The Wonderful World of Fake and Reproduction Weapons

Chris here.

In my last post I whined impotently because in a recent episode of the history channel's Pawn Stars a "weapons expert" could not authenticate a McElroy sword brought on the show. This scenario mirrored an experience Jen and I recently had when a noted expert on Confederate militaria could not authenticate the McElroy we have on consignment at Old Truck Antiques.

In this post I shall attempt to set up a framework for authenticating weapons. Here goes.

Confederate weapons have been one of the hottest things going in military antiques for several decades. That said a thriving "industry" (if you will) of fake Confederate weapons has cropped up as the unscrupulous cash in on the prices people are willing to pay for Confederate guns, knives and swords.

Complicating the issue further is that during the past half-century Civil War reenacting has grown right alongside the collecting market and plenty of good, bad and indifferent reproductions have been made of clothing, equipment and weapons for the reenactor crowd.

There is nothing inherently wrong or unscrupulous about making reproductions of original pieces, assuming that the reproductions are labeled as such. It gets hinky when somebody takes a repro and removes or adds markings which would otherwise distinguish the repro from the original and then artificially ages the piece with the intent of deceiving collectors.

In short, here is the good, bad and ugly of historic weapons & reproductions:

Good:
-Original weapon with all-original components
-Reproduction weapons clearly labelled as such

Bad:
-Original weapon altered with components it was never associated with to increase its value
-Reproduction altered and aged to resemble original antique with intent to deceive

Ugly (grey area):
-Original weapon with components either original or reproduction added to replace missing components that the piece initially had
-Reproduction with components added or removed for reenacting purposes ("de-farbed")

The "good" category is pretty self-explanatory. For the "bad" group, examples of altered originals are things like "common" US swords from the Civil War era that fakers add Confederate manufacture marks to. This process takes a fairly common sword that is worth hundreds of dollars and changes it to something that could be worth tens of thousands. Because a real antique is modified, to a certain extent it makes detecting the faking very difficult as real signs of age and wear will be present. On the other hand, northern weapons are fairly well documented and their are distinctive factors that northern weapons often have that Confederate weapons GENERALLY do not, so one should be able to tell pretty quick if it is legitimately CSA or just dolled-up USA (of course I said GENERALLY, there are always exceptions that cause no end of confusion and wonderment). That Sean fellow really dropped the ball on Pawn Stars when he stated basically the same thing that I said above about modified original swords having scurrilous maker's marks and decoration added to them, but one look at the sword on Pawn Stars and you could tell it was Confederate to the core- the blade only had one fuller. Union swords GENERALLY (I hate saying that) have two fullers (fullers are the grooves in sword blades), a deeper secondary one inside the first toward the spine of the blade. There is no way to grind out or hide a second fuller... the fact that the Pawn Stars sword had only a single fuller meant it was almost certainly either a real CS sword or a total fake (not a modified antique). Sean did not say that it was a total fake. If it was a real Confederate sword, why would anyone add etching to it? Even plain Confederate swords are valued at $5,000-$10,000! Risking ruining an original by etching it would be just plain stupid and at best would only double the value (yeah, I know that people do stupider things, but figuring out how to etch a blade and then age it again would take some smarts... anybody smart enough to do that would probably be smart enough not to mess with an original CS sword.

The other "bad" category I had listed are reproductions which are made to deceive. There are two sub-sets of this category. The first sub-type are total fakes from the ground up that somebody has cobbled together in his/her garage or basement. Usually these are fairly easy to spot as the fake looks like it has been created on a workbench by somebody who is not a professional manufacturer- even the most crude of Confederate weapons tend to have more fit and finish than these home made impersonators. The authenticity of the homemade total fakes also tends to suffer because the faker, in addition to being an amature manufacturer, is normally also an amature historian and often does not have ready access to an original to copy from or the ability to research the fake well enough. The second sub-type of deceptive reproductions are mass-produced copies of weapons meant for the reenactor market that have had the distinctive features that separate them from originals added or removed and then been artificially aged. Most reproduction swords come from India and carry an "India" stamped on the blade. New they cost between one and several hundred dollars. Fakers frequently grind off the "India" stamp and then use a letter punch set to mark the blade with manufacturer and/or inspector marks. Then for good measure the blade is dipped in gasoline and left to dry, causing an instant patina. Using abrasives, wear may be given to part of the sword to make it "look old" and used. These fakes can normally be spotted by looking for tool marks where the "India" (or whatever) stamp was removed, looking to see if the letter punches used were in a modern font or one correct for the Civil War period, and looking closely at the patina on the blade and the wear on the sword as a whole. Also, there are hallmarks of some reproductions that are not found on originals. Bad repros stick out like a sore thumb. Anybody who tries to buy a $15 Chinese stainless steel wonder with an acorn nut securing the tang to the pommel and make that look like an original should have their head examined. Both the total fakes and the modified repros often boast excessive and frequently crude (both mechanically and linguistically) engraving of personal names, unit designations, and ludicrous mottoes (like "death to yankees" or something equally profound).

Then there is the "ugly" category. The first type, original weapons that have missing parts replaced, is a fact of life. Several years ago I decided to learn everything there was to know about the US 1855 pattern rifle musket. What I found is that very reputable antique dealers had no problem selling down the river muskets made up of every possible combination of parts from the 1850's to the 1870's. The problem here is that the Ordnance Dept.'s use of interchangeable parts meant that the locks, stocks, and barrels of the 1855-1864 rifle muskets and the early trapdoor rifles could often be interchanged along with other hardware such as ramrods, barrel bands and screws. When trying to research 1855 rifles on the internet storefronts of militaria dealers I found literally dozens of weird combinations of cast-off parts being sold as an "original" weapon. With swords it is a little more difficult to achieve this result. Most scabbards only fit the specific type of sword it was meant to fit for, so it is difficult (but not impossible) to join a mis-matched sword & scabbard. This may have been what happened with the Pawn Stars McElroy as its original scabbard had been replaced with one of varnished wood. Some CSA swords did in fact have wooden scabbards but not anything like the Pawn Stars one- I'd argue the legitimacy of the Pawn Stars sword on those grounds alone- nobody would fake something like that as it would not fool anyone! My guess would be that at some point the leather rotted out and either the veteran or one of his descendants crafted the wooden replacement. It is also technically possible to mix a sword's blade, guard and grip... but dismounting a Civil War Sword is not easy as it means grinding out the flattened end of the tang from the pommel and the soldering or welding it in place once the sword is reassembled. Normally tell-tale signs of this work can be detected.

The other "ugly" types of Civil War weapons are those that have been "de-farbed." "farb" is a Civil War reenactor term of unknown origin that means something or someone that is inauthentic. For many reenactors, looking at a "Made in India" stamp is understandably frustrating. Many reenactors, and/or the vendors who supply them, "de-farb" reproduction items to make them look more like the originals. This normally involves removing the marks of the reproduction's manufacturer and sometimes replacing them with the marks of original manufacturers. "De-farbing" can also involve replacing less authentic parts of the modern made reproduction with either original or reproduction components that more closely match the original. Nobody is intending to deceive, except to present a greater aura of authenticity on the battlefield. Most reputable vendors if they do really good reproductions or "de-farbing" of same will use manufacture marks that are not real- normally their own name or initials, which a little research would show to any interested party to not be a true manufacturer of the period. The other thing that most often separates "de-farbed" repros from fakes is that reenactors want their repros to look NEW as they are portraying the time-period when the weapons were recently issued or purchased. A de-farbed repro should not show any signs of extreme age- i.e. leather should still be pliable, rust to a minimum, no patina.