could some one tell me what 7JR175 stands for on early german bayonet

[microscope1967]

tHANK YOU

[trajan]

Well, off-hand, it reads like '7th Infantry Regiment weapon 175', but normally there would be a company number between the 'R' and the '175', and so maybe '7.I.R.1.75', and so '7th Infantry Regiment Company 1, weapon 75'? BUT, wasn't '7.I.R'. a Garde regiment? Best to have a photograph and to know what type of bayonet!

[CROONAERT]

If it read '8.J.R.175., it would be simple....8. Westpreußisches Infanterie-Regiment Nr. 175.

However, it obviously doesn't, so going off the German method of putting the type of regiment before the number and looking at how they sometimes unit marked early identity tags, then I'd say it was 7th Company (ie. 2nd Battalion), 175th Infantry Regiment.

That said, I've no idea about bayonet markings so, for all that I know, they used a different format of unit marking on them than they did elsewhere!

Dave.

[SiegeGunner]

I'd agree with Dave ... 7th Company of Infantry Regiment 175. Battalions were numbered in Roman numerals and companies in Arabic numerals.

[microscope1967]

Well, off-hand, it reads like '7th Infantry Regiment weapon 175', but normally there would be a company number between the 'R' and the '175', and so maybe '7.I.R.1.75', and so '7th Infantry Regiment Company 1, weapon 75'? BUT, wasn't '7.I.R'. a Garde regiment? Best to have a photograph and to know what type of bayonet!

thank you for taking the time to tell me this

matt

If it read '8.J.R.175., it would be simple....8. Westpreußisches Infanterie-Regiment Nr. 175.

However, it obviously doesn't, so going off the German method of putting the type of regiment before the number and looking at how they sometimes unit marked early identity tags, then I'd say it was 7th Company (ie. 2nd Battalion), 175th Infantry Regiment.

That said, I've no idea about bayonet markings so, for all that I know, they used a different format of unit marking on them than they did elsewhere!

Dave.

thank you for taking the time to tell me this matt

will take a pic but its the early bayonet the 1898 ? long and thin

[trajan]

If it read '8.J.R.175., it would be simple....8. Westpreußisches Infanterie-Regiment Nr. 175. ...However, it obviously doesn't, so going off the German method of putting the type of regiment before the number and looking at how they sometimes unit marked early identity tags, then I'd say it was 7th Company (ie. 2nd Battalion), 175th Infantry Regiment. ... That said, I've no idea about bayonet markings so, for all that I know, they used a different format of unit marking on them than they did elsewhere!

I'd agree with Dave ... 7th Company of Infantry Regiment 175. Battalions were numbered in Roman numerals and companies in Arabic numerals.

Well, weapon's markings were strictly regulated - which does not mean that there were no unoffcial variations! However, the relevant Prussian document, DVE 185 of 1909, matched by the Bavarian equivalent, is quite specific on order, size, and type of number used in marking weapons (can't speak for ID discs though!):

small 'Arabic' number = unit number; larger letter = unit identifier; large 'Arabic' number = company number; small number = weapon number. E.G. (quoting an example from p.16 of DVE 185 as I write) 1.G.10.104 = 1.Garde-Regiment zu Fuss, 10 Kompagnie, Waffe Nr.104 (note, however, that sometimes (about 5% of cases I have listed to date) a weapons number was not allocated and a company number was not applied to regimental staff weapons) (note also that in weapons markings Roman numerals are used for Armee Korps numbers, not companies)

So by my understanding, this 7.J.R.175 is ostensibly 7.Infanterie-Regiment Waffe Nr. 175, the lack of a company number suggesting a staff weapon... BUT, the 7th regiment was 7.Grenadier-Regiment König Wilhelm I (2. Westpreußisches), in which case the mark should be '7.G.G.175'...

The only other explanation I can think of right now (and without checking pre-DVE 185/1909 marking systems) is that this is marked according to its State regiment number - e.g., the 44.Infanterie-Regiment Graf Dönhoff was also the 7. Ostpreußisches Infanterir-Regiment ...

... will take a pic but its the early bayonet the 1898 ? long and thin

Sounds like a S.98 - with a swelling of the blade before the tip? It will be nice to have a photograph - especially of the mark!

Trajan

[trajan]

1100423230.JPG

tHANK YOU

Aaha! The photograph appeared! Yes, an S.98. And I wonder - is this for 7.Jaeger Rekruten Depot waffe 175? But a Recruiting Depot is usually 'R.D.', although there is an S.98 marked '148.R.R.390', interpreted as '148 Infanterie Regiment Rekruten Depot Waffe 390'.... Jaeger Reserve is a possibility, but in that case the 'R' should be italics...

I confess to being mystified, and will check on my 'big' list (on the home box and incomplete) to see if I can find a match. On the whole, though, my thoughts are that the lack of a company number suggests this is a Recruiting depot weapon - and I have at least two S.98's issued to Jaeger units on my 'small' list here on the office box, so they were certainly issued with these!

Trajan

[shippingsteel]

Jaeger-Bataillon Nr. 7, Rekrutendepot, Waffe Nr. 175

That marking can be dated by model of bayonet to being added post 1902.

Cheers, S>S

[SiegeGunner]

Well, I live and learn. A 'J' that really is a 'J', and I clearly overlooked the fact that the markings on bayonets generally end with a weapon number. Thanks to Julian and S>S.

[trajan]

Jaeger-Bataillon Nr. 7, Rekrutendepot, Waffe Nr. 175

That marking can be dated by model of bayonet to being added post 1902.

Cheers, S>S

Hi SS - yes, well-spotted, and I'll fill out for microscope1967 (is he doesn't know) that what SS commented on was that this particular model is what was officially referred to as a Seitengewehr 98 neuen Musters, with the two-piece grips, although collectors refer to as the S.98 n(eue) A(rte), this model being introduced in late 1902.

However, in my honest opinion this unit-marking has to be after 1909... The Vorschrift or marking regulations in use in 1902 and up to the publication of DVE 185 in 1909 have no entry for 'R' - 'Rekruten', although it does have a 'D' for 'Depot'.

Now, microscope1967, let's know who the maker is and what the spine mark is, the ruler's initial and year on the back of the blade! Not a problem, BTW, if the year mark is before 1909: bayonets were only marked when the went into service use...

Trajan

[trajan]

Well, I live and learn. A 'J' that really is a 'J', and I clearly overlooked the fact that the markings on bayonets generally end with a weapon number. Thanks to Julian and S>S.

Yes, a rarity! Somewhere lost in the detritus that I refer to as my 'on-going work' pile is a note on when the 'J' for 'I' was replaced by a straightforward 'I' - and also when the 'C' for 'K' became a 'K'... I know that it was sometime in the years leading up to 1914 but when?

[CROONAERT]

..That said, I've no idea about bayonet markings so, for all that I know, they used a different format of unit marking on them than they did elsewhere! ...

...and so it proved!

As Mick says in his post, we 'live and learn' (though , in this case, I don't think that I will, as it'll only confuse research into my own personal interest so I'd be better off steering well clear!)

Cheers.

Dave.

[CROONAERT]

...a note on when the 'J' for 'I' was replaced by a straightforward 'I' - and also when the 'C' for 'K' became a 'K'... I know that it was sometime in the years leading up to 1914 but when? ...

To illustrate (in a slightly tongue in cheek way) the potential confusion that I refer to in my last post...

In my case, the 'J for I' was actually the 2nd incarnation. It was originally 'I for I' which later became 'J for I'. At the same time, 'J for J' became 'Jg for J', but ... sometimes remained as 'J' !!!

'C for K' actually never was. It was always 'C for C', but could also be 'C for K' dependant upon which specific unit a soldier was in. Later on, it did become 'C for K' universally, but this then changed, officially, to 'K for K'... even though certain units clung on to the 'C for K' for many years afterwards. Simple enough?

Now.. I bet that that differs somewhat from bayonet markings... which is why I suppose I'd better steer clear!!!

Dave

[Stoppage Drill]

Well, I live and learn. A 'J' that really is a 'J', and I clearly overlooked the fact that the markings on bayonets generally end with a weapon number. Thanks to Julian and S>S.

I have believed that a "J" either handwritten with a short topstroke to the left, or printed/stamped with a topbar (like a "T" ) is "J".

"J" as it is coming out here > J - is "I".

Jf you know what I mean.

[CROONAERT]

I have believed that a "J" either handwritten with a short topstroke to the left, or printed/stamped with a topbar (like a "T" ) is "J".

"J" as it is coming out here > J - is "I".

Jf you know what I mean.

Not necessarily.... all the 'J's with topbars or strokes illustrated below represent the letter 'I' ...

Dave

[Stoppage Drill]

You're right - thanks.

[trajan]

As Mick says in his post, we 'live and learn' (though , in this case, I don't think that I will, as it'll only confuse research into my own personal interest so I'd be better off steering well clear!)

... 'C for K' actually never was. It was always 'C for C', but could also be 'C for K' dependant upon which specific unit a soldier was in. Later on, it did become 'C for K' universally, but this then changed, officially, to 'K for K'... even though certain units clung on to the 'C for K' for many years afterwards. Simple enough?

Now.. I bet that that differs somewhat from bayonet markings... which is why I suppose I'd better steer clear!!!

Yes, we live and sometimes learn... I'll do a double check if I have a 'C' for anything like a 'Compagnie', but I do know of documents, postcards, etc., with C' for Koblenz, and one WW1 S.98/05 maker used C for Coln - "CITO-COLN"

Never looked at ID discs to be honest, but I guess I'd better steer clear now! Were there regulations on these things though?

Julian

[CROONAERT]

Never looked at ID discs to be honest, but I guess I'd better steer clear now! Were there regulations on these things though?

Oh yes...many regulations (with - seemingly - an (almost) annual update) ... regulations that tended to differ dependant on the particular army concerned (Bavarian M-1875s became 'German' M-1878's, 'German' 1878's ended up looking nothing like Bavarian M-1875's, Prusso-Bavarian M-1915's were issued but never universal , yet a 'German' M-1915 was...etc...etc) ! There was an attempt at universal regulation, but these seemed to go out of the window as soon as they hit the relevant quartermasters! It can be a nightmare at times (especially when considering that there were no less than 7 officially adopted patterns during 1914-18 (even though nearly all source books state that there were only 3!)

Dave

[trajan]

Oh yes...many regulations ... It can be a nightmare at times (especially when considering that there were no less than 7 officially adopted patterns during 1914-18 (even though nearly all source books state that there were only 3!)

Good luck! I have only the two sets of regulations to deal with, plus some amendments... Even so, there are some unit marks on bayonets that don't conform to anything in the regulations - but these are few and far between... One of the problem areas I have is that Bavarian marks should start with a 'B' before the unit number but I have a fair few bayonet markings that follow the normal Prussian marking practices yet with Bavarian spine markings...

[microscope1967]

Hi

you guys are obviously experts and thank you .I picked it up at an auction no one bid for it so was a bargain (though im not really into bayonets) w.k and co Solingen and then it says like 09 or 08 its definatly 0 something but need a stronger eye piece..i bought the week before a lovely Liverpool quill bayonet early but swapped it for an mc and pair.i have a young daughter so trying to downsize dangerous items (though keeping my fluted barrel vic) even if I do stub my toe when passing to the bathroom

Thank you for all your advice

Matt

[trajan]

... thank you ....

I think I can speak for most of us in saying that the thanks are equally from us to you, as it gave us a chance for a nice wide-ranging chat on things! And for me in particular a new variety of unit mark I have not recorded before... We all learn as we go along!

For what it is worth, not that I keep records of who made what bayonet when, but the main listing of S.98 maker's marks has no references to any of these bayonets being made for the German army by WK&C in 1908 or 1909... I am wondering now if what you have is one of those made for Peru in 1909 that never got there and went to the German army instead?

Can we have a photograph of the maker's mark?

Trajan

[microscope1967]

i will take a photo tomorrow in day light cos its very tiny