Log In
November 5, 2014
Offline
All-
I usually do not make gratuitous posts like this one, although I could almost weekly… But this one is over-the-top…
Back in 2019, somebody paid a total of $1380 for a lot consisting of (2) pre-64 M70 rifles in RIAC Sporting and Collector Auction 1032. One of them was said to be S/N 21088, a 30 GOV’T’06 Standard rifle with a refinished stock and recut checkering.
https://www.rockislandauction.com/detail/1032/4812/two-winchester-bolt-action-rifles
Today, somebody else paid $17,500 for a “super rare” pre-war M70 Carbine in 9 M/M Mauser. The serial number also happens to be 21088…
Now… The serial number of the RIA gun was not pictured, so it could be a case of “mistaken identity”, in which case BATFE may have to visit RIA to make sure that their FFL bound book is more accurate than their catalog listings. Alternatively, the <$1380 gun sold on RIA has miraculously transformed into a $17,500 gem through the ministrations of person or persons unknown… Re-barreling a gun is not a crime, but representing a for-sale item as something it is not could be considered fraud, either on the part of the seller or the person from whom the seller acquired the rifle… However many generations (sale/re-sale) that may take…
You decide…
If anyone familiar with M70s were to look at the GI listing, I think they would conclude (as have I) that there is no relationship between the exposed and under barrel markings on 9 M/M Carbine S/N 21088 and anything the factory produced in 1939…
IMHO… Yet another someone has been fleeced for profit… Maybe they read this site, probably not… Be CAREFUL out there…
Just my take,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
April 15, 2005
Offline
Lou,
My money is 100% on it being pure FAKERY for profit. I have seen it happen all too often on other desirable models. Please make it a regular habit to expose these when you have evidence to support it (as you did in this case). Michael (2bit) and I both do this when warranted. The only way to put these crooks out of business is to expose them as frequently as possible.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
September 22, 2011
Offline
Can we create a sticky thread that consists of a table that shows Model 79s by serial number as to what they once were and are now? A quick review of the table identifies fakery with regards to a particular Model 70 under consideration.
April 15, 2005
Offline
mrcvs said
Can we create a sticky thread that consists of a table that shows Model 79s by serial number as to what they once were and are now? A quick review of the table identifies fakery with regards to a particular Model 70 under consideration.
I would prefer not to do that. First, it would place an undue work burden on a very small number of our WACA members. Further, and as it is today, we routinely entertain many new topics that bring to light questionable Winchesters that are found online, auctions, etc. The vast majority of our regular members know to ask questions when in doubt.
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
August 27, 2014
Offline
mrcvs said
Can we create a sticky thread that consists of a table that shows Model 79s by serial number as to what they once were and are now? A quick review of the table identifies fakery with regards to a particular Model 70 under consideration.
Bad idea to put that info out there…
“If you can’t convince them, confuse them”
President Harry S. Truman
September 22, 2011
Offline
Okay, bad idea…
November 5, 2014
Offline
Hi Ian-
It gets “sticky”… Speaking of M70s, my survey was not/is not constructed for “fake busting”. The nature of my spreadsheet is such that it would be difficult to construct a retrospective list of fakes w/o going through it line-by-line… Mostly the “second entry” (recording the fake) is in the “notes” column, making it a manual search.
I could do it prospectively, but even that is problematic… MOST of the time (and it happens all too often) the neo-fake gun’s former identity is from a Porter card or a GI/GB listing that is no longer on-line. So unlike the present instance, I cannot provide a link to the prior sale of the “donor” that others can view and formulate their own opinion.
I do not/will not save photos of EVERY M70 offered for sale on the Internet for the purpose of “fake busting” with the goal of saving other people from themselves. Not my circus, not my monkey… 
IMHO it is the responsibility of the individual collector/investor to learn as much as they can, ask questions when they’re unsure, and deal with the consequences of their own decisions.
WACA freely offers resources to people, should they choose to take advantage, that can help them avoid costly mistakes…
Ain’t that enough?
