guys- I have a cutdown from an '05 (1943 date) but rather than the gray phosphate the finish is a good deal darker, at the ricasso almost black. also the rest of the grip is darker than normal tho some may be just where the finish is turning.
also the backstrap at the grip plate join is stamped UFH023732.
scabb has typical "cutdown" proof marks.
anyone know about these "black-blade" jobs and the marking?
yeah I know too bad about the missing tip...
thanks!
Full Version: "BLACK" UFH 43 '05 CUT-DOWN
pic 2
pic 3
sorry pic 3
darn maybe #3 is golden!
awww forget it... system isnt accepting....
I own a "UFH 1942" M1905 that has a smooth black finish and believe it to be original wartime finish. That granular finish grey phosphate parkerization seen on "cutdowns" is often a sign of a post Korean War refinish prior to being sent as military aid to SE Asia.
Greg
Greg
There was a recent discussion on one of the gun forums that I frequent about the "correct" color of the factory phosphating. (An endless debate over which some gun collectors agonize about!)
The current thinking is that most of the original phosphating actually used was a near black (charcoal color) and "rough" in appearance when new. Although there was some original slight variation in color between various formulars using maganese or zinc, the manufacturer's desired and intended color was black or near black, not gray.
(IIRC from the discussion, both formulars for manganese and zinc parkerizations were patented pre-war by different chemists.)
Most of the variation in color that we see now is the result of handling, cleaning, and various greases and oils that have oxidized while in the finish. The phosphate finish was intentionally porous (at a microscopic level) and was intended to absorb oil and grease. Over the years, the oils and greases have oxidized at various rates creating most of what modern collectors call "greenish" or "grayish" variations in the parkerization. Handling and the mechanical effects of cleaning are what have produced the differences between "rough" and "smooth" (sheen variations) parkerization finishes. Combining the two effects results in the near infinite variations and endless discussion over "green" vs. "gray" park.
This all was the result of examination of mint and near mint examples of rifles, mostly M1 Garands, held in museums, like Springfield.
So, the blacker the finish, the closer to the original, or so the contemporary trend in the debate goes.
I don't know that I buy off on this conclusion as an "absolute," having seen and handled many mint un-issued items (mostly small parts, accessories, etc) which were a medium gray and almost seemed to "glitter" or "sparkle" with microscopic flakes of maganese or zinc phosphate in the un-handled finish. However, I do think that some of the darker finishes that have been dismissed in the past as later arsenal re-parks or later manufacture may be of an earlier origin than thought.
Of course, a "cut-down" M1905 would have been re-parked after the cut down work, but this was probably done during the war. (IIRC, almost all of these modificaitons were wartime.) So, the near black finish is a wartime one, if only a variation there of.
The current thinking is that most of the original phosphating actually used was a near black (charcoal color) and "rough" in appearance when new. Although there was some original slight variation in color between various formulars using maganese or zinc, the manufacturer's desired and intended color was black or near black, not gray.
(IIRC from the discussion, both formulars for manganese and zinc parkerizations were patented pre-war by different chemists.)
Most of the variation in color that we see now is the result of handling, cleaning, and various greases and oils that have oxidized while in the finish. The phosphate finish was intentionally porous (at a microscopic level) and was intended to absorb oil and grease. Over the years, the oils and greases have oxidized at various rates creating most of what modern collectors call "greenish" or "grayish" variations in the parkerization. Handling and the mechanical effects of cleaning are what have produced the differences between "rough" and "smooth" (sheen variations) parkerization finishes. Combining the two effects results in the near infinite variations and endless discussion over "green" vs. "gray" park.
This all was the result of examination of mint and near mint examples of rifles, mostly M1 Garands, held in museums, like Springfield.
So, the blacker the finish, the closer to the original, or so the contemporary trend in the debate goes.
I don't know that I buy off on this conclusion as an "absolute," having seen and handled many mint un-issued items (mostly small parts, accessories, etc) which were a medium gray and almost seemed to "glitter" or "sparkle" with microscopic flakes of maganese or zinc phosphate in the un-handled finish. However, I do think that some of the darker finishes that have been dismissed in the past as later arsenal re-parks or later manufacture may be of an earlier origin than thought.
Of course, a "cut-down" M1905 would have been re-parked after the cut down work, but this was probably done during the war. (IIRC, almost all of these modificaitons were wartime.) So, the near black finish is a wartime one, if only a variation there of.
extremely interesting and valuable, gentlemen! many thanks for the time and attention.
david
david
QUOTE(SGM (ret.) @ Oct 14 2009, 12:13 AM) 
There was a recent discussion on one of the gun forums that I frequent about the "correct" color of the factory phosphating. (An endless debate over which some gun collectors agonize about!)
The current thinking is that most of the original phosphating actually used was a near black (charcoal color) and "rough" in appearance when new. Although there was some original slight variation in color between various formulars using maganese or zinc, the manufacturer's desired and intended color was black or near black, not gray.
(IIRC from the discussion, both formulars for manganese and zinc parkerizations were patented pre-war by different chemists.)
Most of the variation in color that we see now is the result of handling, cleaning, and various greases and oils that have oxidized while in the finish. The phosphate finish was intentionally porous (at a microscopic level) and was intended to absorb oil and grease. Over the years, the oils and greases have oxidized at various rates creating most of what modern collectors call "greenish" or "grayish" variations in the parkerization. Handling and the mechanical effects of cleaning are what have produced the differences between "rough" and "smooth" (sheen variations) parkerization finishes. Combining the two effects results in the near infinite variations and endless discussion over "green" vs. "gray" park.
This all was the result of examination of mint and near mint examples of rifles, mostly M1 Garands, held in museums, like Springfield.
So, the blacker the finish, the closer to the original, or so the contemporary trend in the debate goes.
I don't know that I buy off on this conclusion as an "absolute," having seen and handled many mint un-issued items (mostly small parts, accessories, etc) which were a medium gray and almost seemed to "glitter" or "sparkle" with microscopic flakes of maganese or zinc phosphate in the un-handled finish. However, I do think that some of the darker finishes that have been dismissed in the past as later arsenal re-parks or later manufacture may be of an earlier origin than thought.
Of course, a "cut-down" M1905 would have been re-parked after the cut down work, but this was probably done during the war. (IIRC, almost all of these modificaitons were wartime.) So, the near black finish is a wartime one, if only a variation there of.
The current thinking is that most of the original phosphating actually used was a near black (charcoal color) and "rough" in appearance when new. Although there was some original slight variation in color between various formulars using maganese or zinc, the manufacturer's desired and intended color was black or near black, not gray.
(IIRC from the discussion, both formulars for manganese and zinc parkerizations were patented pre-war by different chemists.)
Most of the variation in color that we see now is the result of handling, cleaning, and various greases and oils that have oxidized while in the finish. The phosphate finish was intentionally porous (at a microscopic level) and was intended to absorb oil and grease. Over the years, the oils and greases have oxidized at various rates creating most of what modern collectors call "greenish" or "grayish" variations in the parkerization. Handling and the mechanical effects of cleaning are what have produced the differences between "rough" and "smooth" (sheen variations) parkerization finishes. Combining the two effects results in the near infinite variations and endless discussion over "green" vs. "gray" park.
This all was the result of examination of mint and near mint examples of rifles, mostly M1 Garands, held in museums, like Springfield.
So, the blacker the finish, the closer to the original, or so the contemporary trend in the debate goes.
I don't know that I buy off on this conclusion as an "absolute," having seen and handled many mint un-issued items (mostly small parts, accessories, etc) which were a medium gray and almost seemed to "glitter" or "sparkle" with microscopic flakes of maganese or zinc phosphate in the un-handled finish. However, I do think that some of the darker finishes that have been dismissed in the past as later arsenal re-parks or later manufacture may be of an earlier origin than thought.
Of course, a "cut-down" M1905 would have been re-parked after the cut down work, but this was probably done during the war. (IIRC, almost all of these modificaitons were wartime.) So, the near black finish is a wartime one, if only a variation there of.
If I am understanding you correctly, the Initial marking of this Bayonet is in the usual place, on the Ricasso. There is a secondary stamping on the grip portion of the metal, seen between the grips, and situated between the tang and the pommel, am I correct? I have seen several of these over the past year in the hands of collectors and reenactors... I believe this to be an alternate marking for who did the contracted cut down work, which was normally marked on the reverse of the ricasso. I have seen both UFH and AFH markings in this grip location. Maybe somoene else can amplify on this....
Wayne
Wayne
QUOTE(mpguy80/08 @ Oct 16 2009, 10:53 PM)
If I am understanding you correctly, the Initial marking of this Bayonet is in the usual place, on the Ricasso. There is a secondary stamping on the grip portion of the metal, seen between the grips, and situated between the tang and the pommel, am I correct? I have seen several of these over the past year in the hands of collectors and reenactors... I believe this to be an alternate marking for who did the contracted cut down work, which was normally marked on the reverse of the ricasso. I have seen both UFH and AFH markings in this grip location. Maybe somoene else can amplify on this....
Wayne
Wayne
Wayne, you are correct in your belief about the marking of the contractors who shortened the blade. For further information, see: http://www.usmilitaryknives.com/bayo_points_2.htm
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.