acerimmer Posted 4 August , 2018 Share Posted 4 August , 2018 (edited) Hi there. Just picked up my first 1884 Bayonet and I wondered if anyone could help me with the unit IDs? The scabard looks like it's had two IDs with one removed? edit: now with photo (hopefully!) Edited 4 August , 2018 by acerimmer Photo added Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGJDEE Posted 4 August , 2018 Share Posted 4 August , 2018 If you add a photo to your thread I’m sure someone will be happy to help, regards R. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 4 August , 2018 Share Posted 4 August , 2018 Nice piece! This is actually an 1871/84 converted in the first decade of the 20th century (I think, off-hand, 1905) to become a S.84/98 a.A, by removing the muzzle ring and supplying a 98 type pommel. So, 168 Infanterie Regiment Maschinen-Gewehr-Kompagnie, Waffe 79 on the scabbard, and remains of the original S.71/84 regimental marking on the crossguard, but as usual with these converted ones, the regiment number is missing, lost when the muzzle ring was removed... 13 is the Kompagnie number and the number after that the Waffe number. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acerimmer Posted 5 August , 2018 Author Share Posted 5 August , 2018 (edited) Excellent thanks. I'd assumed the scabbard and bayonet didn't match but it sounds like the bayonets weren't re-stamped with a new unit number after conversion? Oh and also, does anyone know the likely life cycle of this design of bayonet? Would it have been removed from service as soon as the new style bayonets were issued? Is it likely to have seen wartime use? Many thanks! Edited 5 August , 2018 by acerimmer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 5 August , 2018 Share Posted 5 August , 2018 Happy to help! No reason why it should not have seen service in WW1 and every reason why it should. Pretty certainly the scabbard, as it is for a Machine gun company. There was a desperate need for short knife bayonets at the start of WW1 and so I see every reason why the bayonet was also involved in that also. I have been puzzling over the scrubbed-out mark. The best I can come up with - as it starts with a 'G' and no number - is Garde-Schutzen Battaillon, as that looks to be an 'S' after the 'G'. Perhaps 10 Kompagnie, but no idea as to the Waffe number! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zuluwar2006 Posted 5 August , 2018 Share Posted 5 August , 2018 Julain, correct unit marking identification, i agree absolutely.. and dear acerimmer, very nice bayonet, BRAVO!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 14 August , 2018 Share Posted 14 August , 2018 On 05/08/2018 at 20:09, zuluwar2006 said: Julain, correct unit marking identification, i agree absolutely.. and dear acerimmer, very nice bayonet, BRAVO!!!!! Thanks ZW. I am trying to get to grips with all these ones - I am in the UK right now and saw a good marked 71/84 there in a shop and also a nice one in the a museum. Carter in his books got much of the data on these but I am trying to get more... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acerimmer Posted 5 November , 2018 Author Share Posted 5 November , 2018 One more question on this bayonet...it has Alex Coppel Solingen on one side of the ricasso, but Danzig and a crown on the other. Is this normal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 5 November , 2018 Share Posted 5 November , 2018 (edited) Not come across a DANZIG mark myself, but the COPPEL mark is on the left side and so would indicate the blade maker. Any marks on the right hand side would normally be the bayonet "finisher", but off-hand I can't recall anything with a Danzig mark. Without checking, a guess - Crown implies Imperial armoury, so maybe converted there? BUT, please send a photograph, then I or somebody else can work on it! Julian Edited 5 November , 2018 by trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acerimmer Posted 14 November , 2018 Author Share Posted 14 November , 2018 Images here I hope Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 14 November , 2018 Share Posted 14 November , 2018 Another nice one! Sadly in the process of converting this original 71/84 to a 84/98 a.A format the regiment number was lost, and so we are left with"X - Infanterie-Regiment, Kompagnie 13, Waffe 207". On the other hand it is a COPPEL, and so if you let me have the blade-spine mark - state and year - then I might be able to narrow the original regiment down to a mere 20 or so! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acerimmer Posted 14 November , 2018 Author Share Posted 14 November , 2018 Hi Trajan. It's the same bayonet as first posted above! Image of spine here though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 14 November , 2018 Share Posted 14 November , 2018 Me being lazy - sorry! I have to get an article (Augustan Galatia!) ready for a journal by the end of the month and I am only half-way through! OK, Coppel for Prussia, etc, 1888. Well, a minimum of 15 options - but I am still puzzling over that Danzig mark... Not seen one like that at all before... ERFURT, yes, but Danzig???? They made rifles, but bayonets??? I'll see if I can track down more but I don't - too be honest - have high hopes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 15 November , 2018 Share Posted 15 November , 2018 (edited) The DANZIG marking represents the Imperial arsenal of Gewehrfabrik Danzig (which was located of course in Danzig) This is a known marking found on S71/84 bayonet blades and it has been suggested they were the assembler/finisher.? Alternatively they could also have been the ones responsible for the conversion of the S71/84's into the S84/98 pattern.? Edited 15 November , 2018 by shippingsteel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 15 November , 2018 Share Posted 15 November , 2018 On 05/11/2018 at 18:14, trajan said: ... the COPPEL mark is on the left side and so would indicate the blade maker. Any marks on the right hand side would normally be the bayonet "finisher", ... Crown implies Imperial armoury, so maybe converted there? 13 hours ago, trajan said: Me being lazy - sorry! ... ERFURT, yes, but Danzig???? They made rifles, but bayonets??? ... I'll see if I can track down more ... 2 hours ago, shippingsteel said: The DANZIG marking represents the Imperial arsenal of Gewehrfabrik Danzig (which was located of course in Danzig) This is a known marking found on S71/84 bayonet blades and it has been suggested they were the assembler/finisher.? Alternatively they could also have been the ones responsible for the conversion of the S71/84's into the S84/98 pattern.? Thanks SS, The armoury is still standing - perhaps as a re-build after WW2? - and a major tourist attraction! OK, so prompted by you I did check my listings and I do have a 84/98 a.A by Weyersburg Kirschbaum et Cie, W/89, which is also "Crown/DANZIG''. Could be 'finisher' or conversion mark? I would go for the former - gut feeling no more. But in any case rare enough! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Haselgrove Posted 15 November , 2018 Share Posted 15 November , 2018 Julian, I hope you and your family are keeping well. I was interested by this thread and think I have found something for you confirming what you write above in Carter German Bayonets Vol.II page 34 where he wrote: "A few were altered at the Danzig Arsenal and similarly stamped with a crown above DANZIG on the right ricasso. All the Danzig examples recorded have been dated W/89 and marked Weyersberg, Kirschbaum & Cie on the left side. It is possible that Danzig finished the original S 71/84 and were not responsible for the conversion, but to date no example of an unaltered S 71/84 with these markings has been recorded. Most of the conversions only bear their original S71/84 markings, and it is impossible to say who carried out the modifications". Anyway, I hope this is of interest. Best wishes, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
acerimmer Posted 15 November , 2018 Author Share Posted 15 November , 2018 Very interesting. Thanks gents. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 15 November , 2018 Share Posted 15 November , 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Michael Haselgrove said: ... Carter German Bayonets Vol.II page 34... Many thanks Michael! I knew I should have checked Carter! But two young uns and demands of an academic career simply left me no time. But I have just now checked Franz, Preussich-deutsche ... volume 5, and he does show a DANZIG example of a WK and Cie, W/88, S.71/84 on p. 89. He also states on p.92 that the "mass production of these [S.71/84 bayonets] began in the three State armouries at Spandau, Erfurt, and Danzig, about the middle of 1886, in Bavaria (at Amberg) no earlier than towards the end of 1886". I am not at all certain why he says "Massenproduktion" for these at those places. General rule of thimb has always been - from so many examples - blade makers stamp on the left ricasso, additional stamps by 'finishers' - if any - on the right... As to things here, well we struggle with a 25% cut in the value of my salary since July and 25% inflation! I have basically stopped collecting unless I see something I REALLY need... Best wishes, Julian PS: should have added if not clear from the above - the one in Franz is unaltered - still has its muzzle-ring, so Danzig not responsible for alterations to 84/98 a.A standard. And the existence of a COPPEL/ DANZIG one as with acerimmer's example certainly an interesting addition to what was known to Carter Edited 15 November , 2018 by trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 15 November , 2018 Share Posted 15 November , 2018 Trajan, You had better hope that neither the presumptive editor of the Augustan Galitia article nor the head of your dept. is following this thread! Oh wait, one of them is on the phone now........ Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 16 November , 2018 Share Posted 16 November , 2018 10 hours ago, JMB1943 said: ...You had better hope that neither the presumptive editor of the Augustan Galitia article nor the head of your dept. is following this thread! Oh wait, one of them is on the phone now........ 15 14 days to submission... But this really is an intriguing specimen! I have been racking my brains for any other Imperial bayonet types 'finished' at Danzig, but cannot think of any and daren't start looking - perhaps SS has a few up his sleeve, as it were? Or Michael H.? As it is, the whole matter of these 'finisher' marks needs looking into, e.g., why is it that roughly 10% of the S.71/84 unit-marked models have this doubled marking with a crown/ERFURT or DANZIG on the right? Secondary inspection of 1 in 10 batches from each factory? In which case the crown mark serves as an inspection mark? Note that some S.71's, etc, also have a doubled 'crown' marking'... Back to Galatia... Julian 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