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
September 22, 2011
Offline
Louis Luttrell said
Hi Ian-
It gets “sticky”… Speaking of M70s, my survey was not/is not constructed for “fake busting”. The nature of my spreadsheet is such that it would be difficult to construct a retrospective list of fakes w/o going through it line-by-line… Mostly the “second entry” (recording the fake) is in the “notes” column, making it a manual search.
I could do it prospectively, but even that is problematic… MOST of the time (and it happens all too often) the neo-fake gun’s former identity is from a Porter card or a GI/GB listing that is no longer on-line. So unlike the present instance, I cannot provide a link to the prior sale of the “donor” that other’s can view and formulate their own opinion.
I do not/will not save photos of EVERY M70 offered for sale on the Internet for the purpose of “fake busting” with the goal of saving other people from themselves. Not my circus, not my monkey… IMHO it is the responsibility of the individual collector/investor to learn as much as they can, ask questions when they’re unsure, and deal with the consequences of their own decisions.
WACA freely offers resources to people, should they choose to take advantage, that can help them avoid costly mistakes…
Ain’t that enough?
Lou
👍
August 8, 2024
Offline
Louis, Thank you for your post on the Carbine 9M/M. I to saw that rifle on Guns International. I notice some concerns from the pictures as well. It looked like a made up gun to me. The price of $17,500 is a tidy sum. But, I feel way to cheap for a original Model 70 9M/M Carbine! The Fakers are the criminal element of the gun World. They really need to be accountable for there actions. Like any other criminal. Louis your making the Model 70 World a better place.
January 20, 2023
Offline
“….could be considered a crime.”
Yes, it certainly could. A serious felony. And one committed in Interstate Commerce, too.
A suggestion for those reluctant to call a spade a spade, out of a concern for being sued for libel, false disparagement of goods, ….ad nauseam:
An opinion that does not imply defamatory facts cannot be the basis for such tort claims. It is protected by the First Amendment. Here’s the bright line:
“I believe that Model 70 has been altered from a standard rifle to a carbine because the auction company reports the same serial number was earlier sold with a 24″ barrel.” PROTECTED
“I believe the seller has altered that Model 70 from a standard rifle….etc.” NOT PROTECTED
Of course, the truth is a defense to any claim of defamation. Many a plaintiff has regretted trying a case of libel that gave his defendant the opportunity to prove the truth in open court! Then, instead of an untested allegation of, say, fraud, there’s a jury verdict proving the plaintiff is a fraudster!!
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
April 15, 2005
Offline
Zebulon said
“….could be considered a crime.”
Yes, it certainly could. A serious felony. And one committed in Interstate Commerce, too.
A suggestion for those reluctant to call a spade a spade, out of a concern for being sued for libel, false disparagement of goods, ….ad nauseam:
An opinion that does not imply defamatory facts cannot be the basis for such tort claims. It is protected by the First Amendment. Here’s the bright line:
“I believe that Model 70 has been altered from a standard rifle to a carbine because the auction company reports the same serial number was earlier sold with a 24″ barrel.” PROTECTED
“I believe the seller has altered that Model 70 from a standard rifle….etc.” NOT PROTECTED
Of course, the truth is a defense to any claim of defamation. Many a plaintiff has regretted trying a case of libel that gave his defendant the opportunity to prove the truth in open court! Then, instead of an untested allegation of, say, fraud, there’s a jury verdict proving the plaintiff is a fraudster!!
I have been threatened (more than once) with being sued for openly calling out fraudulently altered Winchesters. In each case (when contacted and threatened by the seller/fraudster), I stridently informed them that I would counter sue and ultimately own their entire assets/business when all was said and done. In both cases, I never heard from them again. In my personal experience, the crooks who intentionally alter and sell faked guns are blusters and cowards, and they do not want to expose themselves to the legal system (for obvious reasons).
Bert
WACA Historian & Board of Director Member #6571L
November 5, 2014
Offline
Bob-
The “problem” I have with creating posts such as this one is the quality of the documentation I can present supporting a claim of fraud. When I put up a link to a current sale, I am identifying the Seller of a gun I consider questionable. As such, I may be hampering his “business”, i.e. costing him money, and he may take umbrage. As Zeb has said several times on this forum, the one irrefutable defense against a charge of fraud is truth, i.e. proof that the “libelous” claim being made is in fact true (hence not libel).
So how good is my “proof” when it comes to sketchy guns. We all KNOW that the market is rife with fakes, but how many can we “prove” are fakes? When it comes to guns I think are fradulent, I have several levels of “evidence”, none of which is “definitive”:
The BEST evidence is the type I posted last night. Record of the previous sale is available on-line for all to view alongside the current listing. The current seller can still claim that there is simply an error in the RIA catalog, since RIA did not show a photograph of the serial number. It certainly “strains credulity” (WADR to Captain Hector Barbosa), but the only “proof” would be found in RIA’s FFL Bound Book.
Next come guns I find for sale today that are already in my survey as something else, but the former listing is no longer accessible. Maybe I made a “mistake” recording the serial number in my survey, and as such my claim of fraud is unsupported.
Next comes second-hand information. I have recorded all of Bob Porter’s 11,000+ survey cards in a spreadsheet. Not uncommonly, I will find guns listed for sale today that Porter recorded as something else, typically today’s gun is a “rare one-of-a-kind” while Porter’s record was of a “common garden-variety” firearm. Along those same lines, Porter’s own records include dozens of instances where he himself saw the gun in both its “before and after” form. When this occurred he would annotate the original card with the fakery, for example adding a statement like “Now a 7 M/M Carbine” with the name of the seller and location. But in these cases I am relying totally on the accuracy of Porter’s records, having never seen either the original gun or the fake. What “proof” do I have that he wrote it down correctly? None…
Then there are the guns that I “KNOW” aren’t right, based on experience, but have not encountered the serial number before. Sometimes there is photographic evidence in the listing, for example barrel markings that are CLEARLY non-factory. For example Winchester did not use pantographs, lasers, or CNC to mark barrels. In the latter cases the technology did not exist in the 1930’s, and each leaves its own distinctive markings. Hence “proof” that Winchester didn’t/couldn’t have made that barrel… But these days (some of) the fakers have gotten really good. They use accurate replicas of real roll dies/stamps, CNC machining to duplicate shapes, and (sometimes) are vary good at copying factory wood/metal finishes.
Which brings me to the final category… Guns that I know have to be fakes but that look good, at least in the images provided by the seller. For example, several M70s in 22 Savage Hi-Power, 303 Savage, 38-55, etc. etc. have appeared for sale or at auction in just the past couple years. Sometimes with the same few sellers, sometimes scatted around in different auction houses. How many legit M70s in those chamberings were made? MAYBE a couple?? But what are the odds that multiple examples would turn up in a short period of time??? In my mind they HAVE TO BE FAKES b/c their existence and sudden appearance is so improbable that I can conceive of no other rational explanation. Can I call them out as fakes based on an “opinion” that itself is based only on looking at pictures on the internet? NO… Nothing short of a law enforcement level of formal investigation into the manufacturer(s) of these guns and evidence of their deliberate mis-representation, or maybe (???) an aggressive high dollar civil suit by a very well-heeled victim of the fraud, would put a stop to it.
So I stand by my earlier remarks to Ian… Know your subject, ask questions BEFORE the purchase, get written “money back guarantees”, and acknowledge your own mistakes if/when you make them. I know YOU and Ian know all this… But apparently there are many out there who do not… 
Best,
Lou
WACA 9519; Studying Pre-64 Model 70 Winchesters
December 9, 2002
Offline
Louis,
You’re work here as far as helping us all out, is undeniably so appreciated as you’re name along with a few others surely comes to mind, as we all appreciate you’re dedication, and have helped out, so many times, and saved our butts and pocket book, on more than one occasion!
You’re words here in this thread are truthful as always, and from a collector stand point, all you can do is suggest to us what you know and have found. Shame on us if we don’t listen!
Anthony
September 22, 2011
Offline
Louis Luttrell said
Bob-
The “problem” I have with creating posts such as this one is the quality of the documentation I can present supporting a claim of fraud. When I put up a link to a current sale, I am identifying the Seller of a gun I consider questionable. As such, I may be hampering his “business”, i.e. costing him money, and he may take umbrage. As Zeb has said several times on this forum, the one irrefutable defense against a charge of fraud is truth, i.e. proof that the “libelous” claim being made is in fact true (hence not libel).
