Colt Forum banner

1 - 20 of 36 Posts

·
*** ColtForum MVP ***
Joined
·
15,074 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
There's a lot of use of the terms Repop, Replica, and Reproduction these days, often incorrectly, which can lead to confusion.

As Dewalt mentioned in a recent post, "Repop" is a term used by car dealers to designate a repossessed car.

I used to collect American military knives and collectors more or less arrived at a standard for use of the terms "Replica" and Reproduction" to make it more clear what was being discussed.

A "Reproduction" is an item that is made by the same company that originally manufactured it.
Good examples of a Reproduction would be a Ka-Bar knife made by Ka-Bar or a modern Colt WWI 1911.
Both were originally made by the companies who are again producing, or "Reproducing" them.
They may not be EXACT copies of the original item down to the tiniest details, but they are made by the original maker.

A "Replica" is a copy of an item made by a company who didn't originally make it.
An example would be a copy of a Ka-Bar knife made in Japan, or a 1911 made by S&W.
They're making near copies or replicas of something that was made by another company.
Replicas are seldom exact copies of the original item, and are often more on the order of a "look-alike" with major differences.

Sometimes the situation can get confused, as example the 1980's and 90's Colt black powder revolvers.
These were assembled here in America from raw parts supplied by Uberti of Italy, and the assembly and finishing wasn't done by Colt.
These do letter as Colt firearms, but are they Replicas, or Reproductions?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
501 Posts
In classic car circles all three words are used interchangably, but "repop" is probably the most common (when referring to items made by a company who didn't originally make it). It's all about context.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,258 Posts
Very concisely and well explained, DFW.
I learned what repop means. I never used the term and I had no idea it had nothing to do with guns.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,780 Posts
I've come to think of a replica as a model of an original. It may or may not be a 'working model'. A reproduction, to me, signifies a faithful and accurate rebuild of an original.
 

·
*** ColtForum MVP ***
Joined
·
15,074 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
And there in lies the confusion.
Technically a company that never made the item originally isn't making a "reproduction" because they never "produced" it to start with.
Technically, that makes it a "replica".

Only a company that originally produced something can "Re-produce" it.

True, this is a matter of semantics, but in collecting it's necessary for everyone to be on the same page to prevent confusion.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,780 Posts
And there in lies the confusion.
Technically a company that never made the item originally isn't making a "reproduction" because they never "produced" it to start with.
Technically, that makes it a "replica".

Only a company that originally produced something can "Re-produce" it.

True, this is a matter of semantics, but in collecting it's necessary for everyone to be on the same page to prevent confusion.
Yeah; I'll go along with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,228 Posts
When you're done teaching gun cranks the difference between replica, reproduction, etc., teach those who own a .45 Government Model that they have either a Colt 45 Auto or 45 Government Model, and NOT a 45 Colt.

And, while we're at it, when it comes to weaponry it's ordnance instead of ordinance.

Thanks. That's all for now :rolleyes:

John Gross
 
  • Like
Reactions: rhmc24

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,258 Posts
When you're done teaching gun cranks the difference between replica, reproduction, etc., teach those who own a .45 Government Model that they have either a Colt 45 Auto or 45 Government Model, and NOT a 45 Colt.

And, while we're at it, when it comes to weaponry it's ordnance instead of ordinance.

Thanks. That's all for now :rolleyes:

John Gross
John, I agree with you in spirit, but if we start to correct spelling on the internet we'd never get away from the keyboard. Even at 60 years old I am still amazed at the spelling errors I see on the web, every day.
I'm funny that way, I always thought spelling was important to learn.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,847 Posts
And then too, there are 'renditions'...


And also 'New Edition'...



Sometimes the situation can get confused, as example the 1980's and 90's Colt black powder revolvers.
These were assembled here in America from raw parts supplied by Uberti of Italy, and the assembly and finishing wasn't done by Colt.
These do letter as Colt firearms, but are they Replicas, or Reproductions?

Probably neither 'replica' or 'reproduction' would really be right for that situation, where, 2nd or 3rd Generation, would be ( right, or, right-enough ), assuming there is tacit understanding of the continuity involved, of it being the same Company.

In other contexts, 'generations' of an invention or item usually mean conspicuous steps punctuatig technological advancement, of a general kind of thing, regardless of who is manufacturing it.



Is 'replica' or 'reproduction' the right term for a resumed production of an item, by the same Company who had procuded the 'Originals', when production was suspended temporarily ( even if for almost a Century or whatever ) then, resumed? No, does not seem so to me anyway, to be the right term.


Now, if someone else besides Colt, at the time or since or presently, manufactures say, a Model 1860 Colt Army, what should it be called in this context?

Well, Plagiarism! for one thing, but...otherwise hmmmmmmmm, I don't know.

Usually 'Reproduction' seems to be the term used...even though the item is not being made by who originally had made it.

There are endless 'reproduction' so called 'Tiffany Lamps' and so on, not made by 'Tiffany'.

There are endless 'reproduction' things which are never made by the same Company who made the Original' item.



