Ray,
I understand your point. We have had long discussions on BOCN about restoration versus reproduction. We all have our opinions on Ordnance being correct. I personally feel cheated if I go to a museum and find displays made of repro objects. That is the real difference between a good museum and a so so museum. A good museum has volunteers or paid staff of historians that are constantly striving to maintain accuracy in their displays. Those are the museums that I respect, because they take pride in their work to represent history as accurately as possible. If museums have limited budgets, they can have fund raising projects etc. Within the government system, any museum can solicit any ordnance items from other museums that have surplus or from the DMRO system that takes possession of items from closed museums, bases, and facilities.
So, those museums that constantly strive to add to the quality and accuracy of their displays add value to their organization, and those museums that fail to pursue accuracy or quality in their displays with a "business as usual" attitude allow their displays to devalue. Real is always more valuable than repro.
Fake was probably not the best word to use, as it implies deception on purpose. Counterfeit, simulated, mock, reproduction, etc. would have probably been better.