A few 84/98's

[Andrew Upton]

... this document talks of 'spalling', rather than grips being 'blown off', as AJC (I think) mentioned. I guess by spalling they could mean charring?

Spalling can be defined as to "break off in fragments", which would fit better the idea of being blown-off rather than charred.

[trajan]

Thanks Andrew - I appreciate that. I guess much would depend on the quality of the grips as to whether they blew off in chunks or not ? The only 84/98 a.A. I have, though, has pretty solid looking walnut-type grips, with no obvious grain showing.

[calibre792x57.y]

Yep, spalling is what happens to the inside of armour when it is struck by a squash head projectile, generally not survivable! - SW

[trajan]

I was thinking of spalling along the lines of chips coming off things... Hmmm...

[trajan]

Well, finally a chance to show and share with you the other present from Santa, my first 84/98 a.A. Not in the best of conditions, as it has been resharpened, but as the first of its type in my collection I can't and won't complain.

This is a WK&C one, and it began life as a W/87 S.71/84 a.A. (with fraktur mark 'V'), and so it would have been in the first batch ever produced. According to Carter, after the introduction of the Gew.98 and S.98 the now 'spare' S.71/84 were converted between 1900-1909 at a cost of M 2.70 each to become initially the abgeänderten Seitengewehr 71/84, although later designated as the S.84/98. These were initially re-issued to Radfahrer and Reserve- and Landwehrtruppen; then by 1914 to Jäger and Schützen units. From documentary evidence it seems likely that some were issued to cavalry units in late winter 1915 before production of the S.84/98 n.A. got underway.

The first two digits of the bayonet's unit marking is a little unclear but it can be read '10.R.7.125', and so Grenadier-Regiment König Friedrich Wilhelm II (1. Schlesisches) Nr.10, and a peer to a W/87 one that Carter recorded marked '10.R.8.64'.

The scabbard marking is '55.R.E.2.195', thus the Ersatz bataillon of the Infanterie-Regiment Graf Bülow von Dennewitz (6. Westfälisches) Nr. 55.

Trajan

[msdt]

Hi Trajan,

Like your scabbard. Here is my only example of the genre. Reserve Infantry Regiment 177??? Is the crown on the underside of the ricasso usual? How about the marks on the tang, do they (or one of them) refer to the conversion?

The scabbard is an 1886 Austrian pattern, though cannot see any marks other than 48 stamped on the frog stud. It fits perfectly - after one side of the throat has been slightly flattened (not by me)!

Cheers,

Tony

[trajan]

Tony, that is a nice looking specimen!

Pity about the unit marking but according to Carter's records, Coppel did not make that many in 1887 - 1888 are more common. But yes FWI worth I agree on this being a 'R.R.' one - Carter reports a couple of examples in which the 'R' for reserve is not 'script', and it seems from his lists that 'R.R.' marked ones did not always have a company number, just the Waffe number, as with yours.

Funny it should be in an 1886 Austrian pattern, scabbard - In my early days I once bought one of those bayonets thinking from the grips that it might be an early Imperial bayonet!

Thanks for pointing out those extra marks! I honestly had not noticed that mine has a crown on the back of the blade spine like yours - but many things are missed when the boys are running around in a shared 'study' room and bayonets are out for short periods of time... Your spine fraktur looks to be a 'G', but the tang one looks to be an 'M'. Above that is what seems to be a 'RC' mark? I just checked your tang mark with mine - thanks for your diligence here! - and mine is not very clear but certainly just a fraktur mark and one that is not the same as on the blade spine.

Julian

EDIT: Clarify fraktur marking on the tang of my example

[msdt]

Hi Julian,

I think the first R is script, so is this reserve infantry regiment or the recruiting depot? I have gone through Noll but can't see the exact mark R.R.177, if that is what it is and there's nothing missing in front of the R. There are quite a few J.R.xx for example, where he gives xx as the regiment number. Also there are 3 examples of 1911 Lugers marked 177.R only.

Cheers,

Tony

[trajan]

... I think the first R is script, so is this reserve infantry regiment or the recruiting depot? I have gone through Noll but can't see the exact mark R.R.177, if that is what it is and there's nothing missing in front of the R. There are quite a few J.R.xx for example, where he gives xx as the regiment number. Also there are 3 examples of 1911 Lugers marked 177.R only.

I can't make a proper check right now as my copies of the actual marking regulations are in my office, but the meaning will depend on when the marking was applied! E.g., from my notes at home, then if this is a script 'R', it will be for 'Reserve', according to the 1877 regulations, but 'Rekruten' according to the 1897 ones... And I think there are other possibilities with a R.R. sequence, e.g., 'Rekruten' depot of a Reserve regiment(!)- but let's stay with the simpler ones! Given the lack of a company number, then it could be 'Rekruten' Depot, I suppose, but as this is a W/87, I tend towards Reserve... I'll try and check over the weekend or on Tuesday when next in the university (it's winter vacation time here!).

Julian

Julian

[trajan]

Should have added... Important to remember that there were not that many revolver's or pistols assigned to a regiment, which is why one of those could easily just have a regimental number.

I had a quick look at what markings I have on my very incomplete list of unit markings on my notebook computer, these being taken from Noll and others, and I see that Noll has - just to give one example - on p.107:

23.R [not script].R.55 = 23 Inf.Reg.Rekr.Dep.Waffe 55; Gew.71/84; issued 1887

But, if my notes are correct, then a weapon stamped with this type of unit mark before the issue of the 1897 regulations would be marked according to the 1877 ones, or any supplements between then and 1897, and so this should be 'Reserve', not 'Rekruten'...

I am presently working in the national library and no relevant literature to hand. However, I think that I may have the German book on Waffenstempel at home - I thought it was in my office but had no time to check where it was this morning. If it is at home then I'll see what that says.

Julian

[msdt]

Hi Julian,

Thanks for the input so far. As this is an 84/98 a.A then the marking could have been applied when it was issued as such - i.e. some time after 1900 according to what you say above about when these bayonets were converted.

Cheers,

Tony

[trajan]

Good point (ouch!). I honestly can't remember if they replaced the crossguard when they did the alteration from the 71/84 of if they just cut it down. If you have Carter vol 2 to hand, then you can check there - I do recall he shows the blueprint for the adaptation. If you don't have Carter I'll do the checking when I get home.

Julian

[trajan]

... I honestly can't remember if they replaced the crossguard when they did the alteration from the 71/84 of if they just cut it down. ...

Tony,

OK, Carter, vol 2, p. 34-36: p.34 text ("The Conversion"), 35-36 copies of the blueprints.

Quote p.34:

"The original crossguard with its muzzle ring removed was held against the blade by two short steel rivets. ... The manufacturer's mark, the date, royal cypher and in many cases the unit marking were not removed during the conversion so these markings usually refer to the bayonet's issue as a S 71/84".

So, in Carter's opinion, these ones on yours are the original markings applied when the bayonet was issued! But this was Carter's opinion... I suspect it is not as simple as that - weapons were marked ONLY when issued into service with service units (well that is IF regulations were adhered to!), and this was not necessarily soon after they were made, it could be anytime, and there were lots of these around in the stores in 1898 - and so still the main problem is: reserve or recruiting depot - or other? Whatever, I'll try and check on the permutations of those 'R.R.' markings tomorrow.

Julian

[motojosh]

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

Hi Julian,

I'm still leaning towards that example being authentic. Keep in mind when comparing weights that the example in question is one of the early ones which never had a flash guard fitted. My non saw 84/98n.A. range from 395 to 423 grams and a flash guard by itself weighed in at 22 grams. Side by side next to another w15 Erfurt 84/98 m.S. without flash guard shown in Williams:

Well, finally a chance to show and share with you the other present from Santa, my first 84/98 a.A. Not in the best of conditions, as it has been resharpened, but as the first of its type in my collection I can't and won't complain.

84 98 a A 01.jpg 84 98 a A 02A.jpg

This is a WK&C one, and it began life as a W/87 S.71/84 a.A. (with fraktur mark 'V'), and so it would have been in the first batch ever produced. According to Carter, after the introduction of the Gew.98 and S.98 the now 'spare' S.71/84 were converted between 1900-1909 at a cost of M 2.70 each to become initially the abgeänderten Seitengewehr 71/84, although later designated as the S.84/98. These were initially re-issued to Radfahrer and Reserve- and Landwehrtruppen; then by 1914 to Jäger and Schützen units. From documentary evidence it seems likely that some were issued to cavalry units in late winter 1915 before production of the S.84/98 n.A. got underway.

The first two digits of the bayonet's unit marking is a little unclear but it can be read '10.R.7.125', and so Grenadier-Regiment König Friedrich Wilhelm II (1. Schlesisches) Nr.10, and a peer to a W/87 one that Carter recorded marked '10.R.8.64'.

