Opinions needed on Police Bayonet.

[peterwyndavies]

I would be grateful for opinions on this Police Bayonet. I attach some pics.
Thanks,
Peter.

[peterwyndavies]

Some more pics.

[peterwyndavies]

Another couple of pics.

[peterwyndavies]

A few more pics.

[peterwyndavies]

And more pics.

[peterwyndavies]

Last coupl of pics of dagger.

[peterwyndavies]

The dagger is stamped with a number as shown, but the scabbard is not, which I find suspicious.

[glock26]

don't like it Peter.

compare the detail to my WKC.

cheers, del.

[peterwyndavies]

Hi Del, The detail on yours certainly seems nicer.
Peter.

[Ed Sunday]

Peter, yours is a current post war copy. I have seen a few of these floating around at the shows.

[jwh44]

Hello

Sorry but it is a fake !

Alain

[peterwyndavies]

Thanks Ed and Alain.
Is it just the detail on the hadle or are there other indications ?
Peter.

[Billy G]

Peter,

Ed & Alain are both correct which should come as no surprise.
This piece in itself is a study in how a modern piece can put one over on a collector.

We've seen modern produced Police bayonets marked by WKC for some time, at least 10 years by my recollection but it could be longer. Over that time I've seen some that were a mixture of period & reproduction parts as well as examples that appeared to be complete modern manufacture. I believe this one you posted is of that variety.

The blade marks are not stamped as are originals & are of generally poor quality, especially when looked at close up. The grips look to be stag but sometimes come with even lighter stag or grey wood resembling ersatz stag, in any event they are not period nor original as are the rivets. I would presume the grip adler is also fake.

The crossguard numbers, while attempting to mimic the period style of inventory marking a service bayonet, are incorrectly done & actually a poor attempt. Having a marked bayonet & unmarked scabbard is not, in & of itself, something that indicates a fake. Many of these pieces were mismatched in the period at police stationhouses & many more were mismatched by the vets when acquired. Generally an unmarked crossguard or scabbard fitting would indicate a private purchase piece. I've also seen markings X'ed out or buffed out.

The hilt also appears to be of modern manufacture in terms of the overall detail & quality. Take note of the pommel detailing, especially to the feathers on the bird's head & the oakleaves on the crossguard. Very poorly done when compared to a period original but well done enough to fool the unsuspecting.

Not sure about the scabbard although one thing tha gives me pause is the poorly done slot on the top scabbard fitting's screw. Makes me think the whole scabbard is bad but I have seen a mixture of real &/or fake scabbard shells or fittings.

[peterwyndavies]

Thanks Billy G.
As you say the marking and wording do not look as if stamped, rather more as if engraved. The detailing on the hilt certainly does not stand up to that on Del's.
I bought it in a fair in the pouring rain and did not look closely enough at it, though as you can see, I am no expert on these bayonets. I do not often purchase items without checking them out first, especially if I am not familiar with them. This is, of course, very difficult if you purchase an item at a fair and are dealing with someone for the first time.
Thanks everyone and Billy G for your very comprehensive critique.
Peter.