IMO the marks are proof marks.
Setting aside the question of personal taste and preference in the actual choice of design, I stand by my assessment of the mediocre quality of the engraving itself. The overall design and layout are indeed good but IMO the actual cutting strokes are merely mediocre for the most part and in some places they're downright childish.
I WILL admit that most older Germanic engraving is somewhat crudely executed and so a somewhat mediocre level of expertise has become our expectation in the area of the Germanic style. I'm reminded of some of the absolutely pitiful examples seen on some drillings from the Suhl area; many are exquisitely done but others are only 'guild' quality. Kinda like a lot of the cheaper Spanish shotguns.
Re the use of modern mechanical gravers and magnifiers, I cite the work of Lynton McKenzie and Ken Hurst to name only 2. Yes they use(d) magnifiers but both use(d) only hammer-&-chisel and hand gravers for all work except background matting.
I submit to you that all, repeat ALL, really good engravers will eventually reach the point in their careers when magnification becomes mandatory. So what? I bet the 'Old Masters' used magnifiers too.....
Anyway I like most of the rifle but would change the forearm treatment and the engraving. IMO there's no excuse for such ragged strokes and poor anatomy on a rifle with such a high asking price. JMO.
Regards, Joe
