Originally Posted By: Fred Prinz - FP
Andy,

The piece is an Waffenamt Eagle/607 marked Vz. 24. But you bring up a good point about the export models, with for example wartime Romanian Vz. 24 that is blued over sandblasting. And I have some earlier CZ bayonets for Czechoslovakia that I can look at later to see if I can see some differences.

I’m not claiming to be an expert, but I do know a little about metal finishes and how they are used to control corrosion (rust). And while I am more familiar with U.S. practices, I’ve done some research on period German methods of corrosion control because of my collecting interests. So I’m wondering first if it may be something like a translation problem? (As an example here, one of the things that some English language writers have had problem with over the years is the German use of “browning”, and some other terminology.)

With my second thought being that there were many ways to finish metal. And a sandblasted finish could be coated with oil (just like bluing is oiled) to help it fight rust. But over a bare metal, once the oil or grease is gone it can rust. And what is or was usually done was something to clean or chemically neutralize the surface before the oil/grease was applied. Such as bluing or some kind of phosphate. And for period U.S. arms, over time many have had a oil/grease induced color changes in the protective phosphate layer over steel. With a brown or brownish tint not being uncommon.

And if you could see me know I am hanging my head in shame. I missed it. And you are absolutely right, that is a KM marking and they are scarce. So some faker messed up a legitimate hard to find period artifact to make it an “SS” frog???

Best Regards, FP


FP,

The camera brings out things that you can not see by eye. I brought the other frog to work today with the powder on it. I hope to get some new pictures. Please comment on the particular stamping on the frog. How close is it to the original?

Richard K