Not terribly long ago the CMP received requests to "correct" some M1 rifles. With an eye to customer service they did. WW2 parts on "otherwise correct" 1950s production. Obviously wrong! At least so the books would indicate. Except those parts were put on there at SA. Why waste good parts? So a "clearly wrong" part may not be wrong. Let's assume that it's so bogus it declares its' bogosity. Now we're left with the question of what's right? That is where the devil enters the game. The reason for that is why half of the university programs are bogus. One basic assumption which is wrong. So we should tread lightly on correcting the sample rate of one item.
Guns are best left as found if originality is what you seek. Too much happened in their lives which is lost in the mists of time. How long were people told that slings on Krag carbines were the work of bubba?
Then again it's your gun. Knock yourself out.
A sample size of one is no sample at all. We know generally what's true but that is entirely unhinged when it's distilled down to a sample rate of one.Making up wannabe look alikes from 21st-century manufactured components is an entirely different kettle of fish. I'm not planning to re-engrave a common sight and call it good. There is correspondence to the effect that SA was not happy with the sights originally put on the "old model" of 1878, which were supposedly corrected in the "new model" of 1879. So, while, I highly doubt it, the TD sight presently on there could have been an attempt to correct whatever they felt was wrong". In retrospect, I am beginning to wonder if the oddball sight on GB was a fake after all.
With respect to IQ, like Japanese Yen, I have none. Close enough to none for it to be within the margin of error for none. Zilch. On an IQ test I might even manage to turn in the only negative score they've ever encountered. I'm used to it. I've learned to adapt. I do mean that about IQ - I'm not guessing. The brain has two sides. Mine is completely dark on that side. "Dark matter." Except it's dark but that doesn't matter.Sadly, I find your IQ comment to be rather condescending - I'd wager yours is near-genius.
The other side makes up for it. I get textbook examples daily at work. I work in a sea of High IQ people. Brains put together differently. IQ people see one side of the coin. I see the other. Is one better than the other? Who knows? It's just the way it is. In any event the Brophy and Mallory books are from the IQ side. Mine will by definition be from the other. Hard not to be right? If all you have is grapes you don't make orange juice. Conversely if all you have is oranges you don't make grape juice. Different sides of the brain. I could create a easy test that would be even more accurate than IQ tests to determine who has which side. Easy for me as I'm dark on that other side.
PH has a hobby. I'm it. I'm ok with that. She gets what she needs out of it.And, I suspect PH is probably predjudiced - which is a good thing! Ruminate on the consequences if it were not so. [GRIN]