Fake or Real?

[zzyzzogeton]

Is this a real "rare" variation of the Kabar MK2 stampings or is it a fake?

First, an overall shot



The pommel is thick, peened on, but about 1/8" proud above the pommel, no pins.


And now the "rare" or "suspicious" part, the stampings on the guard::


The overall age "appears" potentially correct, but that can be artificially induced. The proud tang does not seem consistent with Kabar standards, but I could understand things slipping by during a wartime rush. Holding it up side-by-side with my other "real" thick pommel peened tang MK2, only the stampings and the proud tang appear different. I paid less than what I've paid for PVN Kabar and Camillus MK2s, so I'm not worried about the price, just which box should I put it in? The FOR REAL DISPLAY case or the "USER BOX"?

 

[sac troop]

That is one of the correct variations of the guard marking. The guard marked knives are generally considered the last versions of the WW2 made knives. I’m used to seeing these with the thinner ( 1/4&#8221 pommels attached with a cross pin. They were using the thinner pommels on mid production blade marked knives also.
I really don’t know. IMHO, the tang looks a little proud of the end of the pommel to me also. I wonder if this knife might have been repaired at one time? The pommel could have been replaced with a thicker version from a broken example. (?)

 

[zzyzzogeton]

Thanks, Sac troop.

One of the things that made me wonder was that the word KABAR is in a serif font and the USN font is sans serif. I've tried counting the leather washers to see if one or two were missing but my count keeps coming up "in the ball park".

And there does not APPEAR to be any evidence of repair. Could another possibility be that the factory ran out of thin pommels for a day or so, so to keep manufacturing going, they just used some older version thick ones that were still on hand for some reason?

Maybe Toooj will drop by some day and sort this one out.

 

[Toooj]

zzyzzogeton,

I think your knife is okay if not a bit rough in the handle area. The straight line marking on the guard corresponds to the thick, staked pommel. This was a mid to-late-war version. However, I agree with sac troop that there has been some rework on the pommel area. The tang end is way to proud compared to an untouched version. There may have been a fiber or leather washer(s) that rotted off and the pommel was hammered down to tighten the washer stack. The pommel looks like it has a pin outline on the side. Is this the case? If so then something else has taken place and it may be a FrankenKnife. Lastly....During the war just about anything went as there were shortages on all of the parts and all companies did the best that they could in producing product for the war effort. There were four major variations and several minor transitional variations during the war. Now add to the fact that people made repairs during and after the war and that there are scammers intentionally biulding up knives......
Hope this helps.

Best Regards,

Paul Tsujimoto
Sr Eng
Prod Dev and Qual
KA-BAR Knives

 

[zzyzzogeton]

Looking at the pommel under a magnifying glass, there is NOT a pin in the pommel. That's a scratch.

I also looked at the guard end of the leather washers with the 'glass and realized that on one side, half the bottom washer is missing. That may explain why I would get a different count sometimes when I would try to count the washers.

If I wiggle things a bit I can see where half of the bottom washer is missing and there might be room to fit a "whole nother" squished washer in the gap. The guard does have a little play because of it. I originally attributed the play to "shrunken washer syndrome".

Would there have been any type of black plastic spacer above the guard on this version? If so,it's gone - maybe that's what fell out - if it was supposed to have one. Also in looking with the 'glass' I think the washer nearest the pommel may be trying to give up the ghost. Have to see about that too.

Thanks.

ZZZ