WW1 GERMAN BAYONETS FROM MY COLLECTION

[Rafal1971]

I am afraid that someone, in order to raise the price of an ordinary bayonet, such as a gras in a photograph, stamps it as if it were used by the Germans. Roy Wiliams sent me a link to the auction of a contemporary German eagle stamp / stamp. Such eagles were used by the Germans to mark seized bayonets Lebel, Mosin and others. In Poland, the scourge is marking bayonets of lebel and 98/05 with Polish markings wz - model, proving that they were on the equipment of the Polish army

[zuluwar2006]

6 hours ago, Rafal1971 said:

I am afraid that someone, in order to raise the price of an ordinary bayonet, such as a gras in a photograph, stamps it as if it were used by the Germans. Roy Wiliams sent me a link to the auction of a contemporary German eagle stamp / stamp. Such eagles were used by the Germans to mark seized bayonets Lebel, Mosin and others. In Poland, the scourge is marking bayonets of lebel and 98/05 with Polish markings wz - model, proving that they were on the equipment of the Polish army

Rafal1971,

I do not understand your comnent,

this is NOT mine bayonet, neither i am selling something. 

What this has to do with me is the question. I am not selling anything on anywhere. 

Rephrase your comment to avoid misunderstandings. 

Also Roy Williams is imposdible to send you this link on egun, since he is dead a long time ago. 

I am confused, can you explain what is going on? 

If you imply that something is wrong, i can accept arguments but no accusations. 

I hope i make it clear enought. 

Regards

D. 

Edited 22 February , 2022 by zuluwar2006

[Rafal1971]

Dimitrios

 

We did not understand each other I am not accusing you, Dimitrios !

On egunie.de there are quite often blunt bayonets on the covers. In my opinion, SOMEONE on the eguna falsifies bayonets by squeezing a German punch.

The same situation is in Poland - as I have described.

More than a dozen years ago, Roy sent me a punch with only an eagle (which was stamped on metal), without an inscription around it (not an eguna stamp)

 

Rest regards Rafal

[zuluwar2006]

11 hours ago, Rafal1971 said:

Dimitrios

 

We did not understand each other I am not accusing you, Dimitrios !

On egunie.de there are quite often blunt bayonets on the covers. In my opinion, SOMEONE on the eguna falsifies bayonets by squeezing a German punch.

The same situation is in Poland - as I have described.

More than a dozen years ago, Roy sent me a punch with only an eagle (which was stamped on metal), without an inscription around it (not an eguna stamp)

 

Rest regards Rafal

Rafal, 

After you define what you wanted to express, i understood your comnent. 

Yes i agree, that we meet the last years a lot of fake bayonets, some of them are obviously falsified, but some of them are very well made and you can see the non original only by close examination. 

Regards

D. 

 

Edited 23 February , 2022 by zuluwar2006

[zuluwar2006]

On 20/02/2022 at 20:33, AndyBsk said:

The bayonet is well known by Ruediger as aptiertes french Chassepot for Gew71 or Gew88 german rifles, similar designation as EB 106 didnt existed period, this is only a collector designation. The similar conversion were done already prior 1900 on obsolete captured french bayonets, so here is hard to say its WW1 or prewar, the spine of blade should be engraved what for date and production is it, the conversion were done by smaller divisional depots, so the spine reducing was done by various way, could find one, 2 or 3 stepped, here is evidently the blade little sharpened by previous collector, and the rifle slot looks like little damaged, so it should be proofed on rifle Gew88 that is works, there is old french serial numbers stamped, and from other side is not any german LW units added, it could be used by second line units even in WW1.

 

Andy, 

The steal leaf spring with an extention to the press stud is suitable to fit only for the Gewehr 88.

EB 106 is the nomination from Carter for ersatz bayonets, Ersatz Bayonet number 106.

This method followed by Roy Wiliams and Christian Mery on their books. So a usefull common guide for the collectors. 

The brutal of the machining can show that this made on rush, so we presume during ww1. 

