Steve1871 Posted 3 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 3 July , 2021 (edited) Bayonet #41 7/2/21 Friday S.71 18.R.R. 212. Matching #’s. Clemen &Jung. Spine Crown over W and 76 date below, smaller crown over large script C. 2 stamps on pommel, one being a script B, On the unit, was thinking Reserve Reg. But they usually are written with Script R, and would have a company number, do not sure if recruitment or what. Sure you guys can help me out. Thanks Edited 3 July , 2021 by Steve1871 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 3 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 3 July , 2021 I had photos mixed up, sorry, had 2 different bayonets. Will see if any other photos of this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 3 July , 2021 Share Posted 3 July , 2021 Possible the handle is of other piece,the unit is for Rekrutendepot des Inf.Regimentes nr.18.,weapon nr.212,matching with scabbard,which is always good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Posted 4 July , 2021 Share Posted 4 July , 2021 Nice article on the 1871 model bayonets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 4 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 4 July , 2021 As my user name applies, I collect the whole S.71 family,and starting this group with 2 bayonets mixed up is pretty bad on my part, so add another one, and try sort photos on this one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 4 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 4 July , 2021 Bayonet #42 7/3/21 S.71 Saxon I believe 106.R.11.17. Matching unit Alex Coppel Solingen Single stamp on pommel. I think this bayonet is odd in that they almost always will have spine markings of a crown over ( usually a W) over a date. Sometimes this set of markings is even duplicated. This bayonet , as you see is unit marked, and pommel mark but no spine marking. The first thing most forum members will think is the spine was scrubbed. My cell phone photos are high enough quality ( when lucky), we can see the original texture of the steel. I do not believe it was scrubbed. Just an oddity in German markings. We find them once in awhile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 4 July , 2021 Share Posted 4 July , 2021 (edited) Steve some of pictures are little blurry, the one proof on pommel is visible, there could be 2 explanations, as Saxon piece, the inspector for Kingdom of Saxony moved to Solingen, where he accepted the bayonets forgot to stamp with the fiscal stamp and proof on blade, which is little strange for early production 1972-5, or as visible on blade which was cleaned with metall scrubbing a very light stamp were removed? You should measure the width of blade near crossguard, but i assume You are not by Your collection, so this would be problem. Should be compared other Saxon S71 that have the crown Emperor stamp with date? http://genwiki.genealogy.net/IR_106 Edited 4 July , 2021 by AndyBsk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 4 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 4 July , 2021 A good photo book on Great War. This photo from Ross Burns shows men of Inniskilling Fusiliers after capture of Wytschaete The 2 men in frond holding bayonets. The man on right clearly holds a S.71 bayonet without scabbard. The other one in a scabbard, can clearly see it is a broad scabbard for the S.71PFM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 9 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 9 July , 2021 (edited) Bayonet #43. 7/9/21 S.71 Bayonet 138.R.E.1.20. 138th Reserve Ersatz Infantry Regiment. 1st Company. Weapon #20 Original re-match Spine Crown /W/ 75 below that a crown over script C. Maker. W.R.Kirschbaum. Solingen. pommel has 2 kind of large acceptance stamps, what looks like a “D”. And a common “C”. Blade in good shape, just needs cleaning/ oil, guard getting dark in spots with patina. Good brass Scabbard in very good shape. Finish scuffed some, but no folds or creases. Seam and both brass staples intact. Throat has 2 large acceptance stamps as well as the chape and final Edited 9 July , 2021 by Steve1871 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 9 July , 2021 Share Posted 9 July , 2021 (edited) Nice patina bayonet, similar condition i preffer in compare with high glossy polished by some collectors, the crossguard marking is clearly restamped visible the old remains one under, wrong deciphered unit, is normal Infantry Regiment Nr.138, Ersatz Battalion 1.Company and weapon nr.20, has nothing to do with Reserve as no italic R in unit stamp. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/3._Unter-Elsässisches_Infanterie-Regiment_Nr._138 Evidently the older unit was Landwehr as visible remains of L in outdoted mouth piece area of scabbard, i assume the blade was delivered by Kirschbaum and bayonet was completed by one of the large rifle makers, similar E proof was observed too by Erfurt. only comparation by Rifle proofs of similar period could help. Personally i would not clean it, only oil the metall parts, and look only to fingerprints on handle. Edited 9 July , 2021 by AndyBsk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 16 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 16 July , 2021 Bayonet #44. 7/16/21 S.71 spine, Crown / W / 76 crown /no read, too dark a pic, sorry 10.R.9.27. A script “R” 10th Reserve Infantry Regiment, 9th Company. Waffe/weapon 27 Clemen or Clemens the cross guard was scrubbed, between the R and 9 under the Dot, can be seen part of another letter.the unit is not crossed out, but a simple scratch is there. 2 good size stamps on pommel, The interesting thing is the Steel Ersatz Scabbard. Matching unit ( Regular) scabbards are GREAT ( have more), but are only Scarce, while the all steel ones are RARE, I have only seen a handful in 30 years of collecting. The top fitting, chape has gothic/script C. Enjoy, Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 16 July , 2021 Share Posted 16 July , 2021 Unit was correctly deciphered by 10.Reserve IR, possible the bayonet was refurbished as the blade proof is different to pommel proofs, i would say on scabbard is not C proof, more real the letter that is on pommel, the replacement steel scabbard is nice, similar items were done by Wurttemberg, but i dont known that unit is from there.Maker is Clemen und Jung as only this maker existed in Solingen, most real the lower part of stamping was weakly stamped or rusted out? certainly a nice complete. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dusty Posted 16 July , 2021 Share Posted 16 July , 2021 Steve, Thank you for listing all of the details of this bayonet in the text. It is especially interesting to see the units listed. Best Regards, Dusty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 17 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 17 July , 2021 I stated on this bayonet, #44 maker as Clemen Bayonet #41. Is by Clemen und Jung, I guessed that this bayonet was made just by Clemen, before Clemen & Jung merger. Can anyone check. This bayonet was not scrubbed a word “ Jung” out. Simply say Clemen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 17 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 17 July , 2021 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 17 July , 2021 Share Posted 17 July , 2021 Is mostly damaged maker stamp when not visible, C&J joined earlier as 1875. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 17 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 17 July , 2021 I have to disagree with you on this one Andy, Clearly, the Clemen does have wear, but also just as clear, there is/Was no Jung. Or & Jung stamp on this Ricasso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 17 July , 2021 Share Posted 17 July , 2021 (edited) Problem by Your ricasso is that is dark, and was cleaned from rust, the Clemen is already not heavy stamped and when You look at the letters C and N of Clemen on lower parts there are not good visible, so when the die was little moved to side by stamping, the other part of stamp was only light stamped into metall, so it could be not visible already. Other point the Clemen is identical with Your full name bayonet nr.41, by exact comparation with magnyfying glass You would found the traces of real stamp. Interestingly the material cast error in crossguard was not declared as heavy or important. Clemen& Jung was found 1860 as in various literature. There is no possibility that would be other explanation probably. Look at literature. http://clejuso.com/ Edited 18 July , 2021 by AndyBsk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 24 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 24 July , 2021 Bayonet # 45. 7/24/21 S.71. Standard. 75.R.R.465 Spine Crown/W/75 Crown/ script letter, N maybe Maker A&A Schnitzler Solingen Not sure, not reserve, do not think recruiting depot, experts will let me know. On the bayonet, I been collecting for 29-30 years, sure I must have missed a few, but this is the only S.71 bayonet I have EVER found by this maker. Rare for me. The Tang had proof stamp on it. Not Rare, but seldom seen. Does anyone know if that is a separate inspection not usually done? The Cross guard was scrubbed of an original unit or even two. The last bit (weapon # 78) is still there. Other traces are present as well. Pommel has two stamps. The lower front face of guard has stamp, which is common. Blade looks exelent. Scabbard has what looks like an old S.71 dress frog. I should cut it off, kind of beat up. No able look at unit on scabbard. Scabbard not too bad, nice Crown K ? Stamp. A good piece overall, but rare maker makes it one of my favorites Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 24 July , 2021 Share Posted 24 July , 2021 Schnitzler is old firm, most probably they produced only few years, mainly 73-5, there existed too Schnitzler & Kirschbaum which merged later to other firm. Evidently post 1875 there are not reported bayonets from that firm, when i remember correctly. The unit was changed and now is Rekruten Depot of Inf.Regiment nr.75, possible there were some dots but the 76 on end could be a weapon or rack nr. As mentioned correctly the frog is lacquered leather so for Extra S1871 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 26 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 26 July , 2021 (edited) Some extra photo’s for bayonets on my two German 98 rifles. Took photos last December. I know on the 98AZ, should be only with flash guards, but can not change photos, also, always exceptions, they are same bayonets and during those massive battles, huge loss in men and EQUIPMENT, WEAPONS, you use what was available. Enjoy Edited 26 July , 2021 by Steve1871 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 26 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 26 July , 2021 Photo’s are compressed a little, enlarge to clear up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AndyBsk Posted 26 July , 2021 Share Posted 26 July , 2021 Looks like various nice combination presented here, personally i like the Gew.98 with S98 and S98/05 bayonets and nice combination of Kar98AZ with S98/02 and S98/05. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 26 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 26 July , 2021 Thank’s. I can not decide which I like best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 30 July , 2021 Author Share Posted 30 July , 2021 (edited) Bayonet #46 7/30/21 S.71mS. Saw Back Spine Crown/ A ( Saxony)/ 80 / Small Crown / S Gebr. Simson Suhl ( script) R.L. 4.23. leave this one to the experts, was thinking Landstrum Reserve but do not know if they were Battalions or regiments, and usually a regiment number starts off. The cross guard may have easily been scrubbed of old marking. Looks like could be an old, smaller 10— ? In front. Saxon units were around 102-110 or around there Blade very good, teeth have some patina or grime or something, do not think rust. The Pommel Had a Crown over S, but also has two script letters I have asked about before. I have these letters on one or two other bayonets but have no idea what they mean. No one else on forum did either. Any help here please. Looks like script G and script S? Maybe Scabbard has older unit hatched out and new one of 97.R (script) . 1.247. Has a hole worn by brass final, but both brass staples are intact as well as stitching the brass frog stud is part broken off Edited 1 August , 2021 by Steve1871 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