Simon127 Posted 1 July , 2017 Share Posted 1 July , 2017 Hi All, Can anyone help to ID the regimental crossguard stamp on this semi relic Erfurt-made butcher bayonet dated 1914? It appears to be 'G.J. 100' but I have also attached a photo for those with better eyesight than mine. Any info would be much appreciated from you bayonet experts out there. Best wishes, Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 1 July , 2017 Share Posted 1 July , 2017 (edited) Well, 'G.J.' should be Garde-Jaeger-Bataillon, and according to the 1914 regulations, they were armed with the S.98 at the start of that year, and so their re-arming in 1915 or so with a S.98/05 is possible. If so, is this 'Garde-Jaeger-Bataillon 1 Komp. Waffe 90'? There looks to be a full stop at the base of the '1'. I have no examples of a 'G.J.' mark on a S.98/05 in my records, but I do have two examples of a G.J. marking on S.98s's in the usual format, with the Kompagnie and Waffen number, but also a couple of Erstaz bayonets which are just 'G.J.XXX', so that does not need to be a '1.90' there on yours, could just be the number '190'. Let's see what our colleagues who are more familiar with Jaeger regiments have to say! Oh, and one thing to bear in mind. Until late 1914, these 98/05's without sawbacks were not issued to Infantry or other line regiments, but to Foot-Artillery and Telegraph troops only... That aside, from what looks to be a remnant of the makers mark right at the bottom of the ricasso, I would hazard a guess from its position that it is is a Solingen maker or Erfurt product - the one possible letter is in wrong place - to far over towards the blade spine, I think - to be a 'Suhl' maker. Trajan Edited 1 July , 2017 by trajan Correction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon127 Posted 1 July , 2017 Author Share Posted 1 July , 2017 Trajan, Many thanks for your info which is very much appreciated. I had suspected that the marking would be 'Garde' something but I was unsure about the rest of the stamping as am never really sure when to interpret the J as a J or as a fancy I for Infanterie. It's sod's law that the pitting to the metal makes the markings difficult to see. I have zoomed in on the photos and looked at the piece closely and it seems to say 'G.J. 100' but I have considered the possibility that the first 0 could be a poorly applied 8 where only the lower portion of the number has come out. Turning to the manufacturer's mark, the side shown in the picture is devoid of maker's mark but the observe side of the ricasso has the clear outline of the Erfurt crown logo and some of the lettering present beneath. Which model of bayonet was primarily being used by infantry until late 1914? Was it the long quillback S.98 or the 98/05 with a sawback? I thought the latter was mainly used by pionier units. Thanks, Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 2 July , 2017 Share Posted 2 July , 2017 14 hours ago, Simon127 said: ... I had suspected that the marking would be 'Garde' something but I was unsure about the rest of the stamping as am never really sure when to interpret the J as a J or as a fancy I for Infanterie. It's sod's law that the pitting to the metal makes the markings difficult to see. I have zoomed in on the photos and looked at the piece closely and it seems to say 'G.J. 100' but I have considered the possibility that the first 0 could be a poorly applied 8 where only the lower portion of the number has come out. ... Turning to the manufacturer's mark, the side shown in the picture is devoid of maker's mark but the observe side of the ricasso has the clear outline of the Erfurt crown logo and some of the lettering present beneath. ... Which model of bayonet was primarily being used by infantry until late 1914? Was it the long quillback S.98 or the 98/05 with a sawback? I thought the latter was mainly used by pionier units. Hi Simon, I know what you mean about the I or J matter, but in this case the printed regulations for 1909 (D.V.E. 185, Vorschrift ueber das Stempeln der Handwaffen) are quite specific, giving in their list of examples 'G.J.2.105' for 'Garde-Jaeger-Bataillon (2.Kompagnie waffe 105)'. It really is a bu**er than the pitting has obscured what is there, but the official regulations give the height of the letters for the unit abbreviation ('G.J.' here) as 4.2 mm, with 3.1 mm for the Kompagnie, and 2.1 mm for the weapon number. It looks to me as if you have a large '1' followed by a dot and a smaller '9' and '0', although the '9' looks bigger than the '0' because of pitting. I wondered on the possibility of a maker's mark because of what might just be an upright letter on the ricasso between the 'J' and the '1', but if you have an Erfurt crown on the other side, well....!!! The thing is that in your post we are looking at the left-hand side of the blade and that is where the maker's mark would be, and if there is an Erfurt mark on the right-hand side,which is what you have, then this makes it highly likely that this is a rather unusual piece! I would not