If it was made on peace time, then it should be made more technical and smooth. 

Regards

D. 

 

[AndyBsk]

I assume You have both rifles the difference of locking distance between Gew71 or G71/84 is and Gew88 is zero or  same as both bayonets S71 and S71/84 were used with Gew88 rifles. Germany didnt produced any special bayonets for Gew88. The change was not needed. So the difference could be only by removed steps of handle, which is not correct for Chassepot as mounted directly on barell nut and german rifles had the bayonet nut located on first ring.  Certainly Your sharpening of rust metall of blade was done about 10 years ago maximum, not earlier. For aptierte Chassepots exist more variation of conversion to attach on german rifles.

Edited 22 February , 2022 by AndyBsk

[zuluwar2006]

Dear Andy, 

The steal leaf spring with an extention to the press stud is suitable to fit (in some models as this one) only to the Gewehr 88.

Without the extention and with machining, is suitable to attach on any M 71 and 71/84 but not on a Gewehr 88.

This is the conclusion of the late Roy Wiliams, after a lot of research. 

Here is a photo from his book for ersatz bayonets saying this (lokk at the word ONLY). 

Also i did not say anything for sharpening the blade from rust, that was obvious to all. 

I talked abount machining down the back of the brass hilt, which is something different and certainly not made during the last 10 years. 

Yes i agree, numerous convertions made on chassepot bayonets by germans, during and prior ww1.

This particular speciment is unique and Roy Wiliams has no reference for it (different dimensions on machining of the brass hilt so a different model from the book references of Roy Wiliams). 

Thank you once again  for your observations and our discussion. 

Regards

D. 

[AndyBsk]

This conclusion of Roy is not correct, as there exist more variation of converting french bayonets to german rifles. see Rudiger book

As i denoted earlier, do You have to understand on Gew88 were used S71 and S71/84 bayonets wout changes, so the locking distance  100mm, MRD 17,4 are identical!!

You could proof the bayonet on a Gew71 or Gew88, normally it should be usable on both. The difference is by removing of handle spine also steps on spine, where the tubular jacket of Gew88 is more wide as normal barell of Gew71/84. The difference is too by how deep is removed the backside of barell ring.

I asked You about details of spine engraving? The serials on crossguard is normal Chassepot marking, the using of Chassepot (Zundnadel system ignition)in WW1 is minor as this was obsolete construction already 1886 by start of arming by Lebels, there is no german marking anywhere, similar conversion were done by other countries for attach the Chassepot on Gew88, but this could be as declared german but as i wrote the confirmation that is a WW1 is not possible, there are no Eagle proofs on pommel or any other typical unit stamp that would declare this items was german army used. On Roy piece is visible new serial on crossguard other side to normal french numbering.

Edited 23 February , 2022 by AndyBsk

[zuluwar2006]

Andy

The conclusion of Roy is correct. 

There are some converted chassepot bayonets which attached only to gewehr 88.

You are talking about M 71 and 71/84 bayonets, yes i agree they fit on gew 88, but in here we are talking about converted chassepot bayonets, something tottaly different. Some variants of those chassepot bayonets, were converted to fit only on gew 88 rifles, as the model i am describing and the model of Roy. 

On mobilization of german army, there were not enought bayonets or rifles, so gew 88 and m 71 and 71/84  rifles were given to second line troops. The necessity of getting bayonets for them, forced the german army to convert obsolete bayonets, like chassepots. So i believe during ww1 a lot of them converted. And the rush is obvious on the machining which is not technical made in many cases. 

Also the fact that so many variations exist on converted chassepot bayonets, is indicate that a lot of small enterprises got this work and each one made his own plan of converted the chassepot bayonets given. 

There is not an official regulation which all armour enterprises have follow, but it seemed that each one made a different plan of convertion, so a lot of types for converted bayonets. 

If there was an official regulation, saying you will follow those district instructions, then 2 or 3, the most 4 models will be appeared. Now we have more than a dozen of different models on chassepot bayonets. 

