Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 2 of 2 Posts

· Platinum Bullet Member/Moderator
Joined
·
3,008 Posts
Fakes and reproductions--the difference sometimes can only be in the spelling. I have heard the arguments pro and con. It is only for me--my use. But what about when you are gone? If the work is deeply marked as a reproduction, maker's name and a date, then I have no problem. Last year I saw a partial fake No.1 MkVI with crude checkered forestock and WWII wood. The seller didn't want me to see it for obviously reasons and the "hot to trot" buyer didn't want me to horn in (not that I would). While he was gone raising $3000 in cash, I got a look at it. Greed and ignorance has a price.

Should we as responsible collectors encourage this business for the fleecing of the next generation of collectors? My opinion for what little it is worth.
 

· Platinum Bullet Member/Moderator
Joined
·
3,008 Posts
bayonet restoration???

This Enfield bayonet was manufactured and issued with the downswept quillion and it was later removed by an overly ambitious armourer to the requirements that all pattern 1907 blades be dehorned.

This is the finest condition blade I have seen with almost perfect bluing (the flaw is where the quillion was cut off and polished). The blade is so highly polished it photographs looking like it is blued.

I will leave it as is as it is a legitimate evolution of the pattern. To "restore" it will damage the bluing and gain me what? There is only 1250 of them out there. If the restoration looks fake--then the whole blade will become questionable. Of course chome plating will cover all defects.
 
1 - 2 of 2 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top