LANCAY M9 Bayonet with General Cutlary Blood Grove Blade

[Quarterbore]

LANCAY M9 Bayonet with General Cutlary Blood Grove Blade
A very rare variant of the M9 bayonet that is curently on EBAY.
This Knife is FOR SALE!!! Here is a link to the auction (http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=36074&item=2287837191&rd=1&ssPageName=WDVW)

About this knife:

Following is from my M9 Page (http://www.quarterbore.com/knives/m9bayonet.html) that describes this knife:

Lan-Cay received it’s first contract for 30,500 M9 bayonets on 3/31/92 from the U.S. Army with an additional 21,500 bayonets added during the contract. In an effort to quickly supply the Army with new M9 bayonets after Desert Storm, Lan-Cay turned to General Cutlery as a sub-contractor to provide near completed blades for assembly at the Lan-Cay facility. This sub-contract proved to be totally unworkable, and only about 300 General Cutlery made blades were ever passed by the Army inspectors and put into U.S. military service. The remainder of the General Cutlery blades were then demiled and destroyed as required by the Army.

All General Cutlery produced blades are easily identified as they are stamped on the ricasso "M9 / LANCAY / USA" in block letters of equal size. This form of marking was used only on the General Cutlery made blades and will not be used again.

These General Cutlery made M9 bayonets were produced in a very limited number and are extremely rare as most were destroyed before issue. At least 300 examples, possibly more, were delivered to the Army and are now in collections and/or the supply system.

Here is the description from the auction:

Quote:Rare Early first M9 Bayonet made by LANCAY (all large letters) in mint condition. This early LANCAY was the very first bayonet maufactured by LanCay Inc. The blade was made by General Cutlary since LanCay did not have their machinery set up to make blades. This blade has the blood groove (fuller). Very few were made, approximately 300 were sent to the U.S. Military. The remainder were odered destroyed by the US Military. Making it one of the most highly prized U.S. Military Bayonets by collectors. For more information on this very rare bayonet Reference www.quarterbore.com (http://www.quarterbore.com/). The pommel on this bayonet is the correct unmarked early type. The scabbard is the earlier four loop type. The cutter plate has the screw driver on the side instead of the bottom but is of the early unmarked type. The blade has the original factory ground edge, the gray blasted finish, and the normal General Cutlary rough forge marks.

I e-mailed the seller and asked for some better pics especially of the blade markings to go with the website write up and he sent me the following photos:

http://quarterbore.com/images/lancay_general_cutlary_01a.jpg

http://quarterbore.com/images/lancay_general_cutlary_01b.jpg

http://quarterbore.com/images/lancay_general_cutlary_01c.jpg

[Quarterbore]

http://quarterbore.com/images/lancay_general_cutlary_01d.jpg

http://quarterbore.com/images/lancay_general_cutlary_01e.jpg

I want to offer John a HUGE THANK YOU for providing these photos so that I can share them here and the webpage!

[Quarterbore]

Quote:porterkids wrote:
Buyers should be very careful when purchasing GenCut M9s. Many bayonets were put together around 2002 using older blades with newer component parts. Things to look for are unmarked pommel, screw driver at the end, not side, of the cutter plate and a 92 dated Fastex connector.

Quote:Slufstuff wrote:
I agree with Bill, You need to know what you are looking at when you look to buy a General Cutlery bladed M9. Bill gives good points, I will only clarify that the original GI contract Gen. Cutlery blade M9 has NO LanCay markings on the butt. The 2002 put togethers he refers to will have late production Lan-Cay marked butt pieces. The example of put together I examined also had a slight, but noticeably different blade profile compared to the genuine USGI GenCut M9.

[Carlo]

I have a question that I wanted to ask in the past about the General Cutlery LANCAY but I didn't for a simple reason.
I don't want the forum readers to think that I'm goign to re-sell a bayonet that I have, trying to gain a profit from what it is not.
Anyway, I managed to buy, back in 2003, what I beleived was a General Cutlery LANCAY.
I soon discovered that it was part of the lot that was re-assembled in 2002.
1) the pommell was un-marked but in black color, not gray;
2) the Fastex was marked 95;
3) the scabbard was of the second contract.
Few years later, I was able to find few parts from a LanCay first contract:
1) correct un-marked grey pommell;
2) correct first contract scabbard (four loops, sharpening stone, marked LANCAY);
3) correct early wire cutter plate, with screw driver at the end, not side.
There was only a "problem"....the Fastex I found was marked 94-95 (don't remember now), not 92.
Now my questions are:
a) Considering what I wrote before and assuming I would be able to find a correct top web assembly (92 marked), would then still be possibile to say that the bayonet I have came from the 2002 lot?
Just to be clear: I will NOT sell it on ebay saying that it is an original General Cutlery...just wanted to know if I should start looking for a duplicate or not.
b) In the messages above, someone talked about a difference on the blade, between an "original" General Cutlery and the re-assembled 2002 lot.
I would be interested to know if this difference is visible or not;
c) Am I correct saying that the Gen. Cutl. re-assembled LANCAYs, in 2002, used original Gen. Cutlery blades?
Apologize for my english!