Even in peace time, a main regulation exist and the armour enterprises are obeying this regulation.

But during war, we have a total different situation. You have to do the job quickly, because the soldiers are waiting rifles and bayonets. So here we meet different models, from different small enterprises, with brutal machining cause of the rush of the war and the necessity to have emergency bayonets the soldiers. 

If the bayonets could talk then we could listen their story....

This is my opinion, thanks for the discussion. 

Regards

D. 

 

[AndyBsk]

Still dont we see any marking of spine? what is described there? Please,You didnt answer it here? thanks

Sorry but You should read Ruediger books about conversion of french bayonets, the majority of changes of Chassepots were done pre 1900, only few were done in WW1. More real are Gras conversions in WW1.

As mentioned when You convert to same lenght and same MRD the conversion should be fixable on both type rifles. The difference is not in adding of locking nut as the locking distance is identical. There is difference in steps of spine of handle., how much and how deep and where they start. Chassepot has 90mm locking lenght all german bayonet S71/ S71/84 items are 99/100 mm locking lenght. So You could add a handle insert or remove part of barell ring and add a longer locking lug, thats clear. 

This bayonet was wrongly sharpened by someone and this was not done period. The slot of bayonet adapter is here damaged so it probably could be not already attached on a rifle even G88 or G71, but You should proof it.  Important is when You are satisfied with the piece, that is the point. 

Edited 23 February , 2022 by AndyBsk

[zuluwar2006]

When i get this converted chassepot bayonet on my hands i will pass to you photos from the spine. 

You said majority, so not all. This is a ww1 converted bayonet on my opinion. Even you are not sure about the time of convertion. 

Roy has a photo describing why the photographed chassepot variation was made only for gew 88. If you have something contra from Rudiger, please show it to us. 

Sharpening is bad but this is non important to our discussion, as it is on blade. Look the machining on the brass hilt. That is the interesting part. Now compate this model with the photographs on Roy's book. It is clear that both models, mine and on Roy's book, are suitable to be fixed only on gew 88, almost same machining, same depth from the machining, same steal leaf spring with an extention to the press stud. 

So, I do not have to proove anything, i have allready the testimony from photos on Roy's book. 

I am waiting photos from Rudiger book prooving your opinion. 

Regards

D. 

[trajan]

On 21/02/2022 at 23:41, Rafal1971 said:

A propos Regarding the German markings on the covers of Berthier

Auction Gras bayonet Französisches Gras Bajonett. Mit Deutschem Reich Beute Stempel!!!! - eGun

Sad or or terrible

I like it! Well, it is rather obvious isn't?

Edited 9 March , 2022 by trajan

[zuluwar2006]

On 23/02/2022 at 07:40, zuluwar2006 said:

Dear Andy, 

The steal leaf spring with an extention to the press stud is suitable to fit (in some models as this one) only to the Gewehr 88.

Without the extention and with machining, is suitable to attach on any M 71 and 71/84 but not on a Gewehr 88.

This is the conclusion of the late Roy Wiliams, after a lot of research. 

Here is a photo from his book for ersatz bayonets saying this (lokk at the word ONLY). 

Also i did not say anything for sharpening the blade from rust, that was obvious to all. 

I talked abount machining down the back of the brass hilt, which is something different and certainly not made during the last 10 years. 

Yes i agree, numerous convertions made on chassepot bayonets by germans, during and prior ww1.

This particular speciment is unique and Roy Wiliams has no reference for it (different dimensions on machining of the brass hilt so a different model from the book references of Roy Wiliams). 

Thank you once again  for your observations and our discussion. 

Regards

D. 

Dear Andy

Here are the photos you ask for, about this bayonet. 

On spine there is engraving, not erased. 

I have photographed the numbers i observed on the handle. 

There is the number 1 on the brass handle, i believe this is a proof for convertion during ww1. On converted bayonets prior ww1, we canoot meet such numbers. 

Regards

D. 

[AndyBsk]

Hello Demitrios, thanks for adding the pictures, Tulle September 1871 is there. so the piece could be obtained postwar by commerzial market and refurbished for Gew88 and sold on market or buyed by german authorities and refurbished in WW1, for this my opinion didnt speak digit 1, there is no Deutsches Reich proof or other capture/ownership stamp. This could be done already post 1900 as majority of Chassepot were outsaled already prior WW1.

The discussion was unfortunally closed on the Rafal piece M66 presented piece on other thread, even from You presented only book pieces for comparation so no link with any live auction there, anyway the letter stamped on Roy Williams book and Gew98 conversion is K, but the letter proof on Chassepot M66 is not the same, You could look side by side examination. Some of the Wurttemberg stamp are clearly problematic. Similar letter V was reported on a faked piece, which was confirmed by german skilled experts some years ago. Unfortunally by crash of my PC 2 years ago, i probably lost the pictures.

Edited 28 March , 2022 by AndyBsk

[zuluwar2006]

Andy please ask from german experts to send us the photos, i am very curious to see them. 

Wurrtb marking is ok from size and letters. 

Adler looks ok to me, i have declare my opinion as the adler stamp is hand job and not machined, so differences cause of different makers, is logic. 

Wurrteberg marked bayonets are very rare and a few exist, so from books, yes, we have some speciments to compare. 

Gruss

D. 

Edited 28 March , 2022 by zuluwar2006

[zuluwar2006]

22 hours ago, zuluwar2006 said:

Andy please ask from german experts to send us the photos, i am very curious to see them. 

Wurrtb marking is ok from size and letters. 

Adler looks ok to me, i have declare my opinion as the adler stamp is hand job and not machined, so differences cause of different makers, is logic. 

Wurrteberg marked bayonets are very rare and a few exist, so from books, yes, we have some speciments to compare. 

Gruss

D. 

Another recorded wyrttemberg antler, totally different from other speciments, which is suitable with my opinion, as i have express it earlier. 

Regards, D. 

Edited 29 March , 2022 by zuluwar2006

[zuluwar2006]

Dear gentlemens, 

To celebrate the 40.000 + views on this topic, here is an extremely rare ersatz bayonet with war time unit marking. 

EB 56 bayonet, called and wyrttemberg bayonet. This is cause the great majority of recorded unit markings on this type of bayonet, for wyrttemberg troops. 

Heavy sheet steel hilt with five diagonal cut grooves on each side. The grip has five  wide slanted serrations on both sides. Tang seems to go through the whole grip together with a straightening piece. This explains the extra weight of the weapon, as Mr. Christian Mery is correctly  observing  on his book for ersatz bayonets. 

Round push button and "TO" slot. 

Short steel crossguard with  a rare machine gun marking 

3.E.M.G.K.83

For third (3) Ersatz Machinengewehr - Kompagnie, number of weapon 83.

Single edge steel blade made without fullers and stamped with a crowned gothic letter. 

Iron scabbard with leather frog. 

Also a photo from a soldier of 122 Infanterie (Wyrttemberg) Regiment with EB 56 bayonet attached. 

Charles Dangre, in his articles for ersatz bayonets, identified this model as Saxon!!! 

Regards

D. 

Edited 29 March , 2022 by zuluwar2006

[AndyBsk]

Nice one, question remains the 3 is only digit there or there was other in front some other number as there is rust area, the frog is wrong as WW2 here on scabbard.

By Antler marks it remains a question is a proof or its a ownership stamp, so by mixed stamps there are not reason stamp twice with Wurttemberg and Antler mark, some of the literature markings are problematic. Offcoarse the ASG ersatz bayonet was country dependance, so some german states produced typical region emergency bayonets. This is a cast handle which explain the heavy weight to compare the sheet stamped handles which are lighter.

I should say my experience with russian collector few years ago, in few books and since Roy Williams book there are many Wurttbg. marked pieces occured, which is for me little strange as i collect 37 years but the period 1985-2005 i saw only one or 2 pieces, now in late 201x there are many samples on market , and this stamps are frequentable more as Deutsches Reich stamp!!, so there is a question are these pieces all real?. And my answer is not, there is confirmed that there exist faked Wurttemberg oval marking and were added on various mainly Chassepot and french bayonets, which obtain is the easiest way, and similar stamp triple the price on market, since book as Williams and Mery. Mainly the bad condition pieces are problematic, same as letter proofed. I was on russian forum where the owner had a proof letter with bad crown which he stamped all his bayonets like Siam M88 and various other to declare it as german WW1 used pieces, unfortunally he dont had a knowledge where on the bayonet should be similar proofs. Similar dealers as the pieces with both side grips marked Deutsches Reich are continuation of what i say, the dealer pieces are more then problematic and not only one. So You could made You Your own opinion, to other sample the V letter was faked some years ago,unfortunally i lost my pictures by crash of the PC some years ago. On ebay You could buy any believable proof letter or WaA stamp for 120 bucks!!

Edited 30 March , 2022 by AndyBsk

[Rafal1971]

In confirmation of Andy's words. Photographs of one of the sites selling modern checkmarking punks. They sell Polish, Soviet, Chinese, Israeli and many other control points   It's just three and a special for Andy - Czech markings

[AndyBsk]

Thanks Rafal for presentation of these items,yes the last one is a faked CS - E lion 35 proof.

Problem by Mery and Williams are that they printed some problematic pieces in their books, so now its declared as ok and correct. I personally believe the Antler mark on Werndl 1867 is a fake stamp. Same as the prussian eagle is there most real for Prussian part of DR and Antler mark is for Wurttemberg, which is contradictional. I believe both the Chassepot M66 and Werndl are identical antler dies and were done by same source. I believe too one of the Gras 1874 oval Wurttemberg marking are wrong too.

Edited 30 March , 2022 by AndyBsk

[zuluwar2006]

Rafal and Andy

Is imposdible to push those stamps - punks on an old bayonet and get a result as original. 

Your theory is good as an idea but it cannot exist on real life. 

Practically, the result will be a mess, not to mention that punks/stamps will melt by the heat (we even do not know what metal they are). 

Andy your opinion is just based on your personal opinion, so nothing i can consider as enought argument, since you accept yourself as a conclusion. 

I have read the books of Roy, Mery, Carter etch. if so many mistakes on those books as you imply, please show to us the different opinion on other books. There is nothing to show i think. 

Especially Roy, had check each ersatz bayonet with a dozen important collectors, and after all decided it was a bayonet original, he put this bayonet on his book. 

From 3.000 ersatz bayonets he had photographed, he only show about 650 on his book.

12 ersatz models which were uniques, he did not published as he wanted to check them more carefully. 

Roy cannot now defend himself, but as a friend of him, i am doing this for him. 

Rafal and Andy, show us archives to proove your theories please, your personal opinion is accepted by me, if it is based on books or official archives or even photos putting punk/stamps on old bayonets, and off course mention names and not "someone" in russia, in poland or in the world.

Mention Names please. 

If you know the bayonet fakers, please share this with us, but with names. 

Edited 30 March , 2022 by zuluwar2006

[AndyBsk]

Offcoarse the people have nicknames and the russian forum was closed already so i couldnt bring You any names that You will. We dont know the identity, or You known the man who offered You the Deutsches Reich grip marked M1892 bayonet etc.? He is german and have some problematic pieces listed on Ebay and Egun auction. I dont known his real name.

Unfortunally i known a little the market situation post 1990 in middle and east of Europe and known how pieces were restamped for better win, as many dealers are not correct. What i could You say the majority of daggers of Hungarian or Polish and Czechoslovak area are now about 75% on market fakes, from this i focused on bayonets,that are not faked so intensively. But germans are the best area with various models and changes in production. Talked with some collectors of SS items , they say only 1 of 10 pieces are origin, all other are reworked or total fakes.

Offcoarse i already posted here in forum some errors from Roy W. volume I. book, i knowned Roy personally he was a great guy, anyway when You something publish which is not confirmed so its hard to remove it from a printed book, thats all. Every man made errors, but problem, is when You use it as a comparation bible for collecting.

The best source for german bayonets are german books, i would recommend You Rudiger.As he printed all to end of WW1, only the Weimar era and WW2 period was not printed when i am correct. I already listed errors of Mery by Romanian M93 captured piece here in forum. I assume he wrongly listed even some of the Werndls in the book, i will buy not similar books as they are not good.

Offcoarse is Your choice what You believe or not. 

Edited 30 March , 2022 by AndyBsk

[AndyBsk]

To presented here piece from Williams with Antler mark on blade i dont known is for Gew98 or for both rifles 88/98 as the  laps of crossguard were removed, when not visible cleaning hole i would tend to ASG88/98, so i assume then the white paint is not period.

I found the discussion with baltic collector that he wrote me in 2020/21 about EB54 piece which were heavily faked on market, this is a ersatz bayonet for Mosin 91 rifle. The V? or other letter proof similar or identical to Rafal presented Chassepot M66 was stamped there too. I dont known the source he found the pieces but he confirmed they are most real repro piece or faked not period - i talk about the EB54.

 followed on faked EB54

here on GWF on converted Chassepot M66 for Gew71

on Rafal presented piece unconverted Chassepot, Wurttmbg and Antler marked piece

Edited 30 March , 2022 by AndyBsk

[zuluwar2006]

Andy,We do not speak for ww2 german or ss bayonets which are totally fake. 

The discussion is for ww1 german bayonets. 

This EB 54 sold as you know, for 1500 euros and is - for sure - fake the stamp. 

The stamp on EB 54 is very deep as they pressed all the stamp (which was new) and this made a deep curve on the metal of the bayonet, proof of fakery. 

On the 2 ersatz chassepot bayonets, stamp is on surface, proof of originality as all the genuine stamps. 

Tottaly different way of stamping, which you must consider. 

I repeat, when a dozen of important collectors agree that a bayonet is genuine and Roy published the bayonet, you cannot cancel all of them for just your opinion and without any reference to books or official records. 

Mery has donne a wonderful work and examined himself a great number on ersatz bayonets, even discovered bayonets never recorded before. His books are treasures, do not buy them if you are not satisfied. But you are not present any book to prevent your opinion, which is incorrect and personal. 

When you want to accuse someone, do that properly, with attached bibliography. You say sonething which is your opinion and only. That is not correct for me.

Roy's and Mery's books are excellent and made with a lot of work. 

They are the "Bible" for collectors and i follow them on what they are describing, which is accurate. If you do not believe this,proove the opposite please. 

Until you proove the opposite, i will be stick on Roy and Mery and their books. I made this clear enough now i believe. 

A mistake, like on romanian bayonet, cannot drive all the book as representing fakes, as you want to proove, this is wrong, consider this please. 

I want your permittion to forward this discussion to the german seller, you are accusing as reproducing fake bayonets, because i inform him for the accusations on him and want the conversation. I did not allowed him to submit on this topic. Crystal clear is the fact i do not want to involve on any acts they probably follow between you and him. 

Regards, D. 

[AndyBsk]

There are many mistakes that i already reported in this thread Romanian, Werndls etc.., but as mentioned i will not added more infos as the fakers are looking to this forum too.

Chassepots are not ersatz , one was aptiert for Gew71 in time before WW1 and other was unmodified. So the letter proofs on the Chassepots are wrong not period. Same as the Antler mark is there not correct.

So as mentioned already , You dont understand the basics of proofing with controler stamps a unmodified french bayonet could be not proofed as already 40 years old in WW1, this is because never of similar collector are looking for period german instructions about stamping. Still recommend You read the period manuals published by Ruediger.

Offcoarse i have various confirmation about wrong parts in Williams and Mery books, but i will not add here from various points, thats all. Thats all for me, i dont have time to present You all the wrong points that are in the mentioned books. Believe what You will. 

Edited 31 March , 2022 by AndyBsk