Postby Mr. B. » Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:46 pm
I agree with, but refrained from using the vulgar word and stand by my "crudely made" statement.
I have collected general bayonets of the world for over 50 years, (over 1000), and specialized in Kalashnikov military bayonets, (over 500), for over 25 years. I have shelves full of reference books and a large collection of pictures and other information. I will be the first to admit that I do not know everything about the subject. I make mistakes, accept corrections and other's opinions. I enjoy the challenge of acquiring new knowledge about my collecting interests and seem to learn something new almost daily.
That being said, a copy is still just that, a copy, and for me, not a collectable. Copies. fakes, replicas, what ever you want to call them. Regardless of who, where, why and how detailed they were made is not important. For me collecting involves original items and not copies.
Yes, someone went through a lot of time and effort to hand make that bayonet and scabbard. Probably using available materials and basic tools. Besides, why make a copy of no particular item when original collectable ones are available and inexpensive. Somehow the word "elegant" referring to this bayonet is no more appropriate than the other word used. Matter of personal taste I assume.
I say "crude" because compared to the real article it isn't even close in dimensions, materials, finish or completeness. You can confirm this from the blade measurements in the above post. For me, it doesn't even look like the real thing, a crude copy, like Frankenstein.
To each, his own when collecting anything. I will be the first to admit I have a few copies, fakes and replicas in my collection. But I am the also the first to admit and declare that, if I am aware of it. Sometimes just because I like them. Others to represent rare, hard to find or afford items. Mike