[porterkids]

The bayonets that were put together in the 2002 time period used the original blades. Most of the ones I've seen have some type of visible flaw, not bad, but enought to keep them from being accepted by the Army. I believe that blades that had been rejected were salvaged and used to build bayonets to be sold on the commercial market.

If someone were to take one of the General Cutlery blades and assemble a bayonet with the correct component parts it would be exactly the same as the ones that were made at the beginning of the contract. The Fastex connector would have to be dated 92.

[Carlo]

Managed to take some pictures.....

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/1849/img0999db2.jpg

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/4664/img1000yn3.jpg

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/1456/img1001pv4.jpg

http://img245.imageshack.us/img245/1928/img1002rp0.jpg

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/6375/img1003qm1.jpg

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/4448/img1004yw1.jpg

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/7667/img1005dy1.jpg

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/2195/img1006fj1.jpg

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/4808/img1007tz9.jpg

Date code on fastex is 94, so it is clearly not correct, and the overall quality of the blade doesn't seem too good to me, so the bayonet I have was probably rejected as well....

[rexmeyer]

Carlo, I too probably have one of the redone General Cutlery blades.. Mine came with the correct scabbard and the knife was correct, except it had a fastex dated 94 and the screwdriver was on the side. The wording was not well stamped the A in usa is alittle light...With all the spares I have I was able to put the correct straight screwdriver on the bottom and the correct fastex date of 92. Recently I was able to purchase and original which was all correct. I will try to post them side by side if I can borrow my wifes' better digital camera so maybe you can see them together so that you can see the comparison...By the way yours' looks pretty good compared to the one I have. The only reason I bought it was I didn't think I would ever come across another for my collection...

[Carlo]

Carlo, I too probably have one of the redone General Cutlery blades.. Mine came with the correct scabbard and the knife was correct, except it had a fastex dated 94 and the screwdriver was on the side. The wording was not well stamped the A in usa is alittle light...With all the spares I have I was able to put the correct straight screwdriver on the bottom and the correct fastex date of 92. Recently I was able to purchase and original which was all correct. I will try to post them side by side if I can borrow my wifes' better digital camera so maybe you can see them together so that you can see the comparison...By the way yours' looks pretty good compared to the one I have. The only reason I bought it was I didn't think I would ever come across another for my collection...

I would like to thank Bill for the clarification and Rex for his answer.
In the picture of my bayonet the word "A" of USA is also not well stamped...seems we got the same "deal":o :grin: :grin:
I would love to see pictures of yours genuine Gen. Cutlery and compare them to what I have.
I little bit off topic about "taking pictures of our loved M9s".
I use a compact camera (canon) in full auto, but while taking pictures I follow some advices that Ken (the site owner) gave me some time ago, and I'm quite happy with the results:
1) I always take pictures OUTSIDE, when there are coulds and the sky is "grey"-no sun. This way, at around 1 p.m. o' clock, there will be enough light to take good pictures, there will not be shadows on the bayonet, and (most important) the flash will be off.
2) When I want to take a picture of the markings on the blade (or the bayonet pommell) I select the camera's "macro" option: this way what is in the middle of the pictures will always be focused and very detailed.
Follow these two rules and you can't go wrong....

[Carlo]

I was wondering when we were going to see a genuine one for sale
http://cgi.ebay.com/Very-Rare-US-Military-General-Cutlery-LanCay-M9-Bayonet_W0QQitemZ370217435249QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH _DefaultDomain_0?hash=item5632adc071&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A12%7C66%3A2%7C39%3A1%7C72%3A1205%7C 240%3A1318%7C301%3A0%7C293%3A2%7C294%3A50

[rexmeyer]

Carlo if you look closely at the wording on the blade of this you can see the wording is well stamped and none of the letters are faint like you will find on most of the later put together ones that were found at the factory.. Also Bill Porter was right about the blade looking ilregular...

[Carlo]

Carlo if you look closely at the wording on the blade of this you can see the wording is well stamped and none of the letters are faint like you will find on most of the later put together ones that were found at the factory.. Also Bill Porter was right about the blade looking ilregular...
Hi Rex!
I took a comparison picture of the markings of the auction bayonet and mine.
http://img266.imageshack.us/img266/2172/gencutlcomparison.jpg
I honestly don't see all this difference between the two.
Look for example at the letter "M" on "M9", the "L" on "LANCAY" and the "A" on "USA".
The example I have is one of the bayonets "rebuilt" in 2002.
The blade is also irregular on both pictures. Look, for example, at the right bottom corner.

[rexmeyer]

The stampings weren't good on the Y on LANCAY and the A on USA. If I ever get to make a decent picture of my 2 maybe you can see the difference...Looking at the coloring...The suppy chain ones the blades seem a darker gray and the ones put together seen to have a more sliverly finish.

[Greg V]

Does anyone have the ability to post side by side pictures that show the differences between the screws and the blades?

Thans, Greg V

[Greg V]

So, are both Carlo's and the one in the auction legit?

[Carlo]

The stampings weren't good on the Y on LANCAY and the A on USA. If I ever get to make a decent picture of my 2 maybe you can see the difference...Looking at the coloring...The suppy chain ones the blades seem a darker gray and the ones put together seen to have a more sliverly finish.

Yes, the color seems, indeed, to be different...the example I have is brighter.

[Carlo]

So, are both Carlo's and the one in the auction legit?

The example I have is NOT genuine, but was assembled later in 2002-2003.
It came with incorrect scabbard, cutter plate, pommell, and web assembly.
I later replaced these parts, but was not able to find a Fastex dated 1992.
I believe the one from the auction is correct.

[Greg V]

Thanks Carlo. I don't think I will ever be able to afford one, but I like to learn as much as I can anyway.

[rexmeyer]

Well Carlo, mine was a little better... There were 2 things not correct, the fastex dated connector and the cutter..It had the correct scabbard and pommel....Lucky for me I had a correct dated fastex connector and cutter sitting around on a beat up scabbard so I changed them out so now it is in the correct configuration...

[Carlo]

Thanks Carlo. I don't think I will ever be able to afford one, but I like to learn as much as I can anyway.
Hello,
I'm just happy with the model I have, since the blade, although rejected, was made by General Cutlery... don't honestly see the reason to buy one more.
Anyway, what I'm doing is to save the pictures of these current auctions, as they could come handy as a reference in the future.
The collection that had been sold was really complete, with many rare variants you don't happen to see very often.

[Carlo]

Well Carlo, mine was a little better... There were 2 things not correct, the fastex dated connector and the cutter..It had the correct scabbard and pommel....Lucky for me I had a correct dated fastex connector and cutter sitting around on a beat up scabbard so I changed them out so now it is in the correct configuration...
I just need to find a 92 dated Fastex, so I can also have a correct .... reject :grin:

[pwcosol]

My GenCut is pretty much like what everyone else has. Blade is nice but was also a likely reject. There is just a slight swell in the concave grind on the left side about an inch back from the blade tip. Fittings are all correct as is the '92 dated suspension. I believe it was bought on Ebay from seller "czjet" several years ago for $250.00...

[ColinG]

Sir,

When I first saw it, my thought was that it was a General Cutlery. The scabbard is dated '95 and, I believe, the original GenCuts were fitted with a 1992 dated scabbard. Also, seller states the the blade is a "shallow" fuller. I don't believe the GenCuts were shallow fullered - but, the fuller on this blade does not quite look shallow either. The LANCAY lettering sure seem correct though. I waid to see what more advanced collectors think of this. Still a nice one to have GenCut or not.

CG

[Carlo]

Sir,

When I first saw it, my thought was that it was a General Cutlery. The scabbard is dated '95 and, I believe, the original GenCuts were fitted with a 1992 dated scabbard. Also, seller states the the blade is a "shallow" fuller. I don't believe the GenCuts were shallow fullered - but, the fuller on this blade does not quite look shallow either. The LANCAY lettering sure seem correct though. I waid to see what more advanced collectors think of this. Still a nice one to have GenCut or not.

CG
Hello Colin,
I saw that auction too this morning.
There was probably a mistake in the description, as this is a standard fuller.
Yes, as you and Fabrizio pointed out this is probably one the the "rejected" General Cutlery blade.
We have already discussed the topic here and in a different topic I'm not able to find.
Conclusion is: even with a correct marked Fastex (1992) it is usually impossible to tell if the bayonet is 100% genuine, as the blade are the same even in the model that surfaced on the market back in 2003.
You just have to trust the seller.
Should, instead, the blade has minor defects, then there is a high chance it could be not genuine.

[Carlo]

Ok, found the other topic on the General Cutlery I was referring to.
Read from post #8
http://www.quarterbore.net/forums/showthread.php?t=2480&highlight=general+cutlery

[Carlo]

New auction!
http://www.ebay.com/itm/Near-Mint-General-Cutlery-Fuller-Blade-LanCay-M9-Combat-Bayonet-1992-Surplus-/160679276384?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item25693b2f60
Time to change the name of these forums to:
Quarterebaybore.net? :wink:

[pwcosol]

Based on how quickly the one Simpson had sold (and at more than double the starting price on NumberoneGI's), I will be interested to see where this auction goes. Again, I think the "word is out" on many of the scarcer variants (lancay in particular) and collectors are snapping them up. When Bill Porter finally gets his MPBS M9 book out, I expect things to really take off...