Arisaka bayonet frog - genuine?

[Hallibag]

Awhile back, I picked up this Arisaka bayonet frog along with a bunch of other militaria. Now, the other stuff was genuine, but this frog is in such good condition that I have trouble believing it’s original. Nothing on it fluoresces under UV light, which is a little reassuring, but I know there are plenty of reproductions out there and so I’m hoping to get the opinion of those who know about these things. What do you think? Real, or repro?

[Jareth]

My gut feeling is it’s an excellent copy

[Hallibag]

Thanks, Jareth. I’m right on the fence, so appreciate your opinion about this.

[Long Shot]

+1 a copy

[christek]

On a glance of the zoomed in pics I can't see any red flags. Its one I would love to have in hand. Can we be more specific with our concerns gentlemen? I have only owned close to relic Japanese bayonet leather frogs.

[Nick Komiya]

Lack of production control arsenal stamps on a minty item is enough of a giveaway.

[Nick Komiya]

You might have noticed that, in comparison to the example shown at the beginning of the thread, my mint example has a vertical seam in the middle and is devoid of any rivets to hold the leather together. These changes were introduced in February 1917, based on the November 1916 prototype evaluation report shown below. They were encountering problems of cracks in the leather at the center as well as at the belt loops. So as a countermeasure, they increased leather thickness and widened the loops for the belts, eliminated the center seam and added rivets.

Interestingly, my example is dated December 1916, just a couple of months before they started to add riveting.

[Paul G]

The biggest area of concern with this for me is the buckle. It appears to be made using an antiqued brass buckle, instead of a regular brass buckle that has aged over time.

PG-