Imperial German Bayonet’s from my Collection

[AndyBsk]

The marking is strange, certainly not Weimar, as no 1920 is there. Could be wartime or by someone added later.

[Steve1871]

The M.69 Werder Rifle was used in the Franco Prussian War of 1870.Known as the Blitz or Lightning rifle. This rifle was replaced by the Nauser M.71.

Many of the N.69 Bayonets were converted by simply milling or “ adding a step” cut to the back of the pommel, removing the Ball Final and I think the original M.69 bayonet was a little broader, so may have been milled, narrowed ( blade) I think. 
 

Since no official bayonet was created/ adopted, Germany still used the M.71 and Vavaria still used a mix of the older M69 as well as M71 bayonets. 
 

Our Forum member,  Zuluwar2006,  Demitrios has shown 16 or 17 different variations of cuts to pommel on the M69 bayonet

The M.69 was used at beginning of the Great War in training, reserve and second line troops and ( I believe) the biggest use of them in early part of the war was being issued to Artillery troops, not as a bayonet, but as a side arm, these uses are seen in many books and web sites showing original period photo’s.      
Simply another bayonet worthy of collecting in the broader Great War eta😊

[Steve1871]

Bayonet # 98.       
6/13/23

M.69 Werder  Converted 

Spine.        No pic.      
Maker.       Not sure/ part worn.       
Unit.          3.L. II.1.144        
                 Odd to not have dots between 

Guessing here, 3rd Bavarian Landstrum, of 2nd Army Corps, first kompany, weapon # 144

As usual, bayonet was converted, ball final removed, a step cut at the 4 th rib, to me, the second most common cut, the third rib is the most common cut I have seen. The blade is almost mottled, showing bright blade and darkened patina. The guard is a uniform patina. The opposit side of guard stamped 86410, I believe these numbers are simply rack or inventory numbers when they were in long time storage. These numbers on older Bavarian bayonets are very common. 

Edited 13 June , 2023 by Steve1871

[AndyBsk]

By similar pieces should be destined what for rifle it was changed, You proofed it on Gew71? as this rework looks like for the M1869 Werder nM rifle, the enlighten was done around 1875, in that period even started with M1871 arming, and majority of bayonets were S1871. The unit i would see as Bavarian Landwehr 3.Regiment II.Batallion, 1.Company and weapon nr.144

Edited 14 June , 2023 by AndyBsk

[Steve1871]

Having problems with few full length photos, will use 2-3 post as same one here

[Steve1871]

Bayonet # 99.      
6/21/23

M.69 Werder converted

 

Spine.           A Fraktur  Sn: 618.    3 by guard.      
Maker.          None.        
Unit.             None on bayonet, older on scab. 
 

all steel with mix patina/ mottle/ pitting but still good, functional, release works fine.     
matching Sn: 618 on back strap/ guard, right side and spine

instead of usual step cut to modify, whole back was shaved down slightly. Brass , nice even light tone, no damage

scabbard in good shape. Leather strait, seam intact, both brass staples gone but still not loose. Unit looks to be prewar. No dots separating anything

90559.       
14 L I.      
    1.       
44
 

 
 

[Steve1871]

[Steve1871]

[AndyBsk]

Do You have details of crossguard?, from front and back, i personally dont believe 6mm as here could be removed from handle, secondly not as the front nut is still visible and is deep, more real is the handle was moved on tang or the crossguard was reworked. The scabbard unit is for Landwehr. Bayonet and scabbard are missmatches, with different units, i assume the scabbard have a serial number of rifle. I assume this could be rework for Werder M1869nM. 

You should measure the locking lenght as the grip lost his typical long rib right behind the crossguard. So the handle was removed from tang of blade and regripped. Any details of pommel?

Other point is the fuller goes into ricasso, no maker mark visible, i believe the blade was shortened, how long is the blade from crossguard to tip?

 

Edited 21 June , 2023 by AndyBsk

[Steve1871]

Andy, thanks for the input.        
I believe the blade is still full length.        
I found a group photo of 7 Werder, you are correct on the pommel. Design of ribs for a grip, the first one flush with grip is not regular rib, but longer swelling out a little to fit the guard.         
I do not know if this bayonet was set to fit the M.69nM   The M.69 with the M71 barrel with orig. lug. Or M71 rifle. There are many original period photos showing reserve, secondary troops and guard, training photos with these bayonets on all of these

I agree this pommel was probably modified, by the front rib. I think it was done period time. So this would be a scarce to rare modification. I have a folder somewhere with comparison photos of my Werder. I just have to find it. On my vacation, an old girlfriend got back with me, kept me away from my collection for 10 of 15 days. Ran out of time

[AndyBsk]

618 is the number of conversion probably, on right crossguard should be normally a rifle serial, this was there removed, i believe the barell ring is brazed higher on the crossguard for this should be seen the details of front and backside of barell ring area, i believe too there is missing the maker stamp and fuller is too near on guard so the blade should be shortened backwards for minimum 5-7mm. For 618 speaks for conversion number all parts are so marked blade, crossguard and handle.

Edited 22 June , 2023 by AndyBsk

[trajan]

On 13/06/2023 at 20:30, Steve1871 said:

Bayonet # 97.        
6/14/23

S.98/05aAS saw removed  

 

A nice one Steve! IMHO, examples of sawback removed bayonets are rarer than sawback ones! They were probably not seen as collectable as sawback or even plain ones. Yes, sawback removal was in late 1917, and yes, those markings are not Weimar. Originally, the stamps for marking were supplied by - IIRC - Spandau, but I am certain that one of the DVE's noted that replacement stamps could be obtained locally or even made by unit armourers. That seems to be the case here UNLESS the stamps were added to make the bayonet more saleable. BUT, if that was the case I think they would have done a better job, including e.g. the dots!

Will respond to PM's later, matey!

Julian

[AndyBsk]

Julian, i personally tend as the fonts of letter are wrong here, that this type of fonts was used post 1945.

[Steve1871]

Andy

Post 1945? These were not even used Weimar, even police did not get any as far as I know

[AndyBsk]

The G and P letter looks like modern font , the grips were removed as visible on cheaped wood of around the lower head screw. The ribs were filed . I assume 4.G.P. as unit didnt exist in the listing of units. So most real this was done by a collector to increase value probably. I believe the unit stamp was done already over cleaned rusted surface.

[Steve1871]

Andy, agree and disagree with you. Yes I think grips were replaced, in wartime that was very common.I do not think ribs were filed. On the unit, or whatever it is, As Julian suggested, stamps could have been local or an armoire in the field. As for the Fonts, I am not an expert. As for some collector/ dealer adding those to boost the selling price. I agree with Julian, that they would have done a better job. Added the Dot’s and put a desirable unit on it. This piece was not expensive 

[AndyBsk]

The bayonet was evidently heavily cleaned mainly on pommel area on rifle slot with filling out the rusted area, which remained in area of barell ring rest or directly behind the crossguard, the crossguard was heavily cleaned too from rust, so the stamps are there problematic, as it would be removed, by some collectors is important have a unit marked piece. The grips could be origin, but wrongly removed by cleaner in previous decades. For this You should see inner stamps, some of the ribs were deepened, mainly on obverse side.

[Steve1871]

O.K.  Andy, I give up, you win, bayonet #97 is junk, should not have bought, just throw away I guess

I do not mind you pointing out faults with my collection, it is actually healthy for collectors to do so. 
 

Just on this piece, you seem to be a bit obsessed with it?  
 

Again, I do like your input, I PM you a fair amount for help, your opinions matter with me, just this one bayonet #97 saw removed, if you could please move on to the next one or two. Do not take this the wrong way. Keep responding, thank’s

Steve

[AndyBsk]

I know  that no one of collector is interesting to hear similar messages, anyway Steve by Your extra large and excellent collection, are similar pieces only extremely rare, as 98% are untouched and period condition pieces. As I made some correction on bayonet books since 2010, maybe i have already known as bayonet sample corrector by some collectors. Maybe this is too reason why i dont present some of my collection, as my early collector pieces mainly here in middle of Europe were too much more damaged as any items brought back by US Gis  from both wars.

This piece is certainly not junk, but was most real little increased on market value by previous collector, note the cylindrical steel burst traces of cleaning on blade, same as refiling of old rust on pommel and rifle adapter slot area. The bayonet was most real heavily rusted and looked much more different before the last cleaning. The unit could be as mentioned one of the changes. The screw were wrongly removed as cheaped large material of grips around the screw head by dissasembly. 

Edited 7 July , 2023 by AndyBsk

[Rafal1971]

On 22/06/2023 at 07:25, AndyBsk said:

618 is the number of conversion probably, on right crossguard should be normally a rifle serial, this was there removed, i believe the barell ring is brazed higher on the crossguard for this should be seen the details of front and backside of barell ring area, i believe too there is missing the maker stamp and fuller is too near on guard so the blade should be shortened backwards for minimum 5-7mm. For 618 speaks for conversion number all parts are so marked blade, crossguard and handle.

Hello,

Two Werder bayonets used by other countries appear in ABC Viala in photo.
One via Egypt and the other via Uruguay.
It seems to me that such small numbers were associated with Uruguay. I know/see that the crossguard is changed to brass, but I've seen such examples with a Bavarian crossguard and a small non-Bavarian number

Rafal

[Steve1871]

I apologize to you Andy, I should have not been so critical of you. I have been under a lot of stress lately. Not an excuse, simply what been happening.       
 

[Steve1871]

Yes Rafal1971, I did not know about the Egypt, but I have one those all brass Uruguay , cross guard perminantly loose, no spare scabbard

[AndyBsk]

Steve dont worry about. I am known on various english and german forums as corector and critician, so i am already little sceptical by so many faked and refurbished pieces on market, but Your collection is excellent, thanks for sharing it with us. 

[Steve1871]

Thank’s Andy, have 5-6 more Werder conversations to post before I move to other.

after a month, still trying sort stuff from collection ( photo’s) from a month ago. Plan on 3  OTHER post,   S98 Steel scabbard variations,  British (P.1888) with various frogs, and British/ Common Wealth Bandoliers, all using my collection 

With work and other stuff, been swamped

Edited 8 July , 2023 by Steve1871

[Steve1871]

Bayonet # 100.     
7/16/23

M.69 Werder Conv.

Spine.       Sn: 253.   Fraktur.   8.   
Maker.      W & S T.  Solingen.     
Unit.         None       
Sn:           253, spine,guard,pommel

It is Rare to find one of these without a unit number on guard, prewar or Great War. It has the usual rack or inventory number of  44084 with the Sn: actually off set which is odd

The scabbard is good, not great, looks to be missing throat piece? Bar great shape. Is stamped VERY LARGE 1512 stamped right side up, Prussian style, instead of usual upside down Bavarian style.. Never seen so large a number there. To add to that, the number is stamped over a much smaller number -  110 upside down, Bavarian style.  And yes, bayonet has wrong tag on it