What I wanted to know is if you could see the type of rough finishes on the bayonet. One scabbard has about 95% of the manufacturer and date removed. You can not see that from the pictures that you have. But this same type of buff grind finish is also on the blade and pommel area. Note that the SS Property Stamp is in Excellent Condition and under the finish. The point is, why was such an extensive rework done to these bayonets when the war was in its last stages. Like the old sayng, "Arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic." These were battfield salvaged bayonets. Why do anything to them. The rifle that Walther sent home was dated 1943 and when I looked at it, the gun was reblued and coated with a cosmoline type grease. I do not know if the Germans put the grease on or if Walther did it.
Richard K
Richard,
First, these are consecutively matched pieces, so I would think that all of the operations on them would have been done at the same time. And they would have stayed together in the same storage conditions from 1945 to now. I will see what pictures I have that can illustrate what I was trying to say - but let me see if this works. Phosphoric acid etches the metal, it does not leave a bright glossy appearance.
And while the lighting leaves some uncertainty, to me it looks like rust “speckling” (small rust nodules) over a blued surface. But some of what is strange to me is that one of the bayonets has a lot of “speckling” on the tang where the grips would have covered it, including the non-exposed portion of the flash guard. And especially one of the blades is “speckled” when it should have had a scabbard protecting it. And the scabbards look a little strange as well, but I can only see the upper portions, so no conclusions have been made where they are concerned.
Maybe it’s just the photos, and if I have misperceptions they can be cleared up with new photos just like the RZM frog. But for now, I will have to go with what I can physically see in front of me.
Best Regards, FP
