A few 84/98's

[trajan]

... I understand from the grapevine that there are possibly more of these marked to Flak units than to any other type of unit - excepting cavalry, of course. ...

Well, if there are indeed a few around marked to flak units that would be odd, as it is possible that these 84/98's only began to be issued to these flak units in early 1917...

Such might be concluded from a Bavarian document I have just come across, Bav.KM.Nr.3134.A., dated 15 Mar. 1917, which directs that those "Flaktruppenteile und Flakstaebe" attached to Feld-Artillerie-Formationen now be supplied with ''kurzen Seitengewehren und Seitengewehrtaeschen"...

As far as I am aware Bavarian directives usually followed those of Prussia after a reasonable delay, and although this specifies flak units attached to field artillery, and it does not specifically identify the ''kurzen Seitengewehren", this is a bayonet of some kind and presumably the S.84/98, and so I thought this directive worthy of wider attention.

Trajan

[trajan]

Nice one Trajan, your collection is expanding at an astonishing rate! Will be good to see photos. Thanks!

I always smile when i see a JA Henckels shop in town - and nice that they haven't changed their logo since WW1. And so for your delectation...

These are big brother 98/05 (on right, no date mark, shared with Anker Werke) and the new 'little brother' 84/98 (on left, spine marked W/17)

The thinner spidery one on the left is used on the 84/98's consistenly, and I think also today for Henckels? Haven't checked frakturs yet...

[trajan]

... The left crossguard is marked '6.14', but that is not a German-type marking ...

... As for the 6.14 on the cross guard, I believe this to be a GW period German marking (be it an unofficial one). In Carter's Vol III in reference to an EB58 Belgian ersatz marked 5.117 he states “Only one unofficially marked example has been recorded, but it probably only referred to the company and weapon number without identifying the unit.” Noll also lists a couple examples in his book and also identifies them as Komp & Waffe.

Here's the few other examples marked in this manner I've found:

EB3: 1.137 (w/ matching scabbard)

EB35: 1.131.

EB58: 5.117.

98/05 w15: 4.155

84/98n/A w17: 10.166

84/98n/A w17: 3.2

The other factor which makes me think these markings are wartime is that of the examples I’ve come across none have been on bayonets that received any of the post war German mod’s such as bluing or slots on the pommel button and grip screws.

One more to add to the list, spotted at: http://www.bayonetconnection.com/germany-and-german-states-c-71/german-8498-sawback-ws-p-1429.html

This is an undated 84/98 n.A.m.S, by Bontgen & Sabin, with a crossguard marking which isn't entirely clear as one digit seems to have been 'corrected' after the initial stamping, and so I reproduce that web-site's photograph for reference purposes for others to make their mind up on this one!

[trenchtrotter]

Still after one! Not seen one I am happy with yet at right price.

TT

[sawdoc34]

Hello chaps,

anyone know of any reference books that deal with makers marks on imperial german bayonets?

I have stumbled across a 1917 gebr heller marienthal example, nothing special but is is also marked with a strange boot & ball logo on the other ricasso.

Anyone heard of this marking before or which maker logo this is?

Cheers in advance,

Aleck

[trajan]

Boot and ball - yes, I know of it or something similar... I think it is what is normally found used by Bontgen & Sabin, same firm as in the one above at post 28... I'll see if I can find more on this after dinner!

[trajan]

Yes, Bontgen & Sabin, and Williams volume 1 shows this mark on a GEBR.HELLER 84/98 on p. 501, Carter volume II, p. 180 mentions them making 84/98 bayonets with this mark in 1916-1917, but he says nothing about any association with Gebr.Heller.

I did a quick internet check and IMA have sold a 3rd Reich SA dagger with the basic boot and ball emblem mark - see: http://www.ima-usa.com/original-german-wwii-sa-dagger-by-bontgen-sabin-of-solingen.html. (No, of course no connection to the seller - link given for reference purposes only!)

Sounds like you have a nice and uncommon find there marrer!

[msdt]

Hi Aleck,

There is a book called "The sword and bayonet makers of IMPERIAL GERMANY 1871 - 1918", by John Walter published in 1973. It's quite a small book, though it has just passed the id test for your bayonet. It has 2 appendices called Trademark register:'word' marks / Trademark register:typological marks, as well as company index.

Under the typological marks yours is 'leg and football'. However as all the marks are illustrated by the company sections it is easy to scan through. The entry for Bontgen & Sabin says that they don't seem to have been in a position to produce blade blanks, so other marks are often seen, particulary the Bayard mounted knight.

Cheers,

Tony

[trajan]

Aleck, check the tang and pommel area on that one - some of these Gebr.Heller ones have a separate tang and pommel, with brazing joint - see posts 8 and 15 above

EDIT: Tony, yours came in as I was posting this - thanks for that reference: I don't have it but think I have seen it somewhere.

[sawdoc34]

Top man as usual Julian, must check the carters again, sure I got vol2 from you, how the hell did I miss that ?

Will email you pics of the markings & 1st type 84/98 with 2 lots of numbers on the ricasso. Hoping to get the pipebacked dreyse M1860 fusilier bayonet before xmas, bit rough but will make a nice addition to the collection.

Cheers,

Aleck

[msdt]

http://www.abebooks.co.uk/servlet/SearchResults?sts=t&tn=The+sword+and+bayonet+makers+of+IMPERIAL+GERMANY

Perhaps a little pricy for a small book.

Cheers,

tony

[sawdoc34]

Thanks for the info & the link Tony, much appreciated mate, looks an interesting book, might have quick search on the net to see if can get it any cheaper & save funds for more pointy/stabby things

Strange that the book mentions not being in a position to produce blanks & here is an example with their logo + Hellers?

Or is Heller the producer of the blanks & B/Sabin the finisher?

Cheers,

Aleck

[msdt]

Hi Aleck,

Yes, the book sees Bontgen & Sabin as the finisher.

I got my copy of the book at a fair for £10, which seemed more reasonable.

Cheers,

Tony

[trajan]

Top man as usual Julian, must check the carters again, sure I got vol2 from you, how the hell did I miss that ?

Will email you pics of the markings & 1st type 84/98 with 2 lots of numbers on the ricasso. Hoping to get the pipebacked dreyse M1860 fusilier bayonet before xmas, bit rough but will make a nice addition to the collection.

Will have a gander at those markings later - thanks!

... Strange that the book mentions not being in a position to produce blanks & here is an example with their logo + Hellers?

Or is Heller the producer of the blanks & B/Sabin the finisher?

Yes, the book sees Bontgen & Sabin as the finisher.

The theory is that the maker's mark will always be on the reverse and any finisher's mark will be on the obverse. However, I have a W/15 84/98 n.A. with an 'Erfurt' mark on the obverse and nothing on the reverse at all, and I have recently checked another W/15 one for a fellow collector that is exactly the same, which contradicts the theory... But that could simply because it was the practice at Erfurt to stamp the obverse side only!

Julian

[trajan]

Look what Noel Baba brought me! One I have always wanted! An 84/98 sawback removed (S.84/98 S.abg.)! A Gottlieb / Hammersfahr / Solingen Foche marking but undated.

[Khaki]

Congratulations,

Nice how Santa can understand what we need.

khaki

[trajan]

Thanks Khaki, yes Santa certainly gets the messages from the ones who have been good ! In fact there was another very nice pointed thing in the sock as well, but I'll post that one later as otherwise I'll be overwhelming this thread!

Trajan

[trajan]

Imitation (i.e., f*a*k*e) examples of the 84/98 n.A.m.S. are known to exist and so it might be useful to issue a warning about these, a warning prompted by an impulse buy made by a friend here two months ago of something advertised over the internet. Being aware and so duly cautious of GWF rules on this kind of subject I will say no more on this particular one, but suffice to say that apart from any obvious details, including checking the style of the teeth and a count of their number (which do vary maker by maker from the official specifications), the real test for these imitation ones is the weight, something that cannot be checked on via the web.

The thing is that as far as I have been able to establish through my own research (i.e., through using the literature and by handling actual examples), a plain 84/98 without a saw should not weigh much less than about 410 gr., and so an 84/98 a.A.m.S should never weigh less than that: the ones intended to have a saw were made with a thicker and wider flange above the fuller to allow for the removal of metal during the machining of the teeth. As examples, the lightest 84/98 without any teeth known to me is 410 gr. exactly, as is the one I show above with teeth removed (which therefore must have been heavier originally!), while the lightest one I know of with teeth is 413. All the other plain ones I have the weights for range from 420 to 460 with most in the 440-450 range. In the case of the one bought by my Turkish friend, well, apart from some other clues (e.g., teeth cutting too far into the fuller), the weight was the decisive detail: it was a mere 378 gr...

There could, of course, and probably should be exceptions to prove the rule(!), but generally speaking, my advice would be that weight is the thing to go for when checking on these.

Trajan

[sawdoc34]

Julian,

Howway marrer lets see this fake as how the chuff will we know what to look out for ffs

Aleck

[trajan]

Howway marrer lets see this fake as how the chuff will we know what to look out for ffs

Yes, well, I know what you mean - in fact I have scoured the web in English and German for 'published' examples of these f*a*k*e*s but nobody wants to show one and detail also all of the give-away factors in case the f*a*k*e*r*s learn these!!! And to some extent I share that same reluctance, not wanting to go into too much detail or show photographs of this one to point out what it is wrong with it on a visual basis...

Ok, so having said all that, this was really a difficult one to be certain about as the saw was done to a high standard (right number of teeth, etc,) on a W/15 dated 84/98, and not as is usually the case with these, adding a saw to a WW2 version. So, in all honesty, a photograph of the whole thing really won't tell you much, although the newish looking grips and certainly newish grip-screws were what initially set alarms buzzing. There again, there were two details that are worth showing here that did generate more suspicion and which is why I asked for its weight. The first is that the teeth are cut deeply into the fuller, which I have never seen before with an 84/98 m.S., although it is seen on the k.S.98. The second is the high degree of wear on the front teeth as if the bayonet had been repeatedly pushed into the scabbard and/or had been used for cutting soft metal, which is also something I have not seen before and which in this case just had that look of being artificially done. But, all in all, it was quite simply the weight that proved decisive as far as I was concerned: it was 45 gr less than a plain version of an 84/98 n.A. by the same maker. And although individual makers made their 84/98's to slightly different weights, a real m.S should not weigh less than the same maker's plain version.

Hope this helps - and gan canny, man!!!

[shippingsteel]

... lets see this fake as how the chuff will we know what to look out for ffs

Aleck FYI, see HERE http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?414289-two-sawback-bayonets-are-they-worth-of-their-price

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Thank you SS. There was, actually, a reason why I had not put that link there myself.

Trajan

[trajan]

(A pedantic O.F. adds for general information... )

I still haven't found a specific reference yet as to when the S.84/98 n.A. was developed and introduced into service, so replacing what we know as the S.84/98 a.A., and I am working away from home right now and so I can't double check with Carter... I'm reasonably certain though that he doesn't give a precise or near-precise date either, but just in case I don't have a chance to check later on (I am on dinner duty!), I thought I'd pass on in my pedantic old f*rt fashion some relevant information included in a Betreff I have just been reading. The document itself is [bay] Kriegsministerium Nr. 30425, dated 7 April 1915, and it is concerned with the supply of 84/98's to the cavalry. The key part reads: ''Die von jetzt an gelieferten Seitengewehre 84/98 sind mit diesen Schutzblechen versehen'', so these have to be 84/98 n.A., and so they must have been around by then...

Trajan

[trajan]

(A pedantic O.F. adds for general information... )

I still haven't found a specific reference yet as to when the S.84/98 n.A. was developed and introduced into service, so replacing what we know as the S.84/98 a.A., and I am working away from home right now and so I can't double check with Carter... I'm reasonably certain though that he doesn't give a precise or near-precise date either,

(And the same Pedantic OF continues... )

Well, a quick chance to look into Carter and naturally he was aware of the same document ([bay] Kriegsministerium Nr. 30425),- see his p. 177: but he gives a gloss there rather than a synopsis. Moreover, he continues: "Presumably those [s.84/98] already issued [to the cavalry] had flashguards fitted by the armourers". But on my reading of the text this is not so, as it mentions the difficulties of fixing flashguards in the field, and stresses that those examples in the field without a flashguard should be returned when possible in exchange for examples with. OK, I need to double check this reading, but it seems pretty clear to me...That aside, what Carter neglected to mention in connection with this issue are the many other references to cavalry at this time using the S.14 and 'metal-gripped' bayonets. The latter have to be Ersatz of one kind or another, and although he does note elsewhere the use of Ersatz by cavalry, IIRC, he does not mention their use of the S.14. If enough of you out there will bear with this POF, and are interested, then I'll explain more later about what the documents have to say on the use of the S.14 by cavalry - or I can PM the information instead if required...

Trajan

[trajan]

(And the same Pedantic OF continues... ) ... I need to double check this reading, but it seems pretty clear to me...

OK, so here is the document [bay] Kriegsministerium Nr. 30425 with - I hope! - a reasonable translation of this (but this POF will happily accept any corrections, adjustments, etc., by those with better German and translation skills! )

"Klagen der Truppen über Abplatzen der Griffschalen des aufgepflanzten Seitengewehrs infolge des Mündungsfeuers beim Schießen mit dem Karabiner haben mit Genehmigung des Königlich Preußischen Kriegsministeriums zur Einführung eines Schutzbleches geführt, durch dessen Anwendung das Abplatzen der Griffschalen verhindert wird.

Die von jetzt an gelieferten Seitengewehre 84/98 sind mit diesen Schutzblechen versehen.

Da nicht beabsichtigt wird, den bereits mit Seitengewehren 84/98 bewaffneten Kavallerieformationen diese Schutzbleche nachzuliefern, weil das Anbringen im Felde mit erheblichen Schwierigkei ten verknüpft ist, wurde vielmehr vorgeschlagen, die bereits an die Kavallerie verausgabten Seitengewehre 84/98 ohne Schutzblech gegen solche mit Schutzblech umzutauschen und von der Nachlieferung von Schutzblechen Abstand zu nehmen. Diesen Antrag hat das Königlich Preußische Kriegsministerium am 24.3.1915 genehmigt.

Vorstehende Mitteilung gelangte vom K.Preuß.Kriegsministerium unter Nr 2499.3.15 J vom 30.3.1915 anher.

K.Feldzeugmeisterei wolle auf Grund der von K.Preuß. Feldzeugmeisterei lieferbaren Bestände anS.84/98 mit Schutzblechen Erlaßantrag vorlegen (siehe auch.K.M.E. Nr 21747/15).

"The complaints of the troops about the spalling of the grips on a fixed bayonet caused by the muzzle-blast when a carbine is fired have resulted in the approval of the K.Preuß.Kriegsmin. for the fitting of a ‘flashguard’, intended to inhibit the spalling of the grips.

The S.84/98 bayonets to be delivered henceforth are provided with these flashguards.

As there is no intention to deliver these 'flashguards' to cavalry formations already armed with the S.84/98, because their attachment in the field would cause great difficulties, it was instead suggested that those S.84/98 without a 'flashguard' that were issued to the cavalry should be exchanged for those already with a 'flashguard' and that the delivery be done at clear intervals.

This announcement was approved by the K.Preuß.Kriegsmin. with document No. 2499.3.15.J on 24.03.1915

The [bavarian] K.Feldzeugmeisterei will, in accordance with this K.Preuß. Armoury decree regarding the S.84 / 98 submit sufficient stocks of these 'flashguards' (see also No. K.M.E. 21747/15)."

Note, incidentally, that this document talks of 'spalling', rather than grips being 'blown off', as AJC (I think) mentioned. I guess by spalling they could mean charring? Otherwise note also the point that these replacements were to be done - or so it seems - as and when the new ones with flashguards were available, and so yes, the 84/98 n.A. came into service in Spring 1915.

There are other documents relevant to this issue that I simply haven't had time to go through properly - but I'll do when I can.

Trajan