Quarterbore.Net Forums

Carlo · #11 06-19-2009, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...

Hi Rex!
I took a comparison picture of the markings of the auction bayonet and mine.

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 · #12 06-19-2009, 03:09 PM

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 · #13 06-20-2009, 03:41 PM

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 · #14 06-20-2009, 08:58 PM

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

Carlo · #15 06-22-2009, 07:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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

Carlo · #16 06-22-2009, 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg V

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 · #17 06-22-2009, 03:29 PM

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 · #18 06-22-2009, 04:23 PM

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 · #19 06-23-2009, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

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 · #20 06-23-2009, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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...

I just need to find a 92 dated Fastex, so I can also have a correct .... reject