calibre792x57.y Posted 24 May , 2013 Share Posted 24 May , 2013 Under the title 'Fake Trench Clubs' a member, JoeRookery, posted a picture of a group of Wurttemberg infantrymen, one armed with a trench club, another with a rifle with fixed bayonet. This is correctly identified as a rare Gottscho model. Now whilst not having any particular interest in bayonets I usually acquire anything of interest in the Great War line and here is a recent acquisition. This Gottscho M.1914 is marked on the blade with the usual Gottscho trade mark, plus the initials of the sub-contractor. However what I found of interest were the other markings. The heel of the blade is stamped with what appears to be an Amberg Arsenal viewer's mark, a Crown over a gothic 'L', but without a date. According to Anthony Carter these bayonets were originally rejected by the Arsenal and they were ordered to put them into service by the Ordnance Department and a Crowned 'W' stamp was forwarded to them for this purpose but not seemingly used. The frog which appears to have been on the scabbard forever is marked on the reverse with the IXth Armee Korps clothing depot (Altona) and marked to the 76th Regiment, also a Hamburg unit; not as one might expect to a Bavarian or Wurttemberg unit. The blade has been expertly sharpened. I thought S>S might find this of interest! -SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 24 May , 2013 Share Posted 24 May , 2013 Lovely bayonet SW - Gottschos are very tough to find so you did well to find a nice example like that. Thanks for posting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 25 May , 2013 Share Posted 25 May , 2013 It certainly is an excellent example of a Gottscho bayonet. Probably the best that I've seen. It seems they're still a bit of a mystery regarding who they served with. Due to their rarity or lack of numbers they are seldom seen in photos which doesn't help. Does the Crown L stamp look anything like the issue mark shown below.? Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 25 May , 2013 Author Share Posted 25 May , 2013 It certainly is an excellent example of a Gottscho bayonet. Probably the best that I've seen. It seems they're still a bit of a mystery regarding who they served with. Due to their rarity or lack of numbers they are seldom seen in photos which doesn't help. Does the Crown L stamp look anything like the issue mark shown below.? Cheers, S>S It is more lightly struck on the Gottscho and as I said, lacks the year date beneath but is otherwise identical. There was considerable correspondence from Amberg Arsenal on these bayonets and Carter states that up to 20,000 were supplied to the Bavarian Army plus 7,000 to the Wurttemberg. There are several photos in VOL II of German Bayonets showing these troops carrying Gottschos. What I would like to know is whether the Crowned L cypher is common to all Gottschos or unusual. Carter doesn't mention a cypher in his book. I have had one previously but I cannot find my notes on it after all this time. -SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 25 May , 2013 Share Posted 25 May , 2013 What I would like to know is whether the Crowned L cypher is common to all Gottschos or unusual. Carter doesn't mention a cypher in his book. The Crowned L mark that I posted above is the "issue mark" comprising the cypher of the State concerned together with the date entering service. In this case it is the cypher of Ludwig, the Royal monarch of Bavaria. So if the Gottscho were relatively common to Bavaria then that is no surprise. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 26 May , 2013 Author Share Posted 26 May , 2013 The Crowned L mark that I posted above is the "issue mark" comprising the cypher of the State concerned together with the date entering service. In this case it is the cypher of Ludwig, the Royal monarch of Bavaria. So if the Gottscho were relatively common to Bavaria then that is no surprise. Cheers, S>S True - but we know that they were issued to the Wurttembergers, so, did these have a Crown over W cypher, or did they have none at all? Some one out there must have a specimen in their collection who can tell me what mark their bayonet has- they are not that rare! - SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 26 May , 2013 Share Posted 26 May , 2013 It is said that the Wurttemberg issue mark features a slightly different style of script W in their cypher, rather than the regular W found in the Prussian cypher. I can't help as I'm yet to see what I would call a Wurttemberg cypher. I have seen the drawings but nothing in the flesh (I'm not big into the German bayonets). Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 27 May , 2013 Share Posted 27 May , 2013 Here is some more information on the spine markings on these Gottscho bayonets to compare with. It appears that many are without issue marks. Which goes along with the reports that these were unpopular and only issued in limited numbers to the smaller German states of Bavaria & Wurtt. So the ones with the issue marks would apparently have been accepted into service ... while the ones without may have gone straight into surplus. Linked HERE a nice example on a dealer page with plenty of photos including one of the spine markings, similar to Old-Smithy's pic shown below. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 31 May , 2013 Author Share Posted 31 May , 2013 Thanks for your information - I had a feeling that I had never seen one with the Cypher of Ludwig previously - SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 4 January , 2015 Share Posted 4 January , 2015 ...This Gottscho M.1914 is marked on the blade with the usual Gottscho trade mark, plus the initials of the sub-contractor. However what I found of interest were the other markings. The heel of the blade is stamped with what appears to be an Amberg Arsenal viewer's mark, a Crown over a gothic 'L', but without a date. ... ... The frog which appears to have been on the scabbard forever is marked on the reverse with the IXth Armee Korps clothing depot (Altona) and marked to the 76th Regiment, also a Hamburg unit; not as one might expect to a Bavarian or Wurttemberg unit. ... I stumbled upon this while looking for a suitable place to put up a Gottscho and a couple of S14 markings... It is indeed an excellent piece, SW! If I may be permitted to make a few comments...? 