1905 SA bayonet dated 1921, opinions wanted

This should of been posted along with the Owen Sub machine gun bayonet I purchased, wasnt too sure if its a repro, number matches the year etc, but looked too good to me and never seen grips like this (i dont collect these just bought it to go with a rifle) any info or opinion from 1905 experts would be of help.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF3051-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF3052-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF3053-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF3054-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF3056-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF3057-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF3058-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF3059-1.jpg

The blade look good but the grips are repo.

Thanks Jim,

Main problem i had, was not being able to compare it with anything "in the flesh" plus the price was too good to walk away from , they normally demand a high price in the UK.

I think the blade is an arsenal refinish which isn't a crime unless it offends you, but the grips look like something we've seen from China I think. Go ask Carl at BAyonet Collection Presentation or look at bayonet collection presentation for pics. With any luck Carl will catch this thread and chime in.

The timber grips are obviously wrong and I would also be suspicious of the grinding work over the mounting slot in the pommel. I've only got a couple of these and never seen one dated that year to compare, but my gut feeling taking into account the overall finish etc would be that it is most likely a reproduction. I've been known to be wrong before though.! Cheers.

Here is one of mine 1921 M1905 bayonets. Yours looks good except for the grips.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...90151921-A.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...90151921-B.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...90151921-C.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v4...90151921-D.jpg

Thanks Mark1,

Was getting a bit concerned but the number and lettering is identical, plus the finish.

Has the original bayonet got the two rivets through the crossguard.? Can't quite make them out from the photos. They are easily visible on the example Mark1 has provided for comparison.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by shippingsteel

Has the original bayonet got the two rivets through the crossguard.? Can't quite make them out from the photos. They are easily visible on the example Mark1 has provided for comparison.

---

I can just make them out with the naked eye, but cant get a picture. any idea on the grips?

I'm not saying that this is definitely a repro or not - its always very hard just going off the photos. I do know that reproductions are becoming an increasing problem for all collectors, and I think our best form of defence is to compare notes, and even better to compare examples.
The manufacturers are getting better and better all the time, and their markings are becoming very accurate. One thing I've noticed is that some of the minor details are still looking diferent, this mainly relates to differences in the tool markings. Because they are made on different machines with different tools, it makes sense that these markings will be slightly different.
If you compare closely the two ricassos you will notice a difference in the shape of the tool cuts that have been left in the end of the fuller and the end of the true edge. Also the differences in distance between these cuts and the markings and the crossguard. These minor details are some of the things that I go on anyway, other people may have their own opinions on whats valid or not. Cheers.