claim to be an expert on 98/05's but to the best of my knowledge - and so I can be proved wrong! - the only 98/05's that Erfurt produced with another maker were the 98/05 n.A.'s they made in 1915 with Gottlieb Hammersfahr / Solingen and Ferd.Esser / Elberfeld (and ELBERFELD would fit what could be that upright letter). BUT, note, these were 1915 98/05 n.A. and you have a 1914 98/05 a.A., with its high ears and no flashguard... So, a puzzle...!!! As for the standard line regiment bayonet up to the end of 1914, this was indeed the S.98 'quillback'. The documentary evidence is that the Prussians began to replace the S.98 with the S.98/05 for infantry use between August and 14th September 1914, and with production of the S.98 being suspended at Erfurt on 21st January, with very few being made by any of the other producers in 1914 and 1915, as they started to make S.98/05 instead. The S.98/05 with sawback was originally for use by pioneers and railway troops only, the S.98/05 without sawback for use by foot artillery and telegraph troops only. When the S.98/05 started to be used by all infantry, etc., the standard rule of thumb was that 6% or so would be issued with sawbacks, usually - it is believed - by NCO's, all others getting the plain version. Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon127 Posted 3 July , 2017 Author Share Posted 3 July , 2017 Hi Julian, Thanks for extra info. In spite of having collected bayonets for many years, the models that were in use, when and by which troops are things I'm still rather ignorant of. I have looked again at the bayonet, rubbed some oil on and still can't see any outline of a maker's mark on the left hand ricasso. Alas, I think this is not a rare dual marked 98/05. I have run a few searches for Erfurt made 98/05s and every one seems to have the crown logo and name on the right hand side of the blade. I think that Erfurt must have been a manufacturer that did things its own way! However, although this particular blade would not seem to be too special in terms of its maker's marks, I do have another 1917 dated 98/05 with two maker's names: one side of the ricasso is stamped 'H. MUNDLOS & CO / MAGDEBURG' and the other bears the mark 'GEBR. HARTKOPF / SOLINGEN'. I gather that this manufacturer combination is seldom encountered but perhaps you know more. Best, Simon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 3 July , 2017 Share Posted 3 July , 2017 3 hours ago, Simon127 said: ... In spite of having collected bayonets for many years, the models that were in use, when and by which troops are things I'm still rather ignorant of. ... can't see any outline of a maker's mark on the left hand ricasso. Alas, I think this is not a rare dual marked 98/05. I have run a few searches for Erfurt made 98/05s and every one seems to have the crown logo and name on the right hand side of the blade. I think that Erfurt must have been a manufacturer that did things its own way! ... I do have another 1917 dated 98/05 with two maker's names: one side of the ricasso is stamped 'H. MUNDLOS & CO / MAGDEBURG' and the other bears the mark 'GEBR. HARTKOPF / SOLINGEN'. I gather that this manufacturer combination is seldom encountered but perhaps you know more. Don't worry Simon, the great and also very annoying thing about Imperial German bayonets is the variety... But, a good start if you plan to improve your collection would be to get a copy of each of A.Carter's two most valuable volumes, German Bayonets, volume 1 on the S.98/02 and 98/05, and volume 2 on the 71/84, S.98, etc. The information in these is somewhat dated in some ways but the basic facts on the introduction, use, etc., of the types is still valid. Volumes 3 (Ersatz) and 4 (all the others in use up to 1918!) are only needed if you really want to get into the real ins-and-outs of German Imperial bayonets! Volume 1 is reasonably common, and volume 2 also (check ABE), but can be expensive. As for 3 and 4, well, they are very difficult to get hold off. Personally, I would say it is well worth the money to buy the first two at least if you are going to improve your knowledge in the field - my four live on my desk and so are always there for reference! Well, I have never seen an ERFURT S.98/05, but I have no problem in accepting what you say - you have the bayonet and I thought I could see a maker's mark on the left, and if there isn't one, well there isn't one! Carter in his volume 1 records Erfurt as producing S.98/05 a.A. w/o sawbacks in 1907-1911 inclusive, and that's all, but producing the sawback version in 1914 and other years also. He was making his records up to the early 1980's from personally observed specimens as - I understand it - a dealer / adviser / valuer, and as a collector, and with input from other collectors (one at least a member of GWF!), so the fact that he doesn't record an Erfurt 1914 S.98/05 a.A. without sawback means simply that he wasn't aware of one - and so probably very few were made. As for your W/17 S.98/05 n.A, by 'H. MUNDLOS & CO / MAGDEBURG' / 'GEBR. HARTKOPF / SOLINGEN', well Carter indicates that Mundlos shared the making of S.98/05 with four other companies in 1916 and 1917, Hartkopf being one of these. Carter reports one of 1917 with the Mundlos mark on the right, the Hartkopf mark on the left, and suggests that Hartkopf were the actual blade makers, and Mundlos the finishers. So, yes, an uncommon combination! Well done! Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N White Posted 4 July , 2017 Share Posted 4 July , 2017 Julian, what say you then, to a 1915, Erfurt, a.A, non sawback. (With leather scabbard, at that). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 4 July , 2017 Share Posted 4 July , 2017 45 minutes ago, N White said: Julian, what say you then, to a 1915, Erfurt, a.A, non sawback. (With leather scabbard, at that). Well, first off I would say "You horrible rotten lucky bu**er you!"... And then I would calmly make a pencil mark in the relevant column of Mr.Carter's table in my spare volume 1 regarding their production! Which I have now done... Seriously, though, from what data Carter had, and there is no doubt that he was the go-to chap in the 1970's and 1980's, he clearly knew of no Erfurt-only made S.98/05 a.A. o.S for 1912 or later, but did know of Erfurt plus Hammersfahr and Esser joint production of these in 1915 only. However, he did record Erfurt-only S.98/05 a.A. m.S. for 1906-1909, 1912, and 1914-15, and so there is no reason why Erfurt should not have been making the S.98/05 a.A o.S up to then as well in limited numbers (for Foot Artillery and Telegraph troops), the decision to stop making these entirely being made in 1915 itself - Carter records Erfurt-only made S.98/05 trans and n.A. o.S and m.S. for 1915. Remember, already in August 1914 the Kriegsministerium knew it was short of bayonets and rifles. So the decision in late 1914 to issue contracts to private makers of these. Then comes the gearing up of new production of bayonets and rifles by these new makers and along with it the slowing down of S.98/05 production at Erfurt in favour of rifles. By August also the decision to introduce the 98/05 n.A. comes along, so new machinery needed. So, there is no problem in having a W/14 or W/15 Erfurt 98/05 - but they cannot be that common, just as W/15 Waffenfabrik 98/05's are on the rare side, W/16 somewhat more common, but loads of W/17 and W/18 ones. Julian PS: Do the frakturs on the scabbard match the ones on the bayonet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N White Posted 4 July , 2017 Share Posted 4 July , 2017 The whole thing is in "attic" condition, but attached is what it has for Frakturs. Scabbard is also marked 19. PE.3.100, bayonet is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 5 July , 2017 Share Posted 5 July , 2017 OK, so a mis-match, and the scabbard locket is for a sawback, as should be for a Pioneer 98/05. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuluwar2006 Posted 22 December , 2018 Share Posted 22 December , 2018 My contribution on regimental unit markings on 98)05 Butcher blade bayonets. Also some extremely rare examples from Saxon Cypher marked bayonets Regards D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 22 December , 2018 Share Posted 22 December , 2018 WOW - there's a fair few that need loking through and listing there! I haven't had a chance to update my unit-markings records for almost a year.... Looks like I might need a holiday over there with you to get all these ones sorted out - never mind the Ersocs and others! One thing though, Dimitri, I saw three or more WAFFENFABRIK ones with unit-marks... If these are accessible, or listed, I would love to know what date they are... I know that unit-marks continued to be used into 1915, but then there is a sharp drop-off in my lists as the regulations began to be enforced. So, are these WAFFENFABRIK ones all 1915? Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuluwar2006 Posted 22 December , 2018 Share Posted 22 December , 2018 Julian The R.J.B. 11.3.K unit marked bayonet has the date W 16 The Ld. St. II. Unit marked bayonet has the date W 18. Hope I have been helpful to you, my "brother in arms", Regards D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuluwar2006 Posted 22 December , 2018 Share Posted 22 December , 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 23 December , 2018 Share Posted 23 December , 2018 Thanks! W/16 would just about fit with the last unit-marked ones - but wow, that W/18 one is late! I really must get my unit-marking files up to date but off-hand I think I have one or two only unit-marked 98/05's that late! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 26 December , 2018 Share Posted 26 December , 2018 Zulu2006 . Hey D', that is a huge collection of "Butchers" you have there, besides a few Turk cut downs, I think I only have one 98/05, nit sage, , no remember scabbard or flash guard, be a few months at least till home again to look at what I got, an Awsome set though, thanks for sharing 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