One of the other interesting differences between the two jackets is the placement of the union label. As you can see above, the copy has the label placed on a seam that would be visible if the wearer unbuttoned the jacket, whereas the alleged original (and all the other Liili Ann jackets I've seen) have it placed on an internal seam so as to be more hidden. As far as I know, the numbers on these union labels are unhelpful as a tool for identifying both makers and date of manufacture.
Once I determined that the jackets were probably not manufactured by the same company, I then tried to determine if the store whose label was in the jacket ever sold Lilli Ann suits. It's entirely possible that Jovon, the label that copied Lilli Ann designs, also copied other labels, and this Lilli Ann label was added either nefariously or innocently at some point in time. I have to admit that I pretty much came up short on this point. I did find evidence that the store, Mawson DeMany, sold ladies' suits, through these two old listings. But all of the newspaper advertisements showed almost exclusively their fur coats, which was clearly the vast majority of their business.
One interesting bit of information I came across while trying to determine if a store would move or replace a Lilli Ann label is this thread. Essentially, it shows a Lilli Ann jacket with a store label in the inside collar of the jacket, just where mine is.
So. From all this, I'm going to go ahead and conclude that the alleged original Lilli Ann jacket IS probably an original, and the store probably moved the label. Why does this matter? After all, I bought my suit knowing it wasn't a Lilli Ann, so what difference does it make? I think that more information is good, and every piece of it I uncover helps inform my judgment both in terms of buying and selling vintage and just knowing and appreciating history. And there aren't a whole lot of other principles I'm guided by besides appreciating history. Also, I just love suits.