The magic accuracy skill found on iLv weapons acts the same as the "fake" skill found on that weapon. Simply put: it is that amount added to each and every of your magic skills.
That being said, like normal +X skill, it is NOT a 1:1 translation when calculating Macc.
And given how needlessly complicated the Macc formula is... And what with the fact that there are multiple tiers to skill translations (eg sometimes 1 skill is 1 Macc, other tiers it's 0.8, and even higher might be 0.9!)... There isn't a real X:1 translation.
However for simple "which is better" quick evaluations... Just multiply the fake skill by 0.9 (cause no matter the tier level you use, that should be about the average Macc increase... Give or take a bit) and then add the hard Macc.
For your example, the 119 has more Macc. ~210 vs Baqil's ~189.
It's not much of a difference, but that's because, as has always been, hard Macc provides higher Macc than derived from skill.
As fun as it is being told something with no evidence, thanks for at least
trying to be constructive, but in future it's advisable to provide data or a link to a place where you obtained your data from to back up your stance, as you posted something which was stating a fact this puts the onus upon yourself to provide data or empirical evidence to support your statement which you have failed to do thus far.
Personally, I prefer Magic Accuracy solely due to the limitations in calculating how skill ~ macc ratio works and whether there is a soft cap on NM's because if there is a cap, and it scales down to 1 skill ~ 0.9 macc then the Macc would win out in either instance.
You have also made a statement about this concept of
Hard Magic Acc, I would like to know where you sourced this information from that Magic Accuracy Skill on weapons is not equal to or as good as Normal Macc provided by Normal Skill. It's a rather ambiguous statement and all your comments seem to rely on "it's always been this way", well testing in 2009 as per the 5 links on BG wiki show this is clearly not the case, you appears to 5 years out of touch.
To clarify my point, I'm not saying that 1 skill ~ 1 Magic Accuracy I am saying that with the evidence and testing available at this time, it is indicative of it being equal and as the site I provided shows all the data, and math used to calculate this, it has not only provided hard empirical testing data, but also allows you to error check the math provided.
I now await your rebuttal and evidence there of in support, until then your argument is moot.