The scabbard marking is '55.R.E.2.195', thus the Ersatz bataillon of the Infanterie-Regiment Graf Bülow von Dennewitz (6. Westfälisches) Nr. 55.

Trajan

Nice find! I've got a w87 also by WKC, but unfortunately the first digit of the unit marking on mine has worn off. It's got an unusual unit marking on the scabbard though, any ideas?

[trajan]

I'm still leaning towards that example being authentic. Keep in mind when comparing weights that the example in question is one of the early ones which never had a flash guard fitted. My non saw 84/98n.A. range from 395 to 423 grams and a flash guard by itself weighed in at 22 grams. Side by side next to another w15 Erfurt 84/98 m.S. without flash guard shown in Williams:

...

Nice find! I've got a w87 also by WKC, but unfortunately the first digit of the unit marking on mine has worn off. It's got an unusual unit marking on the scabbard though, any ideas?

You make a valid point about the weights with and without flashguard, and some sawbacks accepted by those who should know are certainly 'light' compared with what might be expected - I think the Sommerada ones are like that... Anyway, to be quite honest I was in two minds about that one for quite a while, the whole week that I had it to look it - and matters became worse for me when it turned out that it was on offer for a reasonable price for any 84/98 sawback, never mind it being possibly one of the first to be made. But there was just something about it that didn't feel quite right, and so I made a 51/49 decision, and made it clear to the owner that it was just my gut feeling...and I still wonder if I made the right call!

That marking is an odd one - I'll try and investigate further when I get home.

Julian

[trajan]

... It's got an unusual unit marking on the scabbard though, any ideas? ...

... That marking is an odd one - I'll try and investigate further when I get home.

Odd one, but I am still thinking of this and perhaps 'I' = Inspektion or Inspekteur of R Reserve or just Regiments? With 'Col' for 'Coln' = Cologne? There were Inspektion departments of Kraftfahrwagen IIRC... I'll check tomorrow with the 1909 regulations...

[trajan]

I think the first R is script, so is this reserve infantry regiment or the recruiting depot? I have gone through Noll but can't see the exact mark R.R.177, if that is what it is and there's nothing missing in front of the R. There are quite a few J.R.xx for example, where he gives xx as the regiment number. Also there are 3 examples of 1911 Lugers marked 177.R only.

Tony,

Hope you are sitting comfortably?

As far as I am aware there were five Vorschriften issued in Prussia between 1877 and 1909 concerning the stamping of ‘Hand-Waffen”: 1877; 1890; 1897; 1900; and 1909. I don’t have access to copies of all of these but for a 71/84 made in 1887, and the markings being applied soon after, then the 1890 regulations are the first thing to look at – and of course it is one I don’t have… I only have 1887, 1897 and 1909...

However, I do have a copy of Wacker and Görtz, Handbuch Deutscher Waffenstempel, and in their listing of dated examples of weapons markings they give only a single example of one anything like yours from those 1890 regulations - that is to say: no preceding number, script R.R., single number. They show ‘R.R.B.2’ = ‘Reserve-Infanterie-Regiment Berlin (Stab) Waffe Nr. 2.’ If we assume that you are missing a number in front of the ‘R.R. number’ sequence, however, then they do give other examples from the 1890 regulations, e.g., ‘6.R.R.2’ = ‘6 Reserve-Infanterie-Regiment Waffe Nr. 2.’ The lack of a double-number sequence at the end is what makes this likely to be a 'Staff' weapon, as is made clear in the 1877 and the 1909 regulations - well, my understanding of these!

However, If that first 'R' is a regular one, and NOT a script ‘R’, then according to the 1890 and later regulations this would be ‘Rekruten [Depot]’. BUT, there should be a number in front of the ‘RR’ sequence to indicate the regiment...

So, I leave it to you to take your pick on the grounds of "Alles klar - nicht wahr?" - or do you also have a headache now???!!!

Julian

EDIT: Should add that there was another 'Vorschrift' on this subject issued in 1913, but this was concerned with the marking of Gew. and Kar. 98 and their respective bayonets only, and has no 'RR' sequence of any kind.

[trajan]

... It's got an unusual unit marking on the scabbard though, any ideas? ...

OK, the only marking I can find using a script ‘I’ is shown in the 1877, 1897 and the 1909 regulations for ‘Inspektion’. These were departments that did as their name suggests - they inspected units! The regular ‘R’ is almost always only used for Regiment, but is used for ‘Rekrutendepot' in the 1890, 1897 and 1909 regulations - but always with another letter behind it, such as 'R' for Regument', etc..

The 1877 regulations also have a single letter ‘C’ being used at the end of a normal stamping sequence to identify a weapon that 'belonged' to the artillery depot and the Pioneer HQ at Coblenz, so perhaps this is an ad-hoc marking for a Regiment Inspection unit based at Cöln = Cologne? In fact, is that ‘Col’ really a worn COE = which is Cöln in the 1877 regulations???!!!

Julian

[msdt]

Hi Julian,

Thanks a lot for your research. I have just another look with the magnifying glass. I still think it is a script R because I think I can see the curved top of the R and the punch form seems different to the other R. My reasons for thinking that there was no number at the beginning were the position of the script R and that there was no sign of a dot which has been well thumped for the others. Not conclusive I agree.

Carter states that markings on these were left on during the conversion, which would seem an odd decision.

After penning the above I've had another thought. If the crosspieces are the originals, then in order to get the shape right some metal WOULD need removing from the top outside faces of the crosspiece, which would account for the 'worn' R and possibly missing first number. In fact there is a clear fraktur stamp on the lower front face of the crosspiece. Is this the same letter as on the blade spine? It's a different stamp. The worn one on the pommel seems to be the same stamp as the blade spine.

Cheers,

Tony

[trajan]

... Carter states that markings on these were left on during the conversion, which would seem an odd decision.

After penning the above I've had another thought. If the crosspieces are the originals, then in order to get the shape right some metal WOULD need removing from the top outside faces of the crosspiece, which would account for the 'worn' R and possibly missing first number. In fact there is a clear fraktur stamp on the lower front face of the crosspiece. Is this the same letter as on the blade spine? It's a different stamp. The worn one on the pommel seems to be the same stamp as the blade spine.

Yes, well, Carter was stating his opinion, and so he could be wrong on that! I don't have a 71/84 (rarer than hen's teeth in this part of the world), but it would be good to do an eye-to-eye and calipers check of the crossguard and its dimensions on one of these with that on a 84/98 a.A.

I see what you mean about the frakturs. Certainly the crown on your crossguard looks more like a Bavarian one than a Prussian one, but they do seem to be the same letters. I'll check later and also with mine.

Julian

[trajan]

... In fact there is a clear fraktur stamp on the lower front face of the crosspiece. Is this the same letter as on the blade spine? It's a different stamp. The worn one on the pommel seems to be the same stamp as the blade spine. ...

Well, a pound to a penny that the crossguard and the blade spine are the same letter - a 'G', although a 'C' is possible. But the crowns do look different. It will not surprise you to know that there is not a lot written about fraktur markings, but what there is deals with 19th century ones and reveals that even at the same factory, different forms of crown could be found. Now, the fraktur is the initial letter of the inspector's surname, and I would not be surprised if there were several stamps, all slightly different, but all with same letter, being used to different parts of a bayonet as and when inspected. The stamp on the tang, though, in post 56, looks to be an 'M', but this could be the stamp of the inspector certifying the conversion, the stamp above that perhaps a 'RC' one? Either way, it looks to me as if that 'M' overlaps the end of the tang, and so is post-conversion.

Now, what of my 84/98 n.A. a.A... Well, the blade spine and crossguard both have the same letter, a 'V' (but just possibly an 'A'), although there are slight differences between the two stamps. However, the two pommel stamps are both 'E', and so is the smaller stamp at the junction between the original tang and the new pommel. That would therefore agree with what Carter says, that crossguard and blade and tang were left as were when the new pommel was brazed on. What he doesn't say, though, but it is implicit in his observation that the crossguard was left as was, is that pommel and tang fraktur stamps will match, and they will be different from the matching pair used on the blade and crossguard. (I must apologise, BTW, that I can't photograph the frakturs on mine right now to prove the case as the kids are around in what is an open area - but I'll try and do that this weekend.)

So, what is needed now is for you to double-check the pommel marks on yours and see if they match the one on the tang, an 'M', which - in theory - they should. If they are a 'G', then heaven know's what's going on!

Julian

[msdt]

Hi Julian,

I did not know that the pommel was changed, never gave it any thought and do not have a Mauser 71/84 to try! However having just consulted Walter can see that they were. But why go for the double curve?

But, there is no M on the pommel, if anything 2 more C's, maybe one matching the spine and the other another stamp.

