“Barbarous German Bayonet”

[trajan]

I think I have found the earliest reference to the 'barbarous sawback" used by the Germans in WW1 - and I don't mind being corrected if wrong, i.e., if somebody knows of an earlier one! (No, I still not found the earliest mention of a 'Butcher bayonet...!);

 

Anyway, the following was published in The People" for Sunday 27 September 1914, page 9. 

The heading is “Barbarous German Bayonet” over a photograph of a 2nd Lt. RAMC, with Red cross armband on his left arm, holding in his right hand a P.1907 HQ, and in his left a S.98/05 m.S, with its leather scabbard tucked under his arm.

 

It reads:

 

“Every law of war is being broken by the Germans, whose latest act of barbarity is the use of saw-backed bayonets, which are prohibited by the Convention to which German is a signatory. This gruesome weapon is a German bayonet, half of which is a saw. These bayonets, because they rip and tear bone and flesh, are forbidden by the laws of war. Three such saw-bayonets were found in trenches abandoned by the Germans. The saw edge was not given to them by soldiers hammering one blade against another, but were machine-made, and each bayonet bore a government stamp, a number, and imperial crown, and the word “Erfurt”. Many people agree that f the object of war is to kill men, how they are killed makes little difference. But civilian Powers do no assent to that, and certain methods of warfare and certain weapons are forbidden. The more merciful idea is to kill a man quickly and not to mangle him, or even to wound him and keep him out of the firing line. The modern steel-jacketed bullet and the short bayonet-blade are not vindictive. If either can send an opponent to hospital for the remainder of the war it is satisfied. But this saw-bayonet so tears the flesh that it cannot heal, and splinters the bone. The blade is 18 in. long, and on the upper half is a saw with 9 in. of teeth, each a quarter of an inch wide.”

 

I haven't as yet found any medical reports to substantiate the claim of these tearing "the flesh that it cannot heal, and splinters the bone", while modern forensic text books simply state that a serrated edge knife (somewhat different, I know) will leave an extended V-shaped wound (rather like a single stroke on a cuneiform inscription, it seems!).

 

I have come across hints that there might be earlier stuff in the French newspapers about these bayonets, but haven't tried looking, to be honest. Also a claim that the French did try to get these condemned in 1915/1916 as contravening  the 1908 Hague Convention Article 23(e), which banned “arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering”, but I have had no luck finding that ... Anyone out there know anything on this?

 

There still seems to be NOTHING of substance to the various rumours that caused Ludendorff and others to get these bayonets removed from the front and then the sawbacks removed from those in service - reserves and recruits still had them as did the pioniers they were originally intended for.

 

Trajan

 

 

[Gernika]

...and the picture ...?

[trajan]

Have to be careful with copyright issues here but try: https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000729/19140927/110/0009

[Gunner Bailey]

6 hours ago, trajan said:

 

I haven't as yet found any medical reports to substantiate the claim of these tearing "the flesh that it cannot heal, and splinters the bone", while modern forensic text books simply state that a serrated edge knife (somewhat different, I know) will leave an extended V-shaped wound (rather like a single stroke on a cuneiform inscription, it seems!).

 

 

Trajan

 

 

 

Hi Trajan

 

I can't give you a medical report but I can give you a second hand report of an actual incident.

 

When I had my shop a man come in one day and offered me two bayonets. One was a standard SMLE 1907 with scabbard and the other was a sawback butcher bayonet without scabbard. The man said they had been his fathers and he didn't want them in the house as his kids might harm themselves on them.

 

The story with them was interesting. His father had been in North Africa in WW2 and had been on a night patrol with about 10 others in two vehicles. By accident they ran straight into a German camp and hand to hand fighting began. His father faced a German in a bayonet fight and the German's bayonet went into his thigh. He responded with his own bayonet and killed the German. The German Bayonet was the WW1  sawback. His father's leg wound was so bad that three months later he was discharged from the Army due to the wound. The leg gave him trouble all his life and his son said the scar was really ugly. However his father did keep both bayonets from the incident.

 

I questioned whether a WW1 bayonet could have been used in WW2 but subsequently heard that the Africa Corps were often sent obsolete items of weaponry until newer versions could be spared.

 

John

[Radlad]

15 minutes ago, Gunner Bailey said:

 

Hi Trajan

 

I can't give you a medical report but I can give you a second hand report of an actual incident.

 

 

I questioned whether a WW1 bayonet could have been used in WW2 but subsequently heard that the Africa Corps were often sent obsolete items of weaponry until newer versions could be spared.

 

John

 

The gentlemans father was probably also using a WW1 1907 bayonet on his WW1 SMLE at the time of the incident. Most of the 8th army was armed as such in the Desert fighting

[trajan]

Problem here is that no sawbacks survived to become government issue after 1918. Yes, a S.98/05 sawback would fit a WW2 Kar 98, and so would an S.84/94 - but where did this German soldier get it from? Privately-owned heirloom taken to the front? Anything is of course possible, but I find the story hardly credible. Perhaps if we could see both bayonets it might be more believeable. 

[Gunner Bailey]

24 minutes ago, trajan said:

Problem here is that no sawbacks survived to become government issue after 1918. Yes, a S.98/05 sawback would fit a WW2 Kar 98, and so would an S.84/94 - but where did this German soldier get it from? Privately-owned heirloom taken to the front? Anything is of course possible, but I find the story hardly credible. Perhaps if we could see both bayonets it might be more believeable. 

 

Trajan

 

The gentleman was totally sincere and believable.

 

The bayonets were sold a couple of months later but seeing them would hardly solve your doubts. I can confirm that neither were dripping blood or bits of flesh.

 

I can't understand your first statement. Although sawbacks are rare lots survived and I'm sure there were many in store in the 3rd Reich. Were they not used in ceremonials by some regiments from 1933 onwards?

[zuluwar2006]

Julian just a question. 

Why are barbarous the sawback versions of Ww1 german 98/05 bayonets and not the sword on the attached photo

BRITISH ARMY PIONEER’S SAWBACK SWORD BAYONET& SCABBARD LOYAL’S VOLUNTEERS

 

[MikB]

I always thought the purpose of a saw back was to catch and divert an opponent's blade. 

Mercifully I haven't had occasion to test that hypothesis.

 

Doesn't the direction of the teeth in Zuluwar's pic support this, or is it vice versa on the German examples?

[zuluwar2006]

9 hours ago, trajan said:

I think I have found the earliest reference to the 'barbarous sawback" used by the Germans in WW1 - and I don't mind being corrected if wrong, i.e., if somebody knows of an earlier one! (No, I still not found the earliest mention of a 'Butcher bayonet...!);

 

Anyway, the following was published in The People" for Sunday 27 September 1914, page 9. 

The heading is “Barbarous German Bayonet” over a photograph of a 2nd Lt. RAMC, with Red cross armband on his left arm, holding in his right hand a P.1907 HQ, and in his left a S.98/05 m.S, with its leather scabbard tucked under his arm.

 

It reads:

 

“Every law of war is being broken by the Germans, whose latest act of barbarity is the use of saw-backed bayonets, which are prohibited by the Convention to which German is a signatory. This gruesome weapon is a German bayonet, half of which is a saw. These bayonets, because they rip and tear bone and flesh, are forbidden by the laws of war. Three such saw-bayonets were found in trenches abandoned by the Germans. The saw edge was not given to them by soldiers hammering one blade against another, but were machine-made, and each bayonet bore a government stamp, a number, and imperial crown, and the word “Erfurt”. Many people agree that f the object of war is to kill men, how they are killed makes little difference. But civilian Powers do no assent to that, and certain methods of warfare and certain weapons are forbidden. The more merciful idea is to kill a man quickly and not to mangle him, or even to wound him and keep him out of the firing line. The modern steel-jacketed bullet and the short bayonet-blade are not vindictive. If either can send an opponent to hospital for the remainder of the war it is satisfied. But this saw-bayonet so tears the flesh that it cannot heal, and splinters the bone. The blade is 18 in. long, and on the upper half is a saw with 9 in. of teeth, each a quarter of an inch wide.”

 

I haven't as yet found any medical reports to substantiate the claim of these tearing "the flesh that it cannot heal, and splinters the bone", while modern forensic text books simply state that a serrated edge knife (somewhat different, I know) will leave an extended V-shaped wound (rather like a single stroke on a cuneiform inscription, it seems!).

 

I have come across hints that there might be earlier stuff in the French newspapers about these bayonets, but haven't tried looking, to be honest. Also a claim that the French did try to get these condemned in 1915/1916 as contravening  the 1908 Hague Convention Article 23(e), which banned “arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause unnecessary suffering”, but I have had no luck finding that ... Anyone out there know anything on this?

 

There still seems to be NOTHING of substance to the various rumours that caused Ludendorff and others to get these bayonets removed from the front and then the sawbacks removed from those in service - reserves and recruits still had them as did the pioniers they were originally intended for.

 

Trajan

 

 

there are several issues here.

The first is that this isn't something that would fall under the Geneva Conventions, which are actually the "Laws of War" in relation to non-combatants, that is to say the wounded, the captured, and civilians caught in the warzone.

The Hague Conventions are the major "laws" which regulated warfare through the 20th century, and include prohibitions on various things, such as dum-dum bullets.

But as far as I'm aware, and after a quick confirmation of the text of the 1899 and 1907 Conventions, bayonets are not dealt with in either text. 

The other one is that one of the traits of the American propagandists was to point out some barbaric act committed by the Germans while failing to mention that the Allies committed the exact same atrocity.

In 1918, an ad was published to persuade the American public to invest in the Third Liberty Loan in an effort to fight back against the cruel Germans. The ad published a photo of a trench club and stated that the German savages would use these clubs to finish off the wounded Allied soldiers in the battlefield.

The truth was that both the Allies and German soldiers used these metal spiked clubs during trench raids. The weapons, often handmade with nails sticking out from a club of wood, allowed soldiers to sneak into enemy trenches and kill a great number of combatants quietly and efficiently.

Yes, the weapon was cruel and vicious, but it was used by soldiers on both sides of the war.

[zuluwar2006]

15 minutes ago, MikB said:

I always thought the purpose of a saw back was to catch and divert an opponent's blade. 

Mercifully I haven't had occasion to test that hypothesis.

 

Doesn't the direction of the teeth in Zuluwar's pic support this, or is it vice versa on the German examples?

Dear MikB

I think you are wrong on this matter. 

One of these multipurpose designs was the 'sawback' bayonet, which incorporated saw teeth on the spine of the blade. The sawback bayonet was intended for use as a general-purpose utility tool as well as a weapon; the teeth were meant to facilitate the cutting of wood for various defensive works such as barbed-wire posts, as well as for butchering livestock.

It was initially adopted by the German states in 1865; until the middle of WWI approximately 5% of every bayonet style was complemented with a sawback version, countries such as Belgium in 1868, Great Britain in 1869 and Switzerland in 1878; (the latter introduced their last model in 1914).

The original sawback bayonets were typically of the heavy sword-type, they were issued to engineers, with to some extent the bayonet aspect being secondary to the "tool" aspect. Later German sawbacks were more of a rank indicator than a functional saw.

The sawback proved relatively ineffective as a cutting tool, and was soon outmoded by improvements in military logistics and transportation; most nations dropped the sawback feature by 1900.

The German army discontinued use of the sawback bayonet in 1917 after protests that the serrated blade caused unnecessarily severe wounds when used as a fixed bayonet

[MikeyH]

There is currently a WW2 dated (1942) K98 sawback bayonet for sale on a well known dealers site.  Made by E & F Hoerster, Solingen and described as one of the small number made in WW2.

 

Mike.

Edited 6 February , 2019 by MikeyH

[Chasemuseum]

A sawback will typically start 4 to 6 inches from the tip of the bayonet. (10 to 15cm). Once that length of heavy bladed knife is pushed into the torso, a person has already been gravely injured. Additional damage from the saw back may make the wound worse but death is a "go / no go" test. There are no degrees of dead. A saw back may increase the probability that a wounded soldier will die, however in practice such a change in probability is likely to be trivial. All bayonet injuries have a high probability of being lethal, due to the circumstances in which they occur. The successful combatant is very likely to ensure that is opponent is dead.

 

Regards the WW2 desert story - sounds great to add to a sale, but just lacks credibility. I have seen many WW1 battlefield trophies, bayonets, water bottles, fuze tops and optical instruments that dad/grandad brought back from WW1, where I have been challenged by the item being made either during WW2 or latter, or having come from countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, Spain or South America. An oral provenance is great but has to be treated with care. As part of such challenges, take great care as the person relating an oral provenance is frequently only stating what they believe to be true.

Cheers

Ross

A WW1 Turkish L/30 75mm field gun at an RSL in Australia.

This particular gun is a Krupp built m1904 for Rumania with the crest of King Carol. A large number of these were captured by Germany and supplied to the Ottoman Government in 1917, as they are very similar to the Turkish 75mm/L30 m1903.

The President of the RSL which owns this gun is convinced and sincerely believes that is was captured by the AIF at Gallipoli in 1915. When telling people that this is a Gallipoli trophy, he is not lying, only wrong. To lie is to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive. He is not a liar, on the contrary is an honourable man worthy of respect.

[Gernika]

3 minutes ago, Chasemuseum said:

A sawback will typically start 4 to 6 inches from the tip of the bayonet. (10 to 15cm). Once that length of heavy bladed knife is pushed into the torso, a person has already been gravely injured. Additional damage from the saw back may make the wound worse but death is a "go / no go" test. There are no degrees of dead. A saw back may increase the probability that a wounded soldier will die, however in practice such a change in probability is likely to be trivial. All bayonet injuries have a high probability of being lethal, due to the circumstances in which they occur. The successful combatant is very likely to ensure that is opponent is dead.

 

Regards the WW2 desert story - sounds great to add to a sale, but just lacks credibility. I have seen many WW1 battlefield trophies, bayonets, water bottles, fuze tops and optical instruments that dad/grandad brought back from WW1, where I have been challenged by the item being made either during WW2 or latter, or having come from countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, Spain or South America. An oral provenance is great but has to be treated with care. As part of such challenges, take great care as the person relating an oral provenance is frequently only stating what they believe to be true.

Cheers

Ross

A WW1 Turkish L/30 75mm field gun at an RSL in Australia.

This particular gun is a Krupp built m1904 for Rumania with the crest of King Carol. A large number of these were captured by Germany and supplied to the Ottoman Government in 1917, as they are very similar to the Turkish 75mm/L30 m1903.

The President of the RSL which owns this gun is convinced and sincerely believes that is was captured by the AIF at Gallipoli in 1915. When telling people that this is a Gallipoli trophy, he is not lying, only wrong. To lie is to make an untrue statement with the intent to deceive. He is not a liar, on the contrary is an honourable man worthy of respect.

 

 

 

Me quito el sombrero ante su disertación!

 

[Chasemuseum]

I should have added that the Rumania/Turkish gun in the photos above was most likely captured in 1918 by the AIF Light Horse Division in the Palestine theatre of operations (modern Israel, Jordan, Lebanon & Syria). They captured a number of these guns, with about 82 of all models on L/30 75mm brought back to Australia after the war. Although many have since been destroyed, at least 6x m1904 Rumanian guns are known to have survived.

Cheers

Ross

[trajan]

11 hours ago, Gunner Bailey said:

The gentleman was totally sincere and believable. ... The bayonets were sold a couple of months later but seeing them would hardly solve your doubts. I can confirm that neither were dripping blood or bits of flesh. ... I can't understand your first statement. Although sawbacks are rare lots survived and I'm sure there were many in store in the 3rd Reich. Were they not used in ceremonials by some regiments from 1933 onwards?

I do not doubt that the gentleman was totally sincere and believeable, I even acknowledge that a WW1 saw-backed bayonet could have been around quite illegally in WW2. But highly unlikely...

 

My issue here is that in 1917 the Kriegsministerium in Berlin, followed by Saxony and Bavaria, insisted on the withdrawal of sawback bayonets from the front, followed by the progressive removal of sawbacks from those bayonets that had them - there are figures for the numbers handed in for this process between 1917-1918 for some states. Also, bear in mind that the Weimar government and the Inter-Allied Commission did a pretty thorough job of collecting illegally-held edged weapons between 1918-1919/20. Indeed, by 1st October 1921, 6,462,198 edged weapons of all types had been surrendered for future disposal of which the vast majority would have been bayonets, and lots of them sawbacks. This process, by the way, was helped by the declaration of bayonets as ‘weapons of war’ within the terms of Articles 170 (2) and 192 (4) of the Peace Treaty, along with lances and swords, and so their possession was punishable by law - the Gesetz, betreffend die Ein- und Ausfuhr von Kriegsgerät of 22nd December, 1920.

 

Yes, sawbacked bayonets do survive in relatively large numbers: they were collectable items even in WW1! Proof of the barbarity of the Hun! The official production contracts indicate 6% for each run, although it is clear from the surviving German documents that in some States (e.g. Saxony and Bavaria) the numbers of sawbacks in store / in reserve reached as many as 19% of the overall total by 1917 when these were being withdrawn from front-line use. I have incidentally been keeping an eye on what turns up on auction sites and they certainly seem to represent more than their fair share (6%-) of what was made. This is somewhat confirmed by my own records. Of the 275 or so S.98/05 unit-marked bayonets in private collections that I have recorded 120 are sawbacks....

 

I certainly have not seen any reliably and objective documented evidence - photographs, etc. - that they were used ceremonially by any of the Weimar regiments and find it unlikely. I would welcome any such documentation!

 

Now back to your gentleman who was convinced he was wounded by a sawback bayonet in WW1. Possible, but if so, then it was not a issue bayonet. 

 

Julian

[Gunner Bailey]

8 hours ago, Chasemuseum said:

 

Regards the WW2 desert story - sounds great to add to a sale, but just lacks credibility. I have seen many WW1 battlefield trophies, bayonets, water bottles, fuze tops and optical instruments that dad/grandad brought back from WW1, where I have been challenged by the item being made either during WW2 or latter, or having come from countries such as Switzerland, Sweden, Spain or South America. An oral provenance is great but has to be treated with care. As part of such challenges, take great care as the person relating an oral provenance is frequently only stating what they believe to be true.

Cheers

Ross

 

 

 

I'm sorry but I must come back at you on this. Like Trajan you challenge the story. Are you saying I'm a liar or that the man's son is a liar? Where does the story lack credibility?

 

The story was related to me in an un-sensational way with additional details that I have not put in the thread as they are not material to the bayonet fight. The man's father suffered for years with this bayonet wound and was discharged from the Army 3 months after receiving it.

 

The son's description of the scar was graphic and without a doubt real.

 

Have you ever heard of another bayonet wound to a leg that resulted in discharge from the Army? I haven't.

 

I provide a near first hand report of a sawback wound and people from their ivory towers think they know the truth about everything.

 

I should add that as someone who has dealt in militaria for many years I know about 'buying the item, not the story' but in this case I am sure it was 100% authentic.

[trajan]

11 hours ago, MikeyH said:

There is currently a WW2 dated (1942) K98 sawback bayonet for sale on a well known dealers site.  Made by E & F Hoerster, Solingen and described as one of the small number made in WW2.

 

Mike.

 

I Haven't checked it - but sawbacks have been added to WW2 bayonets to make them more "saleable"! I have even seen a Czech bayonet with one, and these were never made with sawbacks... A good way of checking, by the way, is the angle of the teeth - WW1 sawbacks (as with the British one shown above) have alternating teeth, one saw edge projecting to the left the next to the right. Note also, if this one is marked  "E & F Hoerster" then it can't be WW2 - 3rd Reich and German WW2 issue bayonets had letter and number codes. Now, there is a possibility, I suppose, that it is a dress bayonet as I guess some of these made post WW1 may have had sawbacks... 

 

The fact remains, though, that there is, to my knowledge, no securely documented example of an issue sawback bayonet being made or used in the Weimar period or WW2. I am always happy to be corrected though!

[trajan]

9 hours ago, Gernika said:

Me quito el sombrero ante su disertación!

 

 

So do I - Very well put Gernika and Ross!

[trajan]

45 minutes ago, Gunner Bailey said:

 

I'm sorry but I must come back at you on this. Like Trajan you challenge the story. Are you saying I'm a liar or that the man's son is a liar? Where does the story lack credibility?

 

The story was related to me in an un-sensational way with additional details that I have not put in the thread as they are not material to the bayonet fight. The man's father suffered for years with this bayonet wound and was discharged from the Army 3 months after receiving it.

 

The son's description of the scar was graphic and without a doubt real.

 

Have you ever heard of another bayonet wound to a leg that resulted in discharge from the Army? I haven't.

 

I provide a near first hand report of a sawback wound and people from their ivory towers think they know the truth about everything.

 

I should add that as someone who has dealt in militaria for many years I know about 'buying the item, not the story' but in this case I am sure it was 100% authentic.

 

I honestly do not want to get into a fight over this. but...!

 

Where the story lacks credibility is simply that at no time after 1918 is there any evidence that the German army was supplied with sawback bayonets. If you heard the story direct from the father then it might have a bit more credibility, but it would  still remain to the best of my knowledge the only instance of a sawbacked bayonet being used by the German army in WW2. If you had seen and can tell us what type of bayonet it was that would also help. No, I don't claim to know all there is to know on these weapons, and I freely admit that I have studied the subject extensively from my cold white ivory tower! 

 

More to the point, although I have most certainly not exhausted all the medical records available I have yet to find a WW1 description of a wound inflicted by a sawback being particularly worse than one done by a plain bayonet. Bayonet wounds in WW1 were, in any case, rare - less than 0.1% with the AmEF, although a higher percentage was reported for members of ANZAC at Gallipoli, because - it was suggested - of the difficulties in fighting in "up gullies, cliffs and ravines covered with thick scrub" - i.e., close up-front combat. But bayonet wounds will have to be the subject of another thread! 

 

Julian

 

[trajan]

Just to lighten the tone a bit, this is from Punch for a869, on the proposed introduction of the Elcho sawback

[Mickjam]

Heres a couple of saw backs from my collection

[trajan]

Nice ones!

 

The earliest French commentary I have found on the subject of sawbacks as contravening the 1908 Article 28(e) 'Rules of war' on account of being “propres à causer des maux superflus” (causing superfluous / unecessary injury) is in a French pamplet issued in 1916, which in talking of the "diabolical" weapons of the boche includes - for the sawbacked bayonet - a section beginning:

 

"Officially it is a portable tool, intended to play the double role of a hand saw and a sabre-bayonet for the slaughter, according to the way it is used. In reality, it is a very dangerous weapon, which, when fixed at the end of the rifle, makes wounds much more serious than those of ordinary bayonets - because it produces a tearing effect when the enemy soldier or wounded person attempts to pull it from the body. ... [and] makes frightful wounds and causes irreparable disorders to the body tissue.” The text was accompanied by a figure seemingly based on a description of an S.84/98 m.S. rather than an actual example, as it shows a bayonet with a short row of saw-teeth on the edged side of the blade...

 

Julian

[Gunner Bailey]

Trajan

 

We all know that history is full of anomalies and in this case we have :

 

a) a first hand account from the son of the wound and his father's disability.

b) the second hand account from father to son

c) we have the two bayonets which stayed in one family for over 70 years

d) the son was not knowledgeable about bayonets and had no idea the sawback was WW1

 

It is therefore probable that this German soldier was issued old stock weaponry due to shortages in the Africa Corps or he took his father's WW1 bayonet with him for some reason. I tend to think this latter is the probable fact. I don't see that this last part lacks any credibility.

 

I have heard all sorts of odd stories relating to the military. For example I was given a first hand account by an ex soldier in post war Palestine whose CO got 12 Lee Enfield MLE's shipped out there because he believed they had longer range than the No 4 and would be a good counter to Isreali snipers. Who would think pre WW1 rifles were a) still in stock and b) used in combat in the 1950s?

 

Lots of things happened that never made the history books. Just because it's not in some 'experts' book does not mean it didn't happen.

 

 

[trajan]

16 hours ago, MikeyH said:

There is currently a WW2 dated (1942) K98 sawback bayonet for sale on a well known dealers site.  Made by E & F Hoerster, Solingen and described as one of the small number made in WW2.

 

5 hours ago, trajan said:

... I have even seen a Czech bayonet with one, and these were never made with sawbacks... A good way of checking, by the way, is the angle of the teeth - WW1 sawbacks (as with the British one shown above) have alternating teeth, one saw edge projecting to the left the next to the right. ...

 

I checked that WW2 one out (thanks Mike) and it is no longer there...

 

While I am at it, there is a discussion of these fake Czech ones with illustrations at: https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/parallaxscurioandrelicfirearmsforums/fake-german-sawback-bayonet-t42256.html

 

The first two photographs below show a real sawback (a Hoerster 84/98 m.S), which I took from the web some time ago but can't remember where(), the last one is from that tapatalk site. Note the way the teeth go. The teeth on a real sawback are properly turned as in a real saw, each tooth bends out in alternating directions to create a "set", and so a wide "kerf" or cut, for cutting wood (and they do!). The fake ones are machined in straight. I saw a 3rdR 84/98 with teeth like the second on sale in Oxford a few years back and so I know that faked 3rd 84/98's are around.