An important distinction to make and remind ourselves of; agreed. That's a large part of why I wanted to update the comparison diagram, since while both situations are heavily problematic, there is still a substantive difference between 1) the nuanced mix of a claimed-original-without-evidence C96 dressed via technically-disclosed, mostly-non-original attachment means with a claimed-possibly-original-without-evidence flash hider and a definitively-original scope; and 2) a straightforward, easily-proven, all-around fake.
In the former case, much as we may speculate, the most we can say for sure is that it was promoted to the general public misleadingly and with a marked ignorance/carelessness for established history, and described with essentially blind benefit-of-the-doubt granted to the consignor's likely-genuine but also very-likely-mistaken and clearly-biased personal beliefs.
Whereas in the latter case, some form of scam must have occurred (fabricated paperwork at least, if not also the construction itself), although we may never know at what level (dealer, consignor, vendor who sold to consignor, etc.)... combined with (giving Studio Auctions the benefit of the doubt and assuming the scam was perpetrated at a lower level), astoundingly-laughable and reputation-disqualifying dealer "research."
