SS bayonet genuine?

[Larry C]

Hi Fred,,,,,, looking forward to whatever you can put together as a reference resource Regards Larry

[kirby]

When I saw the title of this thread I expected to see one of those British Fakes from the late. 70's. Real SS bayonets are extremely rare. I think Whittmann only shows one example in his SS dagger book. This one isn't of them.

[Frogprince]

When I saw the title of this thread I expected to see one of those British Fakes from the late. 70's. Real SS bayonets are extremely rare. I think Whittmann only shows one example in his SS dagger book. This one isn't of them.

I was expecting one of the postwar etched combat bayonets myself, but I would like to add the caution that not everything seen in print is fact. And the book itself is certainly a commendable effort, but it’s not (IMO) the “last word” on everything that is in the book. With in various places bad information, and some bad examples/fakes/altered items creeping in, with no doubt some of it from collectors eager to get “their” items into the book which would in effect legitimize them. And from some of those whose advice he sought in preparing the different sections. Which also in some instances worked to his advantage so he could correct some mistakes that he had been making for years which he acknowledged.

With a couple of examples that I think illustrate the point. With the first one being the statement that “401” is the assigned SS code for Mundlos (a known bayonet maker) for an 84/98 service type bayonet frog. And another type of bayonet that some reasonably well versed U.S. collector/writers consciously avoided in using in their own books. Which looked good at arms length in print, but with the specific type of example that I am referring to - closeup can be seen to be remanufactured using a worn/pitted blade. Regards, Fred