Cheers,

Tony

[trajan]

Quick reply as it is late here. Carter shows the blueprint for the alteration from the 71/84 to become the 84/98 n.A, a.A., and the new pommel with its T-O slot is brazed to the tang of the 71/84. Not a terribly clear blueprint, but there is a good drawing of what this looks like in practice in Carter II, p.37. I'll try and scan that tomorrow if time permits and also try to get a photograph of what is seen on mine - the brazed junction between the two is visible top and bottom. But, for now, look back at your photograph in post 56, reproduced here:

Note the lines showing the continuation of the original tang into the new pommel. The top stamp on yours is blurred but it does look big and wide enough to be one of the 'RC' or 'Revisions' control stamps - see one of mine between the two fraktur marks:

These marks were applied when something was initially rejected for service and so sent back for re-examination as for suitability for use.

The fraktur mark on yours at the join between the tang of the original 71/84 and the new pommel that made it a 84/98 a.A. seems to overlap the short lateral joint between the end of the tang and the pommel piece, just below the 'RC' mark (if that is what it is!). So, in theory, that fraktur will be post-conversion and should match the ones on the pommel. It doesn't have to do that - different inspectors could be involved! BUT, if Carter is right on the crossguard being left in place there after muzzle ring removed, then the pommel and tang-joint frakturs should match each other but not be identical - or at least are very unlikely to be (the conversion could be done at the same factory!) - to the blade spine and crossguard frakturs, which should also be a matching pair.

Got to go now...

JB

[trajan]

Here for all interested but who don't have access to Carter's vol 2, are the blueprints as reproduced there on p.35-36, and also the drawing of the hilt details by John Walter, on p. 37, all three reproduced here for academic use.

Carter's text relevant to these blueprints (on p.34) reads:

"The original crossguard with its muzzle ring removed was held against the blade by two short steel rivets. The tang was cut to allow room for the rifle's clearing rod and new holes drilled for the grip bolts. The new pommel with its TO-slot was made with two extensions which were brased(sic) to either side of the original tang. New grips, shaped to fit the curved tang, were held in place by bolts, and had a round cleaning hole drilled through each side. The original leather scabbards were retained. [New Para] The manufacturer's mark, the date, royal cypher and in many cases the unit marking were not removed during the conversion so that these markings usually refer to the bayonet's issue as a S.71.84."

Regarding the third illustration, I can't photograph my example right now, but the joint between original tang and new pommel on the upper side of the grip can be seen in on Tony's example shown in the previous post. I have to admit, and I happily do so, that getting one of these bayonets made Carter's text and drawings so much clearer - and Tony's observations made me look that much closer at the one I have!

Julian

[motojosh]

OK, the only marking I can find using a script ‘I’ is shown in the 1877, 1897 and the 1909 regulations for ‘Inspektion’. These were departments that did as their name suggests - they inspected units! The regular ‘R’ is almost always only used for Regiment, but is used for ‘Rekrutendepot' in the 1890, 1897 and 1909 regulations - but always with another letter behind it, such as 'R' for Regument', etc..

The 1877 regulations also have a single letter ‘C’ being used at the end of a normal stamping sequence to identify a weapon that 'belonged' to the artillery depot and the Pioneer HQ at Coblenz, so perhaps this is an ad-hoc marking for a Regiment Inspection unit based at Cöln = Cologne? In fact, is that ‘Col’ really a worn COE = which is Cöln in the 1877 regulations???!!!

Julian

Thanks for taking the time to check on this one. The last part of the marking is Cob.

Yes, well, Carter was stating his opinion, and so he could be wrong on that! I don't have a 71/84 (rarer than hen's teeth in this part of the world), but it would be good to do an eye-to-eye and calipers check of the crossguard and its dimensions on one of these with that on a 84/98 a.A.

I see what you mean about the frakturs. Certainly the crown on your crossguard looks more like a Bavarian one than a Prussian one, but they do seem to be the same letters. I'll check later and also with mine.

Julian

Here's a 84/98aA next to a 71/84 which has been converted for use as a sidearm, most of the shaping looks to take place at about where the crossguard intersects with the blade spine.

It seems odd that the original 71/84 unit markings wouldn't have been removed, but considering both my and MSDT's example are missing the first part of the marking this looks to be a definite possibility in some instances. I'd bet on MSDT's marking as being for a Recruiting Regiment as the remnant of the foot of the first R looks to be flat and doesn't turn up like I see on most of the italic R's. There's a 84/98aA in Williams pt 1 marked 6.R.R.29 in a similar font.