'Resumed Production' would be a good phrase, for when an original Maker resumes making something again.


'Replica' is always a little vauge, or seems to even denote a non-functional item often enough, or a for-looks-only item, even though the term is sometimes used in describing a well made, honest, fully functional, sincere, practical, equal to the Original in function, replication/duplicate of an 'Original'.



'Re-Pop' seems casual and flippant and can suggest whatever the speaker is able to inflect in it for praise or approval or contempt or indifference toward the item.


So...not much of a consensus all tolled, far as I can tell.


Always fun and interesting to think about what to call something, or, what something is called..!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
7,709 Posts
Using the term "repop" whilst describing fake boxes and labels somehow affirms the feeling of a clandestine attempt to defraud. The same word applied to stocks may also apply, IMHO.

As a side note if I had to be grammatically correct or triple check my typo's and even practice "some" kind of political correctness I might as well just sit and read and never touch the keyboard. In 99% of the cases the thought, question or intent of a post will be clear enough for interpretation and then an appropriate answer will be forthcoming. Can't always follow the exact terminology as prescribed by "Mr. Smith" and when stocks are named grips and triggers are called "thingies in that oval shaped deal" well...and so it goes. :) Happy Wednesday Y'all
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,847 Posts
There's the word 'fake' too of course...usually reserved for 'replications' or 'emulations' or 'renditions' which are being presented as if they are 'Original' examples, or where they might be so presented.

"Period Copy" is a term one sometimes comes across.

"Bootleg", an un-authorized copy or rendition, covering anything from 'period copy' through later imitation or emulation or rendition or fake.

"Repro"...short for reproduction of course, but, sometimes one hears that term.

"Brevet"...sometimes rumored by sellers to have been made 'Under License' but more likely merely unauthorized copies or loose copies contemporary to the original Cap & Ball era Colts, being to one degree or another, Colt-like or Colt-esque.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,256 Posts
John, I agree with you in spirit, but if we start to correct spelling on the internet we'd never get away from the keyboard. Even at 60 years old I am still amazed at the spelling errors I see on the web, every day.
I'm funny that way, I always thought spelling was important to learn.
Malysh,
With respect we are not discussing spelling but rather proper wording ie. Cavalry vs. Calvary. We all know or is that no, which involves crosses and which involves horses. We just mix them up sometimes when in a hurry.

All in all, a very thought provoking post.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,847 Posts
Malysh,
With respect we are not discussing spelling but rather proper wording ie. Cavalry vs. Calvary. We all know or is that no, which involves crosses and which involves horses. We just mix them up sometimes when in a hurry.

All in all, a very thought provoking post.

With that in mind, there's the Colt 'Piecemaker'...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,847 Posts
Just occurred to me that the present production or with the resumed post-WWII production Colt Single Action Army Revolvers, that these have never been called 'reproductions'...and, that it seems natural to me that they would not be called that, since they represent a resumed production, by the same Company who has been making the 'Originals'.

Yet we find, that duplications of the Colt SAA Revolvers made in recent time by other Companys, do not seem to really have been called anything, other than SAA or Model 1873 or Bisley Model, or even "Uberi Colt SAA" just as if they were Colt's or Colts' or Colts, or by Trade Names applied to them, like 'Cattleman' and so on

It is still Colt's design of course...regardless of who made it....but, this also sugests that no one is really sure what to call them in that regard.


I do not know what to call them, either...other than, a 'Uberti Colt' or as may be.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
657 Posts
Their will always be guise displaying they're lack of language skills on the internet. There fiends will learn to tolerate them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,228 Posts
John, I agree with you in spirit, but if we start to correct spelling on the internet we'd never get away from the keyboard.

Mr. M.

We the respect due to you, I was not referring to common spelling mistakes that we all make from time to time, such as using to instead of too or their for they're.

I'm referring to people who should no know better; collectors, dealers, shooters, etc. who have been doing this 20, 30, or 40+ years. I will even go so far as to say that if a person does not know proper, basic terminology that it can hurt their credibility for me. For example, I once read an article in a collectors magazine which contained information/procedures at the Ordnance Department during the Indian Wars. Not once, but twice, the author spelled ordnance as ordinance. It made me wonder how much this author really researched and knew about the Ordnance Department if he couldn't even spell it right.

John Gross
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,258 Posts
Mr. M.

We the respect due to you, I was not referring to common spelling mistakes that we all make from time to time, such as using to instead of too or their for they're.

I'm referring to people who should no know better; collectors, dealers, shooters, etc. who have been doing this 20, 30, or 40+ years. I will even go so far as to say that if a person does not know proper, basic terminology that it can hurt their credibility for me. For example, I once read an article in a collectors magazine which contained information/procedures at the Ordnance Department during the Indian Wars. Not once, but twice, the author spelled ordnance as ordinance. It made me wonder how much this author really researched and knew about the Ordnance Department if he couldn't even spell it right.

John Gross
:D
 
1 - 20 of 36 Posts
Top