1) Those 'sub-contractor' marks on yours look to be - coincidence!?! - an 'S' and a 'W'. Is that correct? As you will know, there are quite a few different types of single and of combined initial marks found on these and as far as I am aware there is still no agreement as to what these mean, except different sub-contractors marking pieces at different stages of construction - note that the two letters here are separate stamps, and so, much as one would like it to be so, apparently not an abbreviation for 'SAMSONWERK'... What does seem reasonably clear is that the Gottsho (and the Gottscho and Rothgiesser) concern won the contract for making and supplying these bayonets, but contracted the work out... I know that you have Carter, so perhaps a quick look will confirm that! 2) This "Crown over a gothic 'L'"... Any chance of a photograph? In my very limited research I have never come across a Gottscho of this type with a State cypher, so, any chance that this is a inspection, i.e., 'Fraktur' mark? The difference would be, IIRC, that the crown used with the State cypher has a cross above it, as shown in the example posted by SS. That aside - but remember I am working from memory and incomplete notes - I have never come across a State Cypher mark that lacks a year, so, another hint (no more, no less) that this may be a 'Fraktur'... BUT, if so, then it seems to be an odd one, as my incomplete list of these marks indicates that 'G' was the usual 'Fraktur' on a Gottscho like this - see, e.g., the one SS shows from Old Smithy's collection - followed by 'S', 'T', and 'U'. The thing is that IF this is a 'State Cypher, then it would seem to be a pretty remarkable piece, as IIRC, the Gottscho's were commissioned as part of the Intermisseitengewehr programme, and to the best of my knowledge, none of these have 'State Cyphers'. (Of course, I could well be wrong on that - and I am working basically from memory here!). 3) Finally, according to my notes, unit markings for this type of Gottscho are restricted to four units, all of them Ersatz Battalions or Ersatz Regiments or Ersatz Abteilungs, no regular regiments, and none of these units were with the IXth Armee Korps... Absence of evidence is, of course - especially in bayonet studies! - not something to be relied upon, but in this case it does tend to suggest that frog and bayonet do not belong together... Even so, it would be nice to see the back of that frog! TTFN, Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawdoc34 Posted 5 January , 2015 Share Posted 5 January , 2015 That Gottscho is in fantastic shape SW, excellent find, green with envy Think mine has the same spine marking as Carls but aint had time to clean it yet, will dig it out in the morning & see if I can get a decent pic. Aleck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 5 January , 2015 Share Posted 5 January , 2015 Think mine has the same spine marking as Carls but aint had time to clean it yet, will dig it out in the morning & see if I can get a decent pic. Aleck Yes please! From what I have seen of yours it is one of the 'BI' series, with the 'GR' stamp - Gottscho and Rothgiesser. IIRC, it was this type of 'long' Gottscho (not the 'short' S.14 Gottscho) which were commissioned and produced in 1915 and which got so many bad reviews. Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cnock Posted 5 January , 2015 Share Posted 5 January , 2015 nice example! Cnock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 5 January , 2015 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2015 Trajan - bear with me but my camera battery has died of old age, so any photography will have to wait for a while. Morever the mark on the back of the blade has one of the few spots of corrosion sitting right on top of it, under the law of S-d! However it is clear that it has no cross mounted on the crown so it is probably a fraktur stamp. Very lightly struck. Of course it is not possible to say for certain that the frog and scabbard were issued together but they have that comfortable look of having been together for many years, with screws and mouthpiece all matching indents in the leather of the frog and lots of nameless yuck and debris accumulated between. The scabbard sits in the frog with the mouthpiece neatly flush with the top. The back of the scabbard has the oft-seen denting where it has been crushed against the entrenching tool, so it has seen service. SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 5 January , 2015 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2015 Here are the photos requested by Trajan - not very good I'm afraid but best I can produce in the time available. The clothing depot mark is B.A. IX with a star in a box. The oval is the maker's mark but I cannot read it. - SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 5 January , 2015 Author Share Posted 5 January , 2015 More photos - The fraktur mark doesn't look quite the same in this photo, less like an 'L' - but here it is for what it's worth. Trajan - SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 5 January , 2015 Share Posted 5 January , 2015 ... Of course it is not possible to say for certain that the frog and scabbard were issued together but they have that comfortable look of having been together for many years, with screws and mouthpiece all matching indents in the leather of the frog and lots of nameless yuck and debris accumulated between. The scabbard sits in the frog with the mouthpiece neatly flush with the top. The back of the scabbard has the oft-seen denting where it has been crushed against the entrenching tool, so it has seen service. SW More photos - The fraktur mark doesn't look quite the same in this photo, less like an 'L' - but here it is for what it's worth. Trajan - SW Thank you so much for doing this SW! I take your point on the frog - but there again (just to be naughty!), they could have been married at any date after initial issue. I prefer to go by unit-marked examples (bayonets and scabbards) for iD'ing units from bayonets (can't trust photographs as they could be anything hanging around at the time - note all those photographs of guys with rifles and fixed bayonets but a bayonet hanging on their belt!). BUT, I see no reason why something (ownership) might have got changed along the way way after Spring 1914. Now to the second matter - aha! Gott sei Dank! It is a fraktur and it is an 'S', which - according to my notes - is fine but unusual for a second type Gottscho! I take it that the ricasso mark is SW? And it is the single 'G' for Gottscho in the 'Is-it-a-crucible-viewed-from-above-or-a-light-bulb?' enclosure? Many thanks for responding to these queries! It is always useful to get all this data together, and one of the great things about GWF is the way that you and others contribute to research into these things! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 6 January , 2015 Author Share Posted 6 January , 2015 Yep, standard Gottscho marking with S W stamps on the ricasso. Just a coincidence! - SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now