 44-40 with the $10,000 asking price, the seller is a very well known and respected gun seller. I was "clued in" by a friend as to his dishonesty, and he will remain anonymous. I am sure by now a lot of good folks are wise to him and the dealer from Long Beach. Thanks, Big Larry

I found the ‘sketchy’ bit a bit sketchy myself! I was also surprised to note that there are small chips out of the wood on either side of the upper tang. Unusual for a mint rifle.

Just as an aside.
Generally auctions houses enjoy necessary exemptions from laws concerning misrepresentations, fraud, etc. That is because the general concept, with exceptions, is that auctions are little more than middle men moving property. They are not expected to be experts in the field of what they purvey. They are generally entitled to “rely” on seller representations absent “actual knowledge” of the existence of a misrepresentation or fraud. They also generally have no “duty to inquire or investigate” even in the face of suspicions. To statutorily impose other standards would likely at least turn their status into some combination of investigator, guarantor or insurer. There are exceptions under circumstances where special duties may be imposed by statute (such as particularly nowadays where environmental concerns raise their head) or where the particular auction house assumes such special duties (such as Christies, where they may employ experts for such as evaluations). Still, even where such expertise does occur, the house liability is probably limited to standards of employing established experts.

Yet an entirely different coin is that of investigation and prosecution of sellers in such crimes as might be inferred in this thread. First is the question of proving the requisite level of knowledge and then most often of proving “intent to defraud”. While this may seem simple, particularly in interstate transactions and with jurisdictional considerations, possible conflict of laws concerns and witnesses of varying credibility, memory and motivation scattered all over; the result is normally a flame out.
Then in terms of resources for returns; typically a lot of investigative and prosecutorial resources with very little payback in terms of any serious sentences or the ‘click’ of public acclaim. The public is interested in taking violent offenders on first and then the big fish in various categories.

Most provable frauds are left to the victim to make a civil case. For most victims it’s not economically worthwhile. Then also the collectability of judgment issues. All in all, almost never any neatly wrapped packages here!
This is really just touching on a hugely complex subject. But there is a bottom line here and it generally isn’t pretty for fraud victims. The real world answer lies in little more than the preventive measure: “BUYER BEWARE”.

Two quick disclaimers.
None of this is intended or should be taken as legal advice.
Not to be assumed here as defending auction house practices with which I have not particular expertise, interest or background. Yet experience with the public agency side of wider political/economic crime investigations, domestic and international.

All here just my take.