Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

GWF1967

98/05. Sawback and Non- SB.

Recommended Posts

GWF1967

Long ears. No flash guard, unfortunately no readable marks either. 

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan

Now that one is in 'relic' condition! I have never seen one that badly pitted before... Such a shame, seeing how it is a pre-1915 one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GWF1967
14 hours ago, trajan said:

Now that one is in 'relic' condition! I have never seen one that badly pitted before... Such a shame, seeing how it is a pre-1915 one.

It's certainly had a hard life. It has been mistreated more than once, I cleaned off the "new" surface rust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GWF1967

This one's been treated a bit better.

FullSizeRender.jpg

FullSizeRender.jpgkjh.jpg

FullSizeRender.jpgmmm.jpg

FullSizeRender.jpgppp.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan

How nice! A bit too shiny for my liking (that's the archaeologist in me!), but an excellent example of a version I don't have, a S.98/05 n.A. transitional, with the n.A. crossguard but no flashguard. And as flashguards were ordered to be fitted to all newly-made 98/05 bayonets in July 1915 and to all bayonets in service by September 1915, so this is one made before then. 

 

1915 was a major year in 98/05 production. The decision to replace the S.98 with the 98/05 and, to a lesser extent, the S.84/98, was taken late in 1914, which is when production of the 'Ersatz' bayonets began, to make up the shortfall while factories geared up to mass-produce the 98/05 and 84/98, the aim being that production of these should exceed production of the 'Ersatz' by the beginning of July 1915. By 18th July 1915, the Bavarians had 42,740 S.98/05 compared to 88,507 'Ersatz' plus 13,057 S.14 (which are a more 'dignified' type of  'Ersatz'!) and a mere 3,523 S.98 - and had also received 10,000 84/98. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GWF1967
4 hours ago, trajan said:

How nice! A bit too shiny for my liking (that's the archaeologist in me!), but an excellent example of a version I don't have, a S.98/05 n.A. transitional, with the n.A. crossguard but no flashguard. And as flashguards were ordered to be fitted to all newly-made 98/05 bayonets in July 1915 and to all bayonets in service by September 1915, so this is one made before then. 

 

1915 was a major year in 98/05 production. The decision to replace the S.98 with the 98/05 and, to a lesser extent, the S.84/98, was taken late in 1914, which is when production of the 'Ersatz' bayonets began, to make up the shortfall while factories geared up to mass-produce the 98/05 and 84/98, the aim being that production of these should exceed production of the 'Ersatz' by the beginning of July 1915. By 18th July 1915, the Bavarians had 42,740 S.98/05 compared to 88,507 'Ersatz' plus 13,057 S.14 (which are a more 'dignified' type of  'Ersatz'!) and a mere 3,523 S.98 - and had also received 10,000 84/98. 

Many thanks for the input trajan, always appreciated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan
On 3/5/2017 at 19:01, GWF1967 said:

Many thanks for the input trajan, always appreciated. 

 

Happy to help! I find the subject of bayonets used by Germany in WW1 a fascinating one, especially when looking at the varieties available just for the Gew.98. Why they never simplified matters after they found out how useless the S.98 was for trench warfare, it beats me why they never started to make one basic model for general use - the 84/98 being the best choice, in my humble opinion.

 

Julian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GWF1967

A butchered butcher. 

 No flash-guard; Grips, grip screws,ears,  pommel stud and all but one mark ground down. 

IMG_9595.jpg

IMG_9596.jpg

IMG_9597.jpg

IMG_9598.jpg

IMG_9599.jpg

IMG_9605.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan

I have seen worse...!!! This has been jazzed up as a dress sidearm, I reckon, with the grips ground flat along with the press-stud... Nothing visible really of any riccaso marks, but the apparent lack of anything above the fraktur mark (no year mark, no crown and initial) suggests to me that it is one of the minor makers - can't remember who, off-hand, but I think some of the, for example, Frister ones were like that, just the inspector's mark and nothing else. What really is needed is a comprehensive study of fraktur marks (as with mint-marks on Roman coins...!) as that would help tie things down to some extent!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GWF1967

New find.

Gottlieb Hammersfahr pyramid  mark, also stamped Durkopp Weke A.G. 

  W. ?5 on the spine, other edge marked O W. Fractur on the pommel. 

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan
On 14/01/2018 at 19:20, GWF1967 said:

A butchered butcher. 

 No flash-guard; Grips, grip screws,ears,  pommel stud and all but one mark ground down. 

 

IMG_9605.jpg

 

Meant to get back to this, and will try to do so later (Monday and Tuesday classess to prepare:()

 

But that is a 'C' or an 'E', just possibly a 'G', which might help me go further...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan
3 hours ago, GWF1967 said:

New find.

Gottlieb Hammersfahr pyramid  mark, also stamped Durkopp Weke A.G. 

  W. ?5 on the spine, other edge marked O W. Fractur on the pommel. 

image.jpeg

image.jpeg

 

Nice find!

Not a common marking! I would go for 16 - the curve of the '6' is there, and Durkopp is not known to have made any 98/05 in 1915. There are known examples from 1917 that combine these marks. I guess the other marks are inspection marks of some kind

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
zuluwar2006
4 hours ago, trajan said:

 

Nice find!

Not a common marking! I would go for 16 - the curve of the '6' is there, and Durkopp is not known to have made any 98/05 in 1915. There are known examples from 1917 that combine these marks. I guess the other marks are inspection marks of some kind

"O" marking was used  for rejected blades. 

Since this bayonet was made after September 1915, we can assume that cause of rush and tremendous needs  for bayonets, even the rejected blades certified for use by the official debots. 

That is why the "W" marking at the end. 

A very rare specimen with lot of history on it. 

Regards

D. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan

That makes sense D. I was wondereing why the 'W' was almost if not exactly identical to the regular 'W' for Wilhelm mark.

 

So, perhaps an '18' not a '16'?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GWF1967
8 hours ago, trajan said:

 

Nice find!

Not a common marking! I would go for 16 - the curve of the '6' is there, and Durkopp is not known to have made any 98/05 in 1915. There are known examples from 1917 that combine these marks. I guess the other marks are inspection marks of some kind

 

4 hours ago, zuluwar2006 said:

"O" marking was used  for rejected blades. 

Since this bayonet was made after September 1915, we can assume that cause of rush and tremendous needs  for bayonets, even the rejected blades certified for use by the official debots. 

That is why the "W" marking at the end. 

A very rare specimen with lot of history on it. 

Regards

D. 

Many thanks for the comments and information folks. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...