This Is A Shame!!

[Rocky]

This is a real shame. Some guy is going to be out some big money for a phoney made up pair of WAAC goggles.
Whats phoney? The WAAC part, the box, the headstrap, and the facepad. Home made and reproduction things. Again, what a shame!

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?Vi ... AQ:US:1123

 

[ButteMT61]

When someone posts these things here, I'd like to know WHY the claim is being made as well. I'm not likely to just accept "it's fake" without some supporting data. If someone calls someone out, please tell us why. That way we all learn.

 

[unclegrumpy]

The first place to look is the "AN 6530" marking. It is sloppy on these. Most originals have the markings stamped or cast into the metal, rather than crudely engraved. In just looking at a pair I have that I think may be engraved, it was clearly done in production with a commercial machine and is perfect, sharp, and exact.

 

[ButteMT61]

Thanks grumpy. That's the kind of info that we should all strive for when calling out fakes. I know nothing ot little of many things here, so I like to know why.

 

[dmar836]

If anyone would know, I'd think it would be Rocky. The script is indeed strange and uneven. I don't even see vent tubes on the frames - soldered tubes or stamped.
I also have never seen a box like that. Typically there is a paper label pasted to the box but I don't think I have a box specific to the AN6530.
In a world where cheap fakes are coming out for about anything, without provenance(and saying they belonged to a WAAC is not provenance), one has to start with questioning rather than assuming anything is legit. The burden of proof is always on the seller.
JMO,
Dave

 

[ButteMT61]

Not at all questioning Rocky's knowledge. Simply a request to point out the "whys" when we talk about fakes. It's all about learning for me, and I'm not interested enough in an item like this to query the seller. Here, we should discuss though.

 

[dmar836]

Agreed.
While we are picking on this. The guy appears to be combining a lot of WAAC items that are post war. First, no love lost for breaking up the set - so we know what his only motive is. B-3 gloves(themselves post-war) along with even later gloves, etc. Apparently this WAAC went on to fly jets in the Air Force and the name of this early female jet pioneer should be listed! Maybe it all came to him this way and he's attributing it all with included WAAC story...... doubtful. Also, perhaps he is just unloading overpriced modern goggles from an impulse buy. Google will bring some up from $148 - $250. If I could *honestly* unload $200 stuff for nearly $400, I'd like that return. This is the light that breakers and pickers see that I don't.

The script on my examples is quite different:

And I still wonder about those vent tubes, visible from about any angle:

If you've ordered any cheap Chinese tool, you'll recognize the flaky, pressed cardboard box with imprecise stencil. Here is a real box from an Ebay auction:

His quote, "THEY ARE PART NO. 33A5022-1, CONTRACT NO. N288s-23746, STOCK NO. (R) 37-L218 AND THE TISSUE IS STAMPED JUNE 23, 1945", not unlike those quotes lifted from Wikipedia to add history or implied provenance to a piece, really bugs me. In this case he uses the added lenses to insert the 1945 date into the auction where it could not be honestly added otherwise.
If you read his description, he admits placing this set of lenses in there. I wonder, why? These are so "in the box and mint" that they needed new lenses? I suspect that the Chinese lenses have weird markings or none at all and these are marked AO.

I realize this is over analyzing things but it is what we must do in this world where money outweighs historical truth. If I'm wrong, the burden is on the seller who makes such claims.

Dave

 

[ButteMT61]

No, that's cool! That's what I'm talkin' about. And this is the place to do it. Thanks a lot. I know it takes some effort and time to do that.

 

[dmar836]

Well, since I tend to ramble on, it works well for me!

Dave

 

[Rocky]

Sorry, I should of better told why I stated that it a shame how these goggles are being sold.

There's not very much at all about them that's original. The box is a made up, same for the goggle strap, and the face pad is, what I call a poor made reproduction. Their real stiff and hard. I can spot the reproduction's a mile away.
The frames I'm not sure about either. They make reproduction frames now, and like Dave pointed out, the lack of air vents on top.

My call of value of these would be $100 tops, if that. For me, I wouldn't give the seller $25 for them.

Now some unknowingly buyer is going to anti up $409, maybe more, for a pair of made up, and no such thing as WAAC flight goggles.

I did contact the seller last week about this auction but haven't heard a thing back.

The moneys to good now for him to change his ad!

 

[dmar836]

I wrote him as well. Same. No response. Apparently he is well aware of what he is doing.

 

[ButteMT61]

That's sad. Thanks for the info guys. When someone blatantly does this do you take time to report it? I used to do that, but gave it up.

 

[Roughwear]

Reporting anything to Ebay is a complete waste of time as they seem to do nothing about it.

 

[ButteMT61]

Reporting anything to Ebay is a complete waste of time as they seem to do nothing about it.

I got the feeling as well. That's why I stopped. Guess it's caveat emptor.

 

[dmar836]

It is a hassle to report someone and then you realize Ebay is much more likely to let infractions slide as they stand to make a profit as long as the auction runs.

 

[Roughwear]

They seem more likely to act when a seller has committed a breach of copyright, but not when an item is misrepresented.