WW1 GERMAN BAYONETS FROM MY COLLECTION

[zuluwar2006]

8 hours ago, AndyBsk said:

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. 

Andy

You are not answer but again you reproduce your opinion. Ok, we understand you feel uncofortable, but please do not accuse if you cannot proove. Stamp on EB 54 is totally false, BUT on the 2 chassepots are genuine, look at the depth of marking. On EB 54 all the stamp made a curve on the metal, on ersatz chassepots not, because the marking is on the surface of the metal. Different way of stamping!!! 

Now, how (exactly) you proove that chassepots ersatz or converted bayonets were converted 40 years before ww1, is something i want to hear. This model fits and 71/84 rifle which was still in use at the start of ww1 and used on german army mobilization for second line troops. 

Also we see on unaltered chassepot bayonets the word Deutschland or Deutsches Reich in numbers, so yes they did marked and the unmodified bayonets as well. Wurrtemberg had a different way for stamping, that is for sure according the majority of examples they are recorded. 

So, this is a conclusion made by you, for you, from you. I cannot accept this as books indicate the opposite, from various speciments. 

We still  do not know  all the ersatz models produced or converted during ww1, even today we see unrecorded - before - bayonets. 

I repeat, if you accuse someone do it properly, with evidents, photos from other bayonets and books, NOT BECAUSE SOMETHING IS NOT ACCORDING YOUR OPINION. 

P. S. The German seller is still waiting for you. He even want to examine all his collection and have a talk about. Fair enough i say. 

Sincerely, D. 

 

[AndyBsk]

Sorry Demitrios, ok i already discussed with german, and balticum and even russian collectors. Similar items are avialable around the world.This opinion is not only mine, there are many others that believe that many fakes are around. I am not interested and dont have enough time to present all items side by side, and give You comments. The depth of stamping is certainly not any proove. Sorry but You will not read and understand any of the arguments that i already wrote in previous, You will not read german mannuals, so is hard to discusse more in that direction. There is difference in ownership marking as DR or Wurttbg. stamps and control proof on blade of Chassepot or unmodified french bayonet. I already presented here some errors in this thread that occure in Mery and Williams book, when You will You could find it in older posts here. And i will not discusse with the german owner of various problematic items, as the presented pieces M92 and  M74 Gras (Rafal link) with Deutsches Reich on grips are easy way for me fakes. Do, what You will, believe what You will ,thats Your choice. Anyway i would recommend You reading german books, as the presented here are only Catalogs observing various type of reworked bayonets wout any background information about stamps, how should be realised etc..I will not continue here in this discussion.

Edited 31 March , 2022 by AndyBsk

[zuluwar2006]

Andy

Please show us the books you are writing about. 

Show us official records. 

Show us photographs. 

I am doing this, do that and from your side please to compare the results. 

All other discussion is more talking and this is finally a dead end. 

I am happy for this discussion but show evidences please, as i do. The personnal opinion of each one, is just an opinion. 

Regards, D. 

22 hours ago, AndyBsk said:

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. 

Andy

You are not answer but again you reproduce your opinion. Ok, we understand you feel uncofortable, but please do not accuse if you cannot proove. Stamp on EB 54 is totally false, BUT on the 2 chassepots are genuine, look at the depth of marking. On EB 54 all the stamp made a curve on the metal, on ersatz chassepots not, because the marking is on the surface of the metal. Different way of stamping!!! 

Now, how (exactly) you proove that chassepots ersatz or converted bayonets were converted 40 years before ww1, is something i want to hear. This model fits and 71/84 rifle which was still in use at the start of ww1 and used on german army mobilization for second line troops. 

Also we see on unaltered chassepot bayonets the word Deutschland or Deutsches Reich in numbers, so yes they did marked and the unmodified bayonets as well. Wurrtemberg had a different way for stamping, that is for sure according the majority of examples they are recorded. 

So, this is a conclusion made by you, for you, from you. I cannot accept this as books indicate the opposite, from various speciments. 

We still  do not know  all the ersatz models produced or converted during ww1, even today we see unrecorded - before - bayonets. 

I repeat, if you accuse someone do it properly, with evidents, photos from other bayonets and books, NOT BECAUSE SOMETHING IS NOT ACCORDING YOUR OPINION. 

P. S. The German seller is still waiting for you. He even want to examine all his collection and have a talk about. Fair enough i say. 

Sincerely, D. 

 

[AndyBsk]

As already mentioned i dont need anything to present here, is Your interest to study items and manuals. Already reported that all original manuals are printed in Ruediger Deutches Seitengewehr Volume IV and V, there are exact rules how to stamp unit marking, how to proof bayonets how to preserve bayonets by the unit. There are many skilled experts in Germany that are same opinion, to list here F.Schumacher, B.Hammer, S.W., and other around the world, they only dont have time to argument here in undenless discussions. I was 15 years member of BCN forum, one of the largest over the world that has bayonets collectors inside. I dont say i am not error free, anyway i saw enough problematic pieces now, that i have my doubts about some samples.

About previous clearly presented fakely marked Chassepot mainly on unreworked pieces are wrongly the control stamp over letter, this is a proof by new items, acceptation by producer, so it could be only proofed similar way on new item or reworked item done by fabric, similar rusted pieces with no changes are not possible to mark with letter controler proof.

Secondly already presented that the Deutsches Reich circle stamp was done on rifles buttstock and not twice on grips of various bayonets, 

Already declared by Your PM mail, - M92 with removed hook means from Lebel1886 one of the best french expert in that area that the piece was reworked late or post 1918 by frenchs or do You believe french would remain a german name /property on the grips and served with similar bayonet???

Deutsches Reich stamp could be done only 1915-16 periodically, the piece is in wrong condition with new period varnish, the handle was brushed to remove rust on metal rivets and then it was stamped with DR stamp, that is a clearly fake stamp, believe what You will, by magnyfying glass looking You will see what are there brush marking on wood under stamp, the DR stamp is over laquer layer. So what it means someone has a proper or faked Deutsches Reich stamp, which could believable stamp on any french bayonet which is around 100€ and made from this triple price as german captured item for 400€.

Sorry when someone have in collection similar bayonets and not the only one with similar stamps Gras 1874 etc, i declare the collection already as problematic, believe You what You will believe.thats all about, that i would say.

Edited 1 April , 2022 by AndyBsk

[AndyBsk]

In 2008 already sent to Roy W. pieces to examine from his book Volume I this is from only part from my corrections sent to him :

-p.331 wrongly declared as bayonet S71/84apt. but in reality on the period picture is S84/98aA, wearing by soldier standing by the car. (later was confirmed by Roy that he made mistake with the picture designation)

- p.333 the bayonet nr.235 i believe its from a spanish M1893 upgraded to attach on Kar98a??, i dont like the unit stamp looks like not period note too much dots, as the Kar98a slot is normal 4cm and this bayonet wouldnt secure on the long adapter, note where is locking lug.
-p.334 ,bayonet nr.236, origin SG71/84 but with not correct 1920 stamp, there was a direction in early 1919 use only 2 type of bayonets SG98/05 and SG84/98 so its no reason to stamp 1920 a older obsolete bayonets which didnt continued into Weimar period as total obsolete
- bayonet nr.237 i believe both unit and 1920 stamps are newly made, police stamp S.P.26, note the wrong 1920 font stamping
-p.341 bayonet SG84/98aA made from export S71/84 not from romanian M1893 bayonet, the crossguard is not 4982 but upside down located 2867 which are with high possibility a export number

-p.465 wrong place and font of 1920 on first picture

-p494 period picture with rifle Gew88 wrongly declared as Gew98, in reality is this a photo combination of soldier as S84/98 could be not fitted correctly on Gew88. note barell jacket on muzzle area and side fitting of bayonet

-p508 wrong declared as trial, this bayonet is a S84/98 that was reworked to used some trial rifles, but the designation is wrong already discussed with Ruediger and other german collectors, Roy has more time similar bayonets declared as 95/17 in Goetz book are different bayonet for the trial rifle of 1917 year

-p.516 lower detail of scabbard with unusual M is in reality polish Wz.24 or Wz29 scabbard from Perkun

Here for Documentation is Roys answer to my first notes, when he was on Crete island

"From: magicroy@otenet.gr
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:51:51 +0300
Hi Andy, thanks for the notes.

P494 - is a Gewehr 88.

P514 - the number 5547 is unknown to me.

P516 - yes I have known for a long time that this was a Polish marked scabbard.

There are other corrections/mistakes that I, and other collectors have made have made in the past two and a half years, and there will be more I am sure.

Thanks for your comments I like to hear from you.All the best roy

Edited 1 April , 2022 by AndyBsk

[Ballyginny]

On 06/04/2018 at 18:25, trajan said:

Top one is 98/05? Marked for, possibly: Landwehr Munitions Kolonne ... But it needs some thinking to sort the rest out!

 

Then  a Machine Gun Company marking for 21 Infanerie Regiment, weapon bo. 50 

 

Last ine a French Gras superficially, but converted to become a Bavarian bayonet?

 

 

 

[zuluwar2006]

Andy

The corrections you are refering are for part 1 book of Roy,

In here we are talking for part 2 about ersatz bayonets. On part 2 a lot of important collectors collaborated with Roy, all of them are mistaken??? 

About berthier bayonet, this convertion was made during ww1, this is the 2nd variation, modified with wooden grips. This modification made on 1914. The version with modified quillion made on 1915 not on 1918. Hooks were mixed on uniforms of soldiers and were cut off from bayonets, this was a practice during ww1 on all the armies, not only the french. 

So on 1915 (not 1918) yes, a german stamp on the handles  is ok to me. 

Edited 2 April , 2022 by zuluwar2006

[AndyBsk]

You should go to Gunboard and ask there Lebel1886 on the french forum, when was started shortening of quillon. This is not modified quillon but shortened. The man is the expert in french rifles and bayonets and he known Mery.You should ask him.

In Roy book volume II are much more problematic pieces. But this would be other thema. 

[zuluwar2006]

I believe this model is the french Bayonet M1892 / 15 Mannlicher Berthier, 2nd Type with wood grips.  Used in the Mannlicher Berthier M1890 Cavalry Carbine, and the M1892 and M1916 Rifles. So as modified on 1915, deutch stamps on the grips are compatible with the year of convertion, made in the middle of ww1. 

Edited 3 April , 2022 by zuluwar2006

[trajan]

Highly interesting and informed and informative discussion. Thanks both! We cannot always agree with other on things, and an open and calm discussion on a problem subject is always welcome.

One quibble with AndyB though. As far as I have been able to establish there never was an officially made 1920 stamp, so different fonts are possible - in my opinion. As far as I can establish the only official instruction on the matter of the stamp is that official document numbered '657.7,20,J2 (W2)' issued in August 1920 which shows the location of the stamp on different weapons and states that it should be 3.1 mm high. I am happy to be corrected on this point though!

Julian

[zuluwar2006]

Good morning Gents.

Today i present an extremely rare S 84/98nA sawback bayonet, manufactured on 1915 from ERFURT. This is the pattern, with no flashguard. Later during 1915 (and since the front line soldiers were armed with Kar. 98) this model constructed with flashguard (there is the document no 50425, Munchen, 7 April 1915 from Kriegsministerium which described the damages on wood grips without the flashguard), so this detail giving even more value on this bayonet. 

    Extremely rare war time unit marking= R.J.R.233M.G.K.No.26

     233 Reserve Infantry Regiment, Machinen Gewehr Kompagnie, number of weapon 26. We must admitt that the armourer who made this unit marking, was an artist!!! 

     This model comes with (correct for this model) leather scabbard, which was replaced, after mid 1915, as in all types of german bayonets, with iron scabbard. Only this model without flashguard can enter this scabvard. The entrance is larger than the scabvard for s 71/84 model, and it cannot fit on this model. 

    Unit marking on the leather scabbard is B. A. IV. 111.

        The 233rd Reserve Infantry Regiment (later transferred to another division) was from the Thuringian states, mainly Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and Saxe-Meiningen.

The 51st Reserve Division was initially organized as a square division, with essentially the same organization as the reserve divisions formed on mobilization. The order of battle of the 51st Reserve Division on September 10, 1914, was as follows:

• 101.Reserve-Infanterie-Brigade
  • Reserve-Infanterie-Regiment Nr. 233
  • Reserve-Infanterie-Regiment Nr. 234
  • Reserve-Jäger-Bataillon Nr. 23
• 102.Reserve-Infanterie-Brigade
  • Reserve-Infanterie-Regiment Nr. 235
  • Reserve-Infanterie-Regiment Nr. 236
• Reserve-Kavallerie-Abteilung Nr. 51
• Reserve-Feldartillerie-Regiment Nr. 51
• Reserve-Pionier-Kompanie Nr. 51.          The 51st Reserve Division fought on the Western Front, entering the line in mid-October. As part of the so-called Race to the Sea, it fought in the Battle of the Yser in October–November 1914. It remained in positional warfare along the Yser until April 1915. It then took part in the Second Battle of Ypres, which involved the first large-scale use of poison gas in World War I. After the battle, it remained in the trenchlines along the Yser until September 1916. It saw action in the Battle of the Somme that month, and then went into the line in the Champagne region until April 1917. In May 1917, it fought in the Second Battle of the Aisne, also called the Third Battle of Champagne. It then returned to the line in the Champagne region and later fought from August to October against the French offensive at Verdun.

Edited 25 June , 2022 by zuluwar2006

[AndyBsk]

Its nice marked bayonet, it could be used on long rifle Gew98 or other variation prior to adding the flashguard, or wout this feature, the marking is strange because of the No. added in front of weapon nr. The scabbard personally dont believe is produced for this firstly there should be compared proofs on mouth piece and area of ball finial and compare with Erfurt proofs on bayonet pommel, secondly the unit is different and could be Bekleidungs Amt 4.Armee Korps ,Waffe nr.111., unfortunally is not visible the old unit in upper row, could be deciphered when not fully outdoted?. These leather scabbards are typical for S84/98aA but not the 1915 production models, the mouth hole could be opened because of sawback and easily to join inside so a period change, a S71/84 have more width blade as a S84/98 in 2mm.

Edited 25 June , 2022 by AndyBsk

[trajan]

Yes, that 'No.' instead of 'Nr.' is very odd... And that apart, I have never seen either abbreviation before a Waffe number before... Certainly not a regulation marking!

Julian

[AndyBsk]

in War time is this occured, some of the units have N. in front of serials, in this case a N. and o could be part of 026.? Nummer is in german so No. would be in latin or french form probably.

[zuluwar2006]

1 hour ago, AndyBsk said:

in War time is this occured, some of the units have N. in front of serials, in this case a N. and o could be part of 026.? Nummer is in german so No. would be in latin or french form probably.

Dear friends, 

That is why i said the armourer was an artist!!! 

[zuluwar2006]

Dear Gents,

 i present my 6th bayonet 98/02!!!

This one comes without scabbard and rusty. 

Manufacturer is "ERFURT". 

On the spine of the blade "W" and "02" .

Unit marking on the crossguard is

A.T.A.4.8 = Armee Telegraph 4th Abteilung, number of weapon 8.

Very rare unit marking.

For comparizon reasons i have photographed a couple of 98/02 bayonets and a plain 98/05.

I have placed in here and a similar unit marking on a 98/05 bayonet. 

Regards

D. 

[AndyBsk]

Looks like nice win, should be only oiled on metall and wipped out. the Telegraphen unit is harder to find.

[trajan]

Yes, that's a nice one, D.! I still haven't got one of these - they don't turn up in Turkey and although I could buy one in the UK Turkish Customs don't like people importing bladed weapons...!!!

Julian

[zuluwar2006]

Dear Gents,

Today i present a very rare unit marked ersatz bayonet. Unit marking is =

131.R.1.217

for 131st (2nd Lotharingian) Infantry Regiment of Imperial German Army, 1st kompagnie, number of weapon 217.

Steel hilt made from two sides each cast with diagonal grooves to simulate the ribbed wood grips of S 98/05. The sides were welded together and secured to the blade tang by a pair of large domed rivets. The steel crossguard have open muzzle ring designed to fit Gew 98, but it can be also attached to Karabiner 98. This is a later example of the plain version and is crudely finished.

This model is the EB 44 on Roy William's book. This model has shorter and narrower fullers. Overall length 477 mm. Blade length 358 mm. 

Regards to all,

D. 

 

[AndyBsk]

The unit is nice, the bayonet itself is a ASG88/98 bayonet, made for 2 rifle systems Gew88/and Gew98, as the muzzle ring have 2 diameters, 17,4 and 15,5mm. Nice aquisition.

[Steve1871]

Very nice, rare bayonet, unit marked, still jealous of how, where you can find all these rare gems. They do not make it to the States😰

Since you are doing better now. Any thought to FINALLY doing a book of your collection. So many options to get books printed on almost any budget, even a limited run. I would need a signed copy of corse??!!

Thanks for posting

[zuluwar2006]

Dear Steve, 

Yes i am quite all right now, as we speak. I wish there will be no relapse on my health matters. 

This ersatz bayonet came from france. Yes it is quite rare to get a unit marked ersatz bayonet, especially this model. Less than 5 unit marked bayonets  have been recorded as late Roy indicated from his notes, from this particular model. 

Yes, i am thinking to make a summarum from my collection, but not a printed copy. I am thinking to make it electronically throught a site i will organize, it will be more easy to enjoy it!!! 

Thank you, regards

D. 

P. S. Great bayonets you have!!! Very nice!!! 

[zuluwar2006]

A S 14, Type I, plain bayonet with iron scabbard, both unit marked!!! 

Unit marking on crossguard is 145.R.4.51.

This is for 145 Infanterie Regiment (6th Lothringisches Infanterie Regiment which raised on 28.7.1890 and stationed in Metz), 4th Company, number of weapon 51.

Manufacturer is SAMSON WERK. 

Unit marking on iron scabbard is 145.R.4.46. 

Very rare to meet unit marking on both bayonet and scabbard, for the S 14 model. 

Regards, D. 

Edited 26 March , 2023 by zuluwar2006

[Steve1871]

The S.14 bayonet and scabbard both from same unit, with 145 Inf. Regiment but you say it the 6th IF?? I do not understand?

still, another one from the “ Master of Rarity’s”. I wish I had your luck. Thank’s

[AndyBsk]

Its a 145. IR of Deutsches Reich but a 6. IR of Lothringen.