Excellent comments and insight on CZ bayos! One of the issues which clouds the rework aspect of CZ bayos is determining if items were reworked wartime, postwar or both.
Richard,
It appears that you interpret all of my comments on this subject as opinions while all of your comments are interpreted as facts. Rather inconguous don't you think?
Lets clarify things. Unless we were present to see an item produced and marked there can be no smoking gun in terms of evidence. Therefore, everything we think and say relative to an items authenticity is based upon opinion. These opinions are based upon what we have learned through years of study and collecting the sum of which produces a preponderance of evidence. We must rely upon our experience but must temper opinions with an understanding that not every variation has likely been discovered. Too my knowledge, no period documentation has been found which describes SS marking standards or rework standards. Regardless, if such docs were discovered and authenticated, it would not be evidence that a specific item was period SS marked or reworked. As with many other collectibles of the period, such documentation may only serve as the basis for creating more accurate fakes.
You previously commented to the effect that the deathsheads found on SS marked rifles are the same as those found on SS marked bayonets. If this is accurate then knowledge of the deathshead markings on rifles translates to knowledge of the deathshead markings found on bayos. My comments on the negative aspects of SS bayonets, which I have examined in person or viewed on-line, is based primarily (though not exclusively) upon my dislike of their deathshead markings. The fact is that these markings have IMO not compared favorably to deathsheads found on legitimate SS marked rifles.
You make frequent statements that are focused on the value of SS bayonets vs. other SS collectibles. Strictly opinion. However, these comments suggest that one of the purposes of your collecting and research on this subject is to drive prices. Is this correct? Except to illustrate a motive for fraud - there is no educational purpose in discussing value.
I agree - the MH subject does not belong on the forum. However, the "secret millionaire" collection is extremely relevant to this subject for three reasons. The first reason is because, as the story goes, this collection was allegedly ALL obtained from veterans who had liberated a concentration camp/camps. If this story is accurate, this collection represents an excellent primary source of data on SS weapons with provenance. The second reason is because of the vast quantities of approx. 100 SS marked weapons, which allegedly reside or have resided in this collection. This is significant because it would represent the single largest collection of SS weapons with provenance. The third reason is because I have personally inspected rifles from this collection and consider all of them very poor frauds. I have detailed data and some pictures of other rifles obtained from this collection. I consider these rifles fraudulent too. Suffice it to say, if my evaluation is completely or even partially correct the complete "secret millionaire" story and the credibility of all items in the subject collection folds like a house of cards. Are you suggesting that my evaluations of the subject rifles are 100% incorrect? If so, please provide evidence to support your position. If not, how would you reconcile even one fraud in this all vet obtained SS weapons collection? Moreover, how would fraud identified in this collection impact the authenticity of the "7" SS marked bayos you have obtained from this source? How is this collection and its associated issues not relevant? Please explain.
Scott