So how good is my “proof” when it comes to sketchy guns. We all KNOW that the market is rife with fakes, but how many can we “prove” are fakes? When it comes to guns I think are fradulent, I have several levels of “evidence”, none of which is “definitive”:
The BEST evidence is the type I posted last night. Record of the previous sale is available on-line for all to view alongside the current listing. The current seller can still claim that there is simply an error in the RIA catalog, since RIA did not show a photograph of the serial number. It certainly “strains credulity” (WADR to Captain Hector Barbosa), but the only “proof” would be found in RIA’s FFL Bound Book.
Next come guns I find for sale today that are already in my survey as something else, but the former listing is no longer accessible. Maybe I made a “mistake” recording the serial number in my survey, and as such my claim of fraud is unsupported.
Next comes second-hand information. I have recorded all of Bob Porter’s 11,000+ survey cards in a spreadsheet. Not uncommonly, I will find guns listed for sale today that Porter recorded as something else, typically today’s gun is a “rare one-of-a-kind” while Porter’s record was of a “common garden-variety” firearm. Along those same lines, Porter’s own records include dozens of instances where he himself saw the gun in both its “before and after” form. When this occurred he would annotate the original card with the fakery, for example adding a statement like “Now a 7 M/M Carbine” with the name of the seller and location. But in these cases I am relying totally on the accuracy of Porter’s records, having never seen either the original gun or the fake. What “proof” do I have that he wrote it down correctly? None…
Then there are the guns that I “KNOW” aren’t right, based on experience, but have not encountered the serial number before. Sometimes there is photographic evidence in the listing, for example barrel markings that are CLEARLY non-factory. For example Winchester did not use pantographs, lasers, or CNC to mark barrels. In the latter cases the technology did not exist in the 1930’s, and each leaves its own distinctive markings. Hence “proof” that Winchester didn’t/couldn’t have made that barrel… But these days (some of) the fakers have gotten really good. They use accurate replicas of real roll dies/stamps, CNC machining to duplicate shapes, and (sometimes) are vary good at copying factory wood/metal finishes.
Which brings me to the final category… Guns that I know have to be fakes but that look good, at least in the images provided by the seller. For example, several M70s in 22 Savage Hi-Power, 303 Savage, 38-55, etc. etc. have appeared for sale or at auction in just the past couple years. Sometimes with the same few sellers, sometimes scatted around in different auction houses. How many legit M70s in those chamberings were made? MAYBE a couple?? But what are the odds that multiple examples would turn up in a short period of time??? In my mind they HAVE TO BE FAKES b/c their existence and sudden appearance is so improbable that I can conceive of no other rational explanation. Can I call them out as fakes based on an “opinion” that itself is based only on looking at pictures on the internet? NO… Nothing short of a law enforcement level of formal investigation into the manufacturer(s) of these guns and evidence of their deliberate mis-representation, or maybe (???) an aggressive high dollar civil suit by a very well-heeled victim of the fraud, would put a stop to it.
So I stand by my earlier remarks to Ian… Know your subject, ask questions BEFORE the purchase, get written “money back guarantees”, and acknowledge your own mistakes if/when you make them. I know YOU and Ian know all this… But apparently there are many out there who do not…
Best,
Lou
Bound FFL records are NOT the final proof as to a previous record relative to a particular firearm. Some folks are dyslexic, purposefully, or otherwise. Others cannot tell, or do not know the difference between, a serial number and an assembly number, or even a model number.
I always try and ask questions first. It prevents a lot of heartburn.
September 22, 2011
Offline
Bert H. said
Zebulon said
“….could be considered a crime.”
Yes, it certainly could. A serious felony. And one committed in Interstate Commerce, too.
A suggestion for those reluctant to call a spade a spade, out of a concern for being sued for libel, false disparagement of goods, ….ad nauseam:
An opinion that does not imply defamatory facts cannot be the basis for such tort claims. It is protected by the First Amendment. Here’s the bright line:
“I believe that Model 70 has been altered from a standard rifle to a carbine because the auction company reports the same serial number was earlier sold with a 24″ barrel.” PROTECTED
“I believe the seller has altered that Model 70 from a standard rifle….etc.” NOT PROTECTED
Of course, the truth is a defense to any claim of defamation. Many a plaintiff has regretted trying a case of libel that gave his defendant the opportunity to prove the truth in open court! Then, instead of an untested allegation of, say, fraud, there’s a jury verdict proving the plaintiff is a fraudster!!
I have been threatened (more than once) with being sued for openly calling out fraudulently altered Winchesters. In each case (when contacted and threatened by the seller/fraudster), I stridently informed them that I would counter sue and ultimately own their entire assets/business when all was said and done. In both cases, I never heard from them again. In my personal experience, the crooks who intentionally alter and sell faked guns are blusters and cowards, and they do not want to expose themselves to the legal system (for obvious reasons).
Bert
I have been threatened as well. One fellow when I rightfully pointed out problems with a firearm said he would duke it out with me in the parking lot at a gun show.
A second individual threatened to sue me when I pointed out on this forum how faulty his research was relative to his particular firearm. Of course, his firearm had sold for about ten times what it was really worth. I learned this individual is one NASTY person. The easiest thing was just to remove these posts. This one nasty individual was likely afraid the admiring purchaser of his firearm at auction would read my posts and determine that he was sold a fraudulent bill of goods.
The good news is I’m much younger than this individual and when I eventually hear of his demise, I assure you this topic will be resurrected and his shady research techniques will be exposed.
I will probably be nice and refrain from calling him nasty when I resurrect that topic someday due to his probable recent demise, but don’t kid yourselves that he doesn’t have a downright nasty streak when I resurrect this thread. I hope I have the opportunity sooner rather than later.
March 20, 2009
Offline
The wood grain on the stock is identical on both rifles!! OBVIOUSLY a fake on GI.
Michael
Model 1892 / Model 61 Collector, Research, Valuation
November 19, 2006
Offline
This has been an interesting and educational topic. This is a particularly true for me as M70 collecting has been an area of minimal knowledge for me.
I’m wondering about how the progression of ownership can play a role? There are faked guns that get sold over and over before someone catches on (or discover it the way Lou discovered this one). How far back does some level of responsibility extend?
January 20, 2023
Offline
Steve, liability of an innocent seller – who was himself an earlier victim — depends on what express or implied warranties he made to his subsequent buyer. That can vary from state to state. Whether he would have any liability to further downstream buyers is also controlled by state law.
In general, liability for breach of contract does not extend beyond the immediate parties to the transaction. Liability for the commission of a tort — including fraud — is broader..
All the foregoing general rules can be altered by a state legislature, so you have to know who has jurisdiction and whose law applies — and the twp answers are not always the same. [The course in “Conflict of Laws” is known to be hemmorhoid inducing.].
Bert is right — sellers who commit fraud and then threaten their accuser would invite disaster, ruin, and incarceration by filing suit. Ive seen it tried a couple of times against clients (although not involving guns) and things did not turn out well for either plaintiff.. In one case the plaintiff sued pro se (without a lawyer).and in the other cade the plaintiff lied to her lawyer. Neither case went to trial but one of the plaintiffs was remanded to prison.
Lou’s concerns about quality of evidence are intellectually sound but less concerning if the speaker restricts himself to poining out the gun is not as represented and his reasons for thinking so — e.g. the speaker believes the gun was once sold in another form, without expressly or implicitly accusing the seller of fraud. WHETHER THE SPEAKER IS RIGHT OR WRONG IS IRRELEVANT. IT IS PROTECTED SPEECH.
It pays to remember that most of Lou’s concerns can be resolved through discovery. Guns somebody paid 25 large for rarely disappear and can be subpoenaed for expert examination or just as factual evidence. The bound book record of a serial number is prima facie evidence. Anybody who challenges its accuracy has the burden of proof to show otherwise. Just saying it’s not accurate doesn’t even raise a fact issue.
Two business records showing a sale of the same seriall numbered gun at different times by different auction houses — and reciting major differences in rarity and price because of different physical characteristics — is a dead bang case of SOMEBODY’S fraudulent act.
I’ve dealt with enough con men to believe a courtroom is the last place they want to be.
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
November 19, 2006
Offline
Zebulon said
Steve, liability of an innocent seller – who was himself an earlier victim — depends on what express or implied warranties he made to his subsequent buyer. That can vary from state to state. Whether he would have any liability to further downstream buyers is also controlled by state law.
In general, liability for breach of contract does not extend beyond the immediate parties to the transaction. Liability for the commission of a tort — including fraud — is broader..
All the foregoing general rules can be altered by a state legislature, so you have to know who has jurisdiction and whose law applies — and the twp answers are not always the same. [The course in “Conflict of Laws” is known to be hemmorhoid inducing.].
Bert is right — sellers who commit fraud and then threaten their accuser would invite disaster, ruin, and incarceration by filing suit. Ive seen it tried a couple of times against clients (although not involving guns) and things did not turn out well for either plaintiff.. In one case the plaintiff sued pro se (without a lawyer).and in the other cade the plaintiff lied to her lawyer. Neither case went to trial but one of the plaintiffs was remanded to prison.
Lou’s concerns about quality of evidence are intellectually sound but less concerning if the speaker restricts himself to poining out the gun is not as represented and his reasons for thinking so — e.g. the speaker believes the gun was once sold in another form, without expressly or implicitly accusing the seller of fraud. WHETHER THE SPEAKER IS RIGHT OR WRONG IS IRRELEVANT. IT IS PROTECTED SPEECH.
It pays to remember that most of Lou’s concerns can be resolved through discovery. Guns somebody paid 25 large for rarely disappear and can be subpoenaed for expert examination or just as factual evidence. The bound book record of a serial number is prima facie evidence. Anybody who challenges its accuracy has the burden of proof to show otherwise. Just saying it’s not accurate doesn’t even raise a fact issue.
Two business records showing a sale of the same seriall numbered gun at different times by different auction houses — and reciting major differences in rarity and price because of different physical characteristics — is a dead bang case of SOMEBODY’S fraudulent act.
I’ve dealt with enough con men to believe a courtroom is the last place they want to be.
Bill –
Thanks for the detailed reply.
I was thinking about the volume of guns sold through internet auction sites such as gunbroker. “Three-day inspection” is common. I assume when a seller specifies an inspection period, the bidder, by bidding is agreeing that is the contract. I think this is even spelled out by the gunbroker small print. That is by bidding, the bidder has been advised to read the small print and know that he is contractually obligating himself. And if the seller has specified that the buyer has so many days to inspect the rifle and is free to return it if it is found to be unsatisfactory, the seller’s obligation is over after the inspection period has passed (i.e. as per this particular contractual arrangement)?
Another common variation in the internet auctions are those sellers who specify there is no inspection period and this is a final sale. Bidders are advised to look closely at photos and ask any and all questions prior to bidding. And when they place to their bid, they agreeing to the conditions specified by the seller? Is this, “contract” as, “binding” as the inspection period contact?
January 20, 2023
Offline
Steve, I think so but it is not going to waive a tort claim for fraud. If the photos don’t clearly disclose that it’s a rouged up pig and the seller represents in the auction description that it’s Sleeping Beauty, I think the seller may still have breached his contract, in addition to fraud.
The problem arises when the seller makes no explicit representation that it’s Sleeping Beauty. He’s silent. I’ve seen this. You call him and he’ll likely say he doesn’t know. Time to do without.
Originality is a big problem in online auctions..Either get the right to a non-firing inspection or get a specific warranty. More than anything — it’s like old Jerry Lee Lewis said: “Know Your Dealer!”
- Bill
WACA # 65205; life member, NRA; member, TGCA; member, TSRA; amateur preservationist
"I have seen wicked men and fools, a great many of both, and I believe they both get paid in the end, but the fools first." -- David Balfour, narrator and protagonist of the novel, Kidnapped, by Robert Louis Stevenson.
1 Guest(s)
