DerMS Posted 1 March , 2018 Share Posted 1 March , 2018 Dear Ladies and gentlemen Can anybody please help me identify a Regimental marking on a german Gewehr 88/S? It says: K.E.R.1.39. Im very curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 1 March , 2018 Share Posted 1 March , 2018 The only K that springs to mind would be Kürassier-Regiment . E might be Ersatz? So: Kürassier Ersatz Regiment (squadron/company?) #1 weapon no 39? experts will be along shortly to correct me! Chris BTW welcome to the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerMS Posted 1 March , 2018 Author Share Posted 1 March , 2018 Thank you for your help! And thanks for welcoming me! I also thought it might be Kürassier. We’ll see, what the experts say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prussian Posted 1 March , 2018 Share Posted 1 March , 2018 (edited) Hello! Unfortunately you´re wrong. Kürassiere had a simple K, not a K. K.E.R.1.39 is Königin Elisabeth Garde-Grenadier-Regiment N°3, 1st company, weapon 39 Edited 1 March , 2018 by The Prussian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 1 March , 2018 Share Posted 1 March , 2018 36 minutes ago, The Prussian said: Hello! Unfortunately you´re wrong. Kürassiere had a simple K, not a K. K.E.R.1.39 is Königin Elisbaeth Garde-Grenadier-Regiment N°3, 1st company, weapon 39 Thanks for the correction -- as I predicted! Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DerMS Posted 1 March , 2018 Author Share Posted 1 March , 2018 Thank you very much!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 3 March , 2018 Share Posted 3 March , 2018 Lovely clear marking! But an odd one as well! In fact, it is so odd that, Andy, dear mate, I will challenge you on your interpretation! What you have provided matches how Wacker and Gortz interpret 'K.E.R.' in their Handbuch, but it does not match what is actually given in the DVE 185, the Prussian 1909 regulations, which specifically give among their examples '3.G.G.10.104' as the correct marking for Königin Elisabeth Garde-Grenadier-Regiment Nr. 3, 10 Komp. Waffe 104... OK, it is a Gew 88, and so one of the pre-1909 series of regulations apply, and of course I can't find my copy of the right now. Oh, and Wacker and Gortz give as their 'source' for the interpretation 'B.1910' - but that is the Bavarian version of what they name as 'P.1909', which is DVE 185, and the only difference between the two I am aware of is the addition in that of some exclusively Bavarian units not covered in the DVE 185. I'll hold it there for now as I am busy with kids today, and it does need some thinking - and also I need to find my copy of the pre-1909 regulations. For 1909, possibilities for the 'K' are: Kavallerie, Korps, Kadetten Haus (Haupt Anstalt), Kolonne, Kraftwagenpark, and Kustenmoerser; 'E' would be: Ersatz, Eisenbahn, and Eskadron. Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prussian Posted 3 March , 2018 Share Posted 3 March , 2018 Hello Julian! Yes, you are absolutely right with your correction. But you wrote about the prussian DVE 185 from 1909. I assume, this weapon is an earlier one. Görtz is wrong with B1909, of course. Probably it´s an error of the publisher... I have seen different stamps before 1900, in which the names of the owners are in the stamp too! I don´t have an example, because I don´t collect sidearms. If DerMS likes, I could show it in our forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 3 March , 2018 Share Posted 3 March , 2018 3 hours ago, The Prussian said: Hello Julian! Yes, you are absolutely right with your correction. But you wrote about the prussian DVE 185 from 1909. I assume, this weapon is an earlier one. Görtz is wrong with B1909, of course. Probably it´s an error of the publisher... I have seen different stamps before 1900, in which the names of the owners are in the stamp too! I don´t have an example, because I don´t collect sidearms. If DerMS likes, I could show it in our forum. Cheers Andy, There is a copy of the 1877 regulations in Franz, Preussisch-deutsche, vol 4, and that also gives '3.G.G.R.10,104' for the same unit - Franz, p. 395, but no entry for an italic 'K'. But BINGO! - the 1897 regulations are in Franz vol 5, and there we have (Franz, p. 549), 'K.E.R.10.104', Koenigen Elisabeth...usw. So, you were right, as were Wacker and Gortz (although they gave the wrong source). I can't find in Franz any supplementary issues of regulations between 1877-1897... But, in effect the unit marking dates to between 1897-1909. Interesting though how they use the same example in all three sets of regulations... Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prussian Posted 3 March , 2018 Share Posted 3 March , 2018 (edited) Yes, Julian! That´s interesting. The system of regimental stamping is so large, that no-one can know everything... But I´m glad, that we both were right, so it was a good day... Edited 3 March , 2018 by The Prussian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 3 March , 2018 Share Posted 3 March , 2018 Andy, the regulations hardly vary from one issue to the next with regard to unit markings and often use the same examples - but I think that (when I have time!) I will sit down and make a case by case comparison of the regulations I can find. There are some additions in the Bavarian ones for exclusively Bavarian units, but otherwise from 1877, Bavaria follows the Prussian ones word for word (as they should under the constitution) - and use the same regiment, company, and weapon number examples, as with '3.G.G.R.10.104' in 1877, which becomes 'K.E.R.10.104', in 1897, and back to '3.G.G.R.10.104' in 1909. Time for me to write a short monograph on this with all my listed unit-markings perhaps???!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Prussian Posted 3 March , 2018 Share Posted 3 March , 2018 That will be a hell's work... But it could be a good errata to Wacker and Görtz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 3 March , 2018 Share Posted 3 March , 2018 Well, maybe a retirement project - if I get that far! But seeing how popular Jeff Noll's monograph is, and how much more I can add, well, maybe... 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