Saw this at a flea market and have not been able to locate a type or manufacture for this knife. There is an "M" within a circle above 1912 on the back of the leather sheath. Is it a reproduction of sorts?

More photos

Date on sheath

This shows how the sheath locks into the knife

Last photo

I guess no one has a clue. It's pretty cool. a 1912 odd ball bolo. It's got to be rare.

Marv

I guess no one has a clue. It's pretty cool. a 1912 odd ball bolo. It's got to be rare.

Marv

Does not appear to be a repro. I'm guessing proto-type and yes, rare. Pony.

Some definite similarities between this knife and these next two:

1890 Springfield bolo fighting knife and entrenching tool

 

1873 entrenching knife

 

Thanks for the information. I thought it was a made up fantasy knife. I'm probably wrong but the condition and the U.S. on the blade didn't look right as if instead of being stamped it looked like it was etched or something. Thanks for everyone's help.

At the very least you have a nice curiosity piece. In truth most of us have pieces in our collections that would correctly fall into this category. Today's curiosity can turn into tomorrows new discovery.

:thumbsup:

OBTW From what I see in the pictures I'm still under the impression that the U.S. is a strike. I'd like to hear others opinions on this.

I find it interesting that the "U.S." is upside down.

 

Bill

I'm not aware of the proper protocol for a U.S. issue knife. But even as late as the 1960's it wasn't at all unusual for commercial knives to be stamped on the pile side in this perspective.

The hole in the guard, and the shape of the handle really throw me off. I like it, but I have not seen one like it before. At this point I would think it is a very cool hand had knife.

US looks stamped. The hole in the guard fits over the stud in the insert, which looks like the insert for the M1910 Springfield made bolo. The M1917 Bolos had this hole so they would work with the earlier inserts and the guard ressembles the guard on the M1917 Bolo.

The width and length strongly suggest a bolo type working knife, not a fighting knife.

Nothing in the books I have, but that doesn't mean anything as this could be a prototype, an experiment, or a workshop knife using existing parts.

Interesting knife, thanks for posting. I think I have seen one of these before - cogs are spinning , but I may have it confused with the infantry boards reports in Gary Cunninghams Bayo pt 11.. The blade appears to be fabricated similar to a USMC bolo knife with a guard attached with US added. The scabbard throat appears to fabricated from 1910 bolo scabbard with hook. I'll remember some day, unfortunately my notes are still mixed about in 50 boxes of ref material...

 

Whats wrong with this picture? lets break this down some ..... leather scabbard with M1910 bolo insert in it.......

Recognize the handle? it is the carrying handle for the 1919A4 Browning machine gun complete with it's metal cap

this was developed much later than 1912...... the 1919A4 didn't exist until.....ummm....1923? ........ the carrying handle

much later...... back to the leather scabbard no U.S. fighting knives or bolo used a long leather section with snap to secure handle

and a M1910 hanger until WWII.... to be honest I think this is either at best a WWII era knife made by a skilled craftsman and dated at some

point by someone less reputable with not so good intentions or a worst it is something completely made up to fool the collector.

KABAR2,

 

There have been several points which, had initially, caused me to wonder "where-this-knife-came-from"; in several regards.

Just on 'initial-face-value': MANY things do not look correct; and you mentioned several...

 

Whatever it REALLY IS, I am somehow finding it most difficult to believe that it is/was, of either: [issue]/experimental/or prototype.

 

And while it IS a "a nice curiosity piece", I do not believe that the "U.S." marking is an ACTUAL 'index-roll-mark'/'strike-stamping'; yet alone while being observed as "upside-down" marked.

It DOES appear as "etched" to me.

 

Interesting piece, none-the-less. Would be really great if it could be "documented", otherwise... If, in fact, a "RARE Prototype", that would be quite interesting; and be great for the owner, and collector/posterity.

 

Really don't like to 'question/downgrade' such a piece; though this one has caused me, more-than 'some-wonder'...

 

Don.

Don, I’d like to hear more on what it is you see in the image that leads you to believe that the U.S. is etched. This is for my own education.

There are three things that I observed that led me to the impression that the marks were struck.

1. On the inside of the U there is a faint mark that looks like it could have been made by the tool bouncing when struck.

2. On the period by the S the edge looks like metal was upset such as the rim of a crater. This raised portion looks like it wore down after the finish was applied.

3. From what I can make out on the letters it appears that the deepest parts of the impression are at the middle of the width of the lines forming the letters. I would think this would be less consistent with an etch.

 

You have a lot more hands on experience with metal than I do. I would like to hear more on why it looks like it is etched. Because I don’t know what I haven’t learned.

 

Thanks.

Don, I’d like to hear more on what it is you see in the image that leads you to believe that the U.S. is etched. This is for my own education.

There are three things that I observed that led me to the impression that the marks were struck.

1. On the inside of the U there is a faint mark that looks like it could have been made by the tool bouncing when struck.

2. On the period by the S the edge looks like metal was upset such as the rim of a crater. This raised portion looks like it wore down after the finish was applied.

3. From what I can make out on the letters it appears that the deepest parts of the impression are at the middle of the width of the lines forming the letters. I would think this would be less consistent with an etch.

 

You have a lot more hands on experience with metal than I do. I would like to hear more on why it looks like it is etched. Because I don’t know what I haven’t learned.

 

Thanks.

I still believe it is one fine experimental knife/bolo. US is struck into the steel blade. Not that unusual for it to be upside down on an experimental piece. I wish I owned it. Pony.

I thought it was a made up fantasy knife.

 

My thoughts are the same. Either that, or a "theater" knife that didn't see much use.

.... to be honest I think this is either at best a WWII era knife made by a skilled craftsman and dated at some

point by someone less reputable with not so good intentions or a worst it is something completely made up to fool the collector.

 

Agree. The "8" on the 1918 on the scabbard looks hand-written.

Does not appear to be a repro.

 

Pony,

 

You are right. A repro(duction) would mean that it's a copy of a real item. There are no "real ones" like this that I'm aware of.

Whatever it REALLY IS, I am somehow finding it most difficult to believe that it is/was, of either: [issue]/experimental/or prototype.

 

Agree. Read the knife and forget the markings made to look "official."

My first thought was how simalar the handle is to ww2 era mexican made fighting knives. Mexican made fake??

............I wish I owned it.

Pony,

I like unusual items, I too wish I owned this knife!! :thumbsup: