Too good to be true WT on eBay

[GPlourde]

No where's near a bayonet expert, but I would like to know what the experts think.
http://cgi.ebay.com/MINT-WWII-US-M1-...3%3A1|294%3A50

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[gunbarrel]

I'm no expert (Gary Cunningham is the expert here), but IMHO it's right. Typical rough finish...correct grips. Let's see if Gary comments.

[SKIPH]

I agree with Gunbarrel. Looks legit. Even has the dried cosmoline between the correct grips and guard, also around the catch. WT on the guard. Only problem could be the poorly stamped ord. bomb and date, but WT was not known for the highest quality. SKIP

[jimb16]

Sorry guys, but I disagree. It isn't right. I just finished comparing it to my WT. Mine is very much rougher. The WT lettering is very different. The letters on that one are much more elongated than the letters on mine. The WT on the guard on mine is on the opposite side; covered by the grips. The Ordnance bomb is a bit different too. ( the flames aren't quite right) The curve of the rear of the sharpened edge is different too. There are just too many minor differences for me to call it real. I'm very suspicious.

[SKIPH]

I don,t know I just pulled out my 1943 WT cut-down. Just not sure. Definitely needs to be a hands on inspection. I know sometimes stamps varied year to year. SKIP

[Larry G.]

Guys I'm no expert either but I do have a WT 1942 cut down. The picture of the markings cause doubt to begin with. Important parts missing or partially missing. The date,compared to mine is not close. The 1942 on mine is stamped in a wider ,squared off style.This is different from any other date stamping on any of the bayonets I own of this era. I would pass on it.

[Curt]

If you look at the sellers other auctions he also has a "rare Wilde tool ww2 fighting knife" looks like a cross breed of a 1905 Bayo. It is starting to get a little too far fetched for me.

[gunbarrel]

Hmmm...we need Bayonetman's opinion. I'll change mine if he says that it's bogus. Like SKIP says, on-hands inspection may be needed.

[SKIPH]

I just pulled out my WT 1943 cut-down and a magnifying glass. Compared it to the enlarged photo of the stamping. Cut-back on the blade looked right. But noticed that the ordinance bomb flame on the 1943 flared to the right, photo appears to the left??? Also the "1" has the little serif at the top as this "1". On my 1943 the one is just a straight line no serif. Again mine is a "43", not a "42".Maybe someone else has a WT 1942 for comparison. SKIP

[Larry G.]

Skip, The stampings on the 1942 WT are a different type than the 1943. That's one reason why I have my doubts. The one shown has markings closer to 1943. I still wonder why part of the markings are not there.