trajan Posted 17 July , 2015 Share Posted 17 July , 2015 I posted these two in: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=229832, post no.9, , the upper one being a WAFFENFABRIK MAUSER W/17 m.S., the one below being a bit of a mystery to me... Apart from the narrower blade (late war change?), and the screw bolts being the wrong way round, indicating re-fitted grips (I have had these off, but left the bolts as were rather than risk splitting the grips), the first mystery is the lack of a ruler cypher OR fraktur mark on the spine... True, there are examples with fraktur marks only, but to lack both is a bit odd - and, BTW, no sign they were ever there... There is, however, a single fraktur mark on the pommel, so it was properly inspected! The bigger puzzle in many ways is the lack of a maker mark. Yes, this is again not unknown, but in this case the maker mark was there and has been scrubbed off... All that is left is the right end of a name and it looks like a Greek letter 'PI', which can only be the rest of the final 'H' as there is no indication of a curve at top or bottom (and so not an 'R'). In which case I assume it was an L.C.DIETRICH / ALTENBURG mark (example of this reproduced here for reference from Williams vol. 2). However, the width of the assumed 'H' doesn't match the Williams example... That aside, if a Dietrich, that would fit with the lack of a spine mark (Carter vol. 1, 69), and as Dietrich were 'blade makers', then the mark in this case being on the right-hand side would be appropriate also. All that apart, there is a 'serial' number, 272, on the left crossguard, facing down... Any comments / alternative suggestions / etc., welcome! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 17 July , 2015 Author Share Posted 17 July , 2015 Reviewing this I realised that I should have also added that is has a narrow crossguard, another late war feature... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 3 February , 2016 Author Share Posted 3 February , 2016 Well, I have now come by a plain (no sawback) obverse-marked L.O.DIETRICH/ALTENBURG, reverse marked GEBR.HARTKOPF/SOLINGEN 98/05 n.A, no cypher, just a fraktur, and a comparison of the letter H on this with the marks on my mystery one show them to be quite different... So, it aint' a Dietrich - but who is it? The Dietrich ones are, incidentally, "quite rare" according to Carter, p. 69, who gives dates for their production in 1915 and 1916. This one has what looks to be a regular width crossguard but as with many later examples of the 98/05, the blade is narrower at the butcher part than with the earlier 98/05's. Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 3 February , 2016 Share Posted 3 February , 2016 Hi Julian,My suggestion, without having had time to consider in detail, is that the lower bayonet of the two in #1 is an S98/05 made using a spare ersatz blade from an EB42. This might explain the lack of manufacturer's marking and cypher and the configuration of the blade. I suppose it is possible that when the manufacture of ersatz bayonets ended any spare, useable blades might have be used? Anyway, have a look at Carter Vol.3 page 103 onwards. By the way, I think the photos of the EB42 and 42a on page 107 should be the other way round? Regards, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 6 February , 2016 Author Share Posted 6 February , 2016 ... My suggestion, without having had time to consider in detail, is that the lower bayonet of the two in #1 is an S98/05 made using a spare ersatz blade from an EB42. ... Anyway, have a look at Carter Vol.3 page 103 onwards. By the way, I think the photos of the EB42 and 42a on page 107 should be the other way round? That was an intriguing suggestion and so I had a check today. The ricasso and blade spine on this mystery one have been well scrubbed to the extent that I honestly don't know if that remnant 'letter' is a letter or not. I certainly can't fit it with any of the makers I have examples of, or that Carter or Williams show. The pommel fraktur looks to be an 'R', but I would not swear to it. OK, although the maximum blade width at 28 mm is close to the EB 43 and 44, and the length at 36 closely corresponds also, my gut feeling is still 'No', because of the pommel mark. However, you have raised an interesting matter there. German documents make it clear that the production of EB's was being gradually phased out from August 1915, so what about all these spare blades (which I personally suspect were made by the Solingen cottage industry) that may have been around? So, indeed, a thought to dwell on - thank you! Yes, I think you are right on Carter vol.III p.107: illustrations/captions transposed. I have just the one example from that EB41-46 series, an EB 45, and so I had never checked the text and captions for the others... Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 6 February , 2016 Share Posted 6 February , 2016 Julian, Oh well, it was only a suggestion. Thinking about it I am probably wrong as I can't really see how the hilt of an S98/05 would be attached to a blade from an EB42. Having said that, if EB42 blades were supplied to a manufacturer of the S98/05 the completed S98/05 would be the subject of the normal inspection system? Anyway, below are a few photos of a recent acquisition to add to your records - an S98/05aA by J. Corts. See page 68 Carter Vol. I and page 234 in Vol.II. Regards, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 10 February , 2016 Author Share Posted 10 February , 2016 Julian, Oh well, it was only a suggestion. Thinking about it I am probably wrong as I can't really see how the hilt of an S98/05 would be attached to a blade from an EB42. Having said that, if EB42 blades were supplied to a manufacturer of the S98/05 the completed S98/05 would be the subject of the normal inspection system? Anyway, below are a few photos of a recent acquisition to add to your records - an S98/05aA by J. Corts. See page 68 Carter Vol. I and page 234 in Vol.II. An interesting suggestion nonetheless! The documentation on these ersatz jobs indicates that set numbers were being ordered from different medium-sized contractors and that they in turn (well, certainly some!) sub-contracted their share out to even smaller firms. The War Ministry's plan was to slow down their production as from August 1915 and cease it entirely by the end of that year - and as we know from the IS 14 business, they were not averse to cancelling contracts when necessary. So, yes, I guess all blades that were made went into bayonets of the designated type. That's a very nice J.Corts one there! Congratuslations! Julian 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