One of our members recently had an etched bayonet that he was in question on and Wayne pointed out an obvious that I had missed with the casting mark ridge in the crosguard. I have a few questions for Wayne. Of the ones that you've viewed, are they TM'd? Have you found the hilts sold individually? Here's some pics of an early double oval Eick with solid pommel, which is not completely out of norm for original. What you will see in the pics is that some of the plating is gone from the crossguard, and it shows a bit of a copper color underneath, not something you would see from an early Eick. It's marked with a "P" on the crossguard as in the police style, with the 10 1/4 blades, but this one is 9 3/4. This one doesn't make sense to me. Any thoughts? I know George does some of the solid pommel pieces as well, with markings.
Thanks, Steve.

Pic 2

Pic 3

You Can see the casting mark from the side as well.

Steven

I purchased one WKC etched bayonet many years ago After receiving it I found the etch to be totally wrong plus had a very pronounced casting mark. I did get my money back after waiting two months. I have seen 5 or 6 in the last few years with casting marks that were very bad. I have seen a couple that you could see someone had ground down the mark. I just checked my intire collection and found none with a casting mark. On the one you pictured the casting mark doesn't look to go all the way to the grips, but by the picture the mark looks to go to the ball end of the crossguard. I don't know what to think about the bronze color.

Even thou it appears to have a casting mark that is only one red flag.

Thanks Terry.

This particular piece isn't an etched bayonet. Nothing fancy about it. The scabbard looks original, pre '45, but being an early Eick it's a non magnetic hilt. The only thing that sets it aside from being common is the "P" on the crossguard. I know that any such markings can be faked. This piece was bought early on, and since some of Wayne's info in his book,it's still been a bit of a mystery to me.

Always thanks, Steve.

Steven C.

The casting mark in the crosguard is a most common trait of hilts married to blades post - war.

I would believe the blade to be real and the
hilt possibly post-war. This might explane the bronze color under the plating. The bronze color could also be copper. Copper was used during the TR period and plated for use on Eagles ( SA and SS daggers) as well as other
insigna (sp?)

The "P" may stand for Platted for hilt identification notice is is facing the opposite way for an initial or name prefix.

Also, just between us...I'm not in love with the trademark strike.

I Love This Stuff
Von Ryan

Steven

Its hard to make out your TM, but I assume its the one without the CE

Poor strikes seem to be common on the early Eickhorn TMs. The first one pictured is an early 1930's TM notice the bent arms and other differences between the second photo and first photo. The second is probably from the early 1920 to 30's. The third photo w/CE is also from the early 30's. These are just some of the variations found on Eickhorn TM's

Thanks Terry.
My TM looks more like the first pic out of the three of yours. It's always been in the back of my mind that this piece had been re-hilted. It is of the solid pommel variety without the button and lacks the size and weight of the police style unplated models by Eick. Here's a pic of the TM. I need to get one of those digital microscopes that you have, they take great pics.
Steve.