shippingsteel Posted 17 March , 2011 Share Posted 17 March , 2011 I have been looking through some Turkish bayonets recently and have found myself really struggling with identifying the makers marks that appear on them. The vast majority of GW bayonets in Turkish use were supplied to the Ottoman Empire by the Germans alongside various different models of the Mauser rifles. I find the markings on these bayonets extremely interesting and at the same time quite problematic as they are stamped in the native Ottoman-Arabic script of the time. I am hoping for some assistance with the translation of these markings, and perhaps we may be able to create a list of known makers marks here to assist other collectors. I don't believe there was all that many German makers supplying bayonets to the Turks, possibly only a handful of the main makers participated in these contracts. From my own research to date I have found 2 of the more common makers that are fairly well identified, so will list them below. If anyone could please confirm these descriptions are accurate, or add their own corrections, it would be most appreciated. Also the dates stamped on the bottom line need to be translated from the Turkish calendar. Any language experts out there.? Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 17 March , 2011 Author Share Posted 17 March , 2011 So the first one I have is also probably the most common maker mark seen on the Turkish bayonets.I believe this one indicates Weyersberg, Kirschbaum & Cie of Solingen with the date at the bottom.I am now thinking the date marking on this one translates to 1322 AH which equates to about 1906. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 17 March , 2011 Author Share Posted 17 March , 2011 And the next one I have tentatively identified as belonging to Simson & Cie of Suhl, located in Thuringen.And the date marking on this should translate to 1325 AH which hopefully equates to 1909 if I'm not mistaken.You may note that the line appearing just above the date is identical on both the bayonets shown here and above.Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 17 March , 2011 Author Share Posted 17 March , 2011 And here's another that I just dug up, which actually looks to me like a whole lot of scribble - but I guess it must mean something.!This one has also been attributed to the manufacture of Weyersberg, Kirschbaum & Cie of Solingen, but it does look slightly different.I think I'm starting to get the date translation sorted out though. This one must surely be 1309 AH, which is our equivalent to 1893.Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 17 March , 2011 Author Share Posted 17 March , 2011 The start of the next inscription looks to be very similar to the last one shown above and could possibly be just another variation on the same makers name.While they both appear to begin with the same letter, this one has also been suggested as indicating J.P. Sauer & Sohn of Suhl, but any confirmation would be appreciated.I will update these descriptions as further information comes to hand. Once again I believe the date on this one is 1313 AH which should approximate to our 1897.Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TonyE Posted 17 March , 2011 Share Posted 17 March , 2011 I cannot help with the bayonet manufacturers S>S, but your dating is about right. The Turks seem to use 584AD as the date of the prophet's birth (some countries use 582). The date can be plus or minus one year because the Muslim year starts in the middle of the Christian year. Regards TonyE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 17 March , 2011 Share Posted 17 March , 2011 I think that Post 4 is Weyersberg, Kirschbaum & Cie and Post 5 is J.P. Sauer & Sohn, Suhl. The other two are not familiar and may be shortened versions to fit on the blade area available. Further, the shape like a drawn out figure '5' is not an 'S' but is 'fabrikasi', made by, which is why it appears on all stamps, followed by the name of the firm. -SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 17 March , 2011 Author Share Posted 17 March , 2011 Thanks for the replies. Yes I was starting to think I had a problem when I began to find the same 'made by' symbols inscribed on the receivers of Turkish Mausers.!Thanks for setting me straight, SW. With that I think I can now see elements of #2 that also appear in #4, so that would make them both by the same maker, W.K.& C.As you say the narrower blade has required the text to be stamped in three lines, while the broader blade allows for the text to be stamped in an extended format.For an easier comparison I will arrange the two pics side by side, and hopefully that will be the translation for Weyersberg, Kirschbaum & Cie all solved and accounted for.! Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 17 March , 2011 Share Posted 17 March , 2011 This should help you with the dates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rumi_calendar Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 17 March , 2011 Author Share Posted 17 March , 2011 And to mix it up a little, here we have a 'young Turk' sporting some of this military hardware, including not one but two bayonets.Not sure of the date of this, but his rifle is the Mauser M1890 with matching long bayonet attached, also strangely enough known as the M1890.!He is most definitely prepared for action with a 'spare' bayonet in scabbard, and quite an over abundance of ammunition readily available. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michaeldr Posted 17 March , 2011 Share Posted 17 March , 2011 The hat suggests that this photograph may be pre-1913/4 when the bashlik (or Enverié, or 'Enver helmet') was introduced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike_H Posted 18 March , 2011 Share Posted 18 March , 2011 S>S Back in antiquity (1974) Tony Carter identified the mark in your post #4 as Alex Coppel in his "The Bayonet - a history of knife and sword bayonets 1850-1970" John Walter's drawings reproduce the marks very clearly with your post #1 described as Weyersberg & Kirschbaum. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 18 March , 2011 Author Share Posted 18 March , 2011 Back in antiquity (1974) Tony Carter identified the mark in your post #4 as Alex Coppel in his "The Bayonet - a history of knife and sword bayonets 1850-1970" John Walter's drawings reproduce the marks very clearly with your post #1 described as Weyersberg & Kirschbaum. Mike Thanks Mike, I appreciate your input. Just to confirm what your saying, so is that Alex Coppel in the 4th photo down in post #5.? I have just been working on these translations and updating where necessary, and I'd just come across a drawing of Coppel's mark from another reference book. So here's hoping you can confirm the same identification and we can scratch another one off the list.! Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike_H Posted 18 March , 2011 Share Posted 18 March , 2011 S>S No it is not the same, attached is what Carter/Walter illustrates as Coppel Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 18 March , 2011 Share Posted 18 March , 2011 Hi, Mike. I would confirm that your drawing is recorded as Alex Coppel & Cie, but that is not what is shown in Post 4 which is W. K. & Cie. - S.W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 18 March , 2011 Author Share Posted 18 March , 2011 The drawing is similar to what I saw in another book, which was identified as Alexander Coppel & Cie but it is not an exact copy, the style is identical but some letters are different.I will try to locate another photo of an actual marking so we can compare, the differences may just be due to the 'artists impression', either way it seems I am a still a maker short.!I have enlarged the drawing below to allow for better comparisons. It will help to fill the gap until such time I can find a suitable photo of an actual bayonet ricasso marking.Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 19 March , 2011 Share Posted 19 March , 2011 J.P. Sauer & Sohn,(Post 5) Made M.1887 and M.1890 bayonets, not sure about anything later. S.W. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 20 March , 2011 Author Share Posted 20 March , 2011 J.P. Sauer & Sohn,(Post 5) Made M.1887 and M.1890 bayonets, not sure about anything later. S.W. Yes my apologies SW, I did take note of your earlier suggestion regarding JP Sauer & Son for #5, however I have not been able to find another reference anywhere that can confirm this. I understand that they were quite substantial makers of the Mauser rifles, but they are not listed as bayonet manufacturers in any of the German bayonet books I have by Carter and Walter. I am not doubting your information, just that I can't find a cross-reference to confirm it. Perhaps they were involved in the early Mauser contracts with the Turks and made their own bayonets to suit. It does seem a little strange that since that time they have never been recorded as a German bayonet supplier. Maybe they did decide at some point to concentrate solely on their rifle production. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 21 March , 2011 Share Posted 21 March , 2011 Try 'German Bayonets', by Anthony Carter, 1992, Vol. III, Page 300 should answer all your questions. - SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 22 March , 2011 Author Share Posted 22 March , 2011 Yes the drawing is very similar to what I saw in another book, but it is not exactly the same, the curved style is identical but some letters look slightly different. I will try to locate another photo of an actual marking so we can compare, the differences may just be due to the 'artists impression', either way it seems I am a still a maker short.! So I have managed to uncover an actual photo of this other marking, which I now believe could indicate the manufacture by the major supplier C.G. Haenel of Suhl. This image is identical to the one I saw in a book, but is slightly different to the drawing that was posted and enlarged above. So either the drawing is wrong or there is yet another maker. It could very well be the latter. I will arrange them together for the moment to allow for a comparison. Let me know what you think - any thoughts definitely appreciated. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 22 March , 2011 Author Share Posted 22 March , 2011 And to make things even more interesting here is another variation which is very similar yet not identical to the photo in post #5 identified as JP Sauer & Sohn.Newly found inscription is on the left, with the suspected JP Sauer marking shown on the right. Anyone got any ideas ....Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 22 March , 2011 Author Share Posted 22 March , 2011 Yes I was starting to think I had a problem when I began to find the same 'made by' symbols inscribed on the receivers of Turkish Mausers.! This pic illustrates the Ottoman-Arabic scipt that was inscribed on the receivers of the German made Mauser rifles, including the red circled section which is also found on these bayonets. I believe the rest of this writing translates as something like Mauser Arms Factory or Waffenfabrik Mauser Oberndorf. Someone might know what the exact translation of this is.? Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 22 March , 2011 Author Share Posted 22 March , 2011 So I've been very fortunate to garner some input from our friend "Infantry" who is a Turkish expert normally found lurking on the Gallipoli sub-forum. His reply is much appreciated. He has been able to confirm a couple of things, mostly what we do know already unfortunately. He also tells me that Ottoman scripts can be problematic - I'm totally agreed there.! Anyway it is very useful to get a Turkish speakers perspective on what we are dealing with, if only to confirm we are heading slowly in the right direction and not going absolutely bonkers.! Cheers, S>S Hi, The bottom line is easy "fabrika-i" that means "factory of". But the upper lines are problematic. Because they tried to write German names by using Arabic letters (not exact transliteraion letter by letter but pronunciation). The second bayonet is certainly manufactured by "Simon" but I'm not sure for the others. About calculating Rumi calender. There is a rough but easy method. Just multiply Rumi date with 584 to get approximate Georgian date. For example on second bayonet Rumi year of 1325 is written so 1325+584=1909. Regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppertales Posted 25 March , 2011 Share Posted 25 March , 2011 I have a batch of Turk bayonets, to go with the 8 Turk rifles I have. I will try to dig them out this afternoon and see what I have....chris3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bob lembke Posted 25 March , 2011 Share Posted 25 March , 2011 Re: post # 20, the first half of the inscription (going right to left) is quite different, the second (left) half, word or phrase, is the same, allowing for stylistic variation. So if you figure out what what that is, it might be useful. Have another comment, but will have to send and exit to make it. Bob Lembke Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts