Hi,

Can someone please give me some info on this bayonet. It's a plated OEWG with a frog that's marked G.?.A. 1934. The wood has a green tint to it but I don't think they were painted, it looks like it got the tint from something else. The plating is nice but it has some rough tooling marks, crude compared to most German blades.

When did these cease being produced? Was this one likely made in the 30's like the frog? Who would have worn this and what kind of knot would have gone with it?

Thanks - Tim

marks

Tim,

You have a bayonet worn by NCOs. The swivel ring on the pommel was used to thread the knot through. Different knots would have been worn depending upon the branch of service. Here is an example of the Inter-war Polizei Portepee in wear on a similar Austrian NCO bayonet showing the method of attachment.

George

Its really plated? not finished? it looks like heavily polished or chromed, dont see the color of plating, but majority of these were nickled with yellow color tone of the plating, certainly the rough marks on blade are not obvious on normal M1895, it was empire proofed so probably used as a NCO or dress weapon, the frog could be Gendarmerie Bekleidungs Amt proofed, so used by police, like piece of George. best regards,Andy
Any stamps on pommel of grip?

Thanks George, I like your portepee.

Does my brown frog and green scabbard suggest a particular branch of service? I'd like to get an appropriate knot for it based on the branch the 1930's date.

Do you think the bayonet dates to the same time as the frog, mid - 30s? I've noticed some NCOs with either no rivets on the crossguard or two rivets. Is one rivet pretty normal also?

Cheers,
Tim

Hi Andy, I was posting just as you replied.

So the GBA 1934 on the frog is a police proof mark?

When I say plated I mean chrome plated. I tried to take a few pics without a flash and in this one you can see where the plating has come off around the front and back of the rifle slot and the press stud.

The tool marks are quite pronounced in the fullers, running lengthwise. There are also some tool marks on the ricasso below the MM. These tooling marks are under the chrome plating.

So did the double headed eagle mark end being used in 1919 or so or did it go on longer? Just thinking out loud...was this an Imperial bayonet and scabbard re-furbished with green paint and chrome post war for police wear? Or does the chrome and green paint date back Empire times and is un-related to police use...or it was police use in Empire times? I know the "fancy finish" could have just been a private purchase upgrade for a military NCO. Am I getting close?

Any signifigance to a the single rivet on the crossguard?

Thanks

tool marks in fuller and lower ricasso. Sort of hard to capture with the high reflection of the finish. You can see a small spot of plating loss on the left side of the crossguard

It could be that the scabbard was properly painted green in early 30ies to the frog,that has a police evidence, the rivet head was probably removed by preparing of plating, chrome plating is not typical for NCO dress pieces, maybe it could be real, but i am little sceptical about it, it has very crude tool marks on blade, that are not typical for a OEWG production, certainly the normal finished piece was accepted for using,that means prior 1917. best regards,Andy

Tim,

Brown is the normal color of these Austro-Hungarian frogs so no help there. The scabbards were normally painted green during Imperial times. Sometimes, they were also blued and sometimes polished during the inter-war period. The one I show is all raw steel "bright" finished M95. I do agree with Andy that the bayonet has probably been refinished and plated for dress wear. This was sometimes done during period of use by NCOs for walking out dress. I cannot tell from the photos but look closely at the guard and see if you can tell where another rivet may have had the head ground off in the polishing process.

FYI, here is another Austrian knot with the double headed eagle marking. This one is for Customs.

George

Thanks guys.

I can see no sign of a second rivet.

Here are a couple pictures I took in natural light this morning.

Andy, when you say "maybe it could be real, but i am little sceptical about it", do you mean you think the bayonet itself is fake, or the finish, or...? Just wondering what you mean.

The quality of the wood grips, scabbard, and plating is quite high and the marker mark and cypher are deep and clear on the bayonet and scabbard. The only tooling marks are in the fullers and just were the blade meets the ricasso. Other than those areas it's cleanly finished. Here's a crazy idea, maybe the lines in the fuller were placed there on purpose to give a contrast to the shine of the chrome. It does give it a cool look against the shiney blade. Or maybe it was made during war time and corners were cut to say time, then it was plated later in life. That might make more sense. Again, I'm just thinking out loud here :-).

I assume it's a "walking out" peice. I don't know if it started life as one or not. Any more ideas?

and

You know... I'm starting to think the fine horizontal lines in the fullers may be an intentional embellishment, not tooling marks. These last two pics I posted show it well. It gives the blade a cool look and I would expect there would be other areas on the piece which looked un-finished if this was not intentional. The rest of the blade, the crossguard, and the pommel are all nicely finished. So is the wood and scabbard for that matter. Hmmmm.

ps- the scratches on the blade between the fuller and the cