Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

98/05aAmSabg


Steve1871

Recommended Posts

98/05 first pattern, tall ear saw backs, saw removed, without flash guard. It has a strange ( to me) marking, unit on cross guard. Any help on marking would be great

4D701DC9-B8E8-4430-A354-79D060B440B2.jpeg

1F5D76B4-7EE5-486A-8AA0-166C14E5756A.jpeg

938F8DA9-47CE-40C8-8921-CC318D83D685.jpeg

158EA534-F753-4A1B-877D-D4764740F48B.jpeg

9C5423D4-9574-4DF4-A2F8-8576156445D5.jpeg

ACD6F058-6431-452C-9181-93DF752E606E.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Same opinion like You, the unit on crossguard is certainly strange, i dont like the fonts, looks like postwar made, the second screw is probably a replacement, the grip carving ribs was probably refilled by someone.Strange step in removing the sawback near crossguard. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This looks to me like a heavily restored/altered bayonet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The position of the cut/ remove saw looks normal, seen others.The original tall ear looks correct. The grips to me look like replacements. Too new/crisp for trench war, yet still have some wear and damage ( right)

The unit, whatever it might be could be some specialty unit or Weimar? Most saw removed 98/05, a lot collectors do not collect, so I got it cheap. Still interesting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The unit is strange, 4.Garde Pionier Battalion didnt exist probably. personally never saw a not reworked aA in Weimar use, the missing of flashguard and high ears are not correct for that period.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As I have said before, I think it's a rusty piece that was cleaned up (look at the grinding wheel marks) and then restored and also it was made to look to be a former sawback by grinding away that part as well. Probably the unit numbers were made at that point as well?

 

(all this is my personal opinion)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The unit marking does indeed look all wrong - fonts and lack of dots and no weapon number. But who know for certain? 

 

The sawback removal, though, I think is legit. From my limited experience I suspect some were done in the field and so would look like this, while others have the inspection mark on the shoulder indicating they went somewhere official to be done. For what it is worth, sawback removed examples are highly collectable by those in the know, as Steve remarked - he got it cheap, and an unmodified 98/05 aA would cost more at most dealers etc. I can't see why somebody would fake a more saleable 98/05 a.A loosing the date mark in the process into a sawback removed unless they knew about the relative rarity of sawback removed ones - spcially a 98/05 aA type.

 

Julian 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Julian!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, AOK4 said:

This looks to me like a heavily restored/altered bayonet.

 

7 hours ago, AOK4 said:

As I have said before, I think it's a rusty piece that was cleaned up (look at the grinding wheel marks) and then restored and also it was made to look to be a former sawback by grinding away that part as well. Probably the unit numbers were made at that point as well?

 

(all this is my personal opinion)

 

Could have been that 'bubba' got a hold of it, yes,... BUT, my reasonably long experience of dealing with these things is that the metal used for the cross guard and pommel (I have the figures somewhere) is a softer steel, and so if a really rusty job, there would be pitting in those areas.

 

The unit mark is bothersome, but I have seen similar on ersatz. And if one is going to fake a mark, why get it 'wrong' in so many ways?

 

Julian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the maker of the blade? any stamps visible there?, the unit looks wrong stamp because probably stamped on cleaned surface as mentioned AOK4. as You could see the crossguard was filled out from rust. Any visible proofs on blade spine near crossguard, what would i await for aA modell.

Edited by AndyBsk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, we could go around in circles, and everyone will have their own opinion.

 

I am not entirely happy with the unit marking, especially that 'G', but I will not dismiss it out of hand. Have a look at Williams, volume 2, 426 and 427, for two that are something similar to the general format of this one of Steve's. 

 

When all is said and done, though, if somebody was going to fake a mark, then why not make a better effort at it - e.g., the missing waffe number?

 

Julian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe thats a problem as in Roy W. books are some problematic stamps unfortunally printed. Anyway i have problem as not any other stamps visible, no maker? no acceptance? no pommel inspector visible?, and crisp unit on filled surface of crossguard., and there is no missing weapon nr. as 22 ,i assume there is not the company number.So when real unit, of which i am doubts,should be looked to historical materials for 4. garde Battalion existed?so when there is other explanation certainly there is not a company number after the P stamp. Unit stamped pieces are allways higher priced on market. But maybe Steve in hand see the older marking on blade?

Edited by AndyBsk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Andy, there are lots of problematic stamps... Thats the problem! To the best of my knowledge there never was a 4 Garde Pionier Batallion, nor was there a 46 pionier Batallion... But again, if sombody is going to fake a stamp why mess it up like this?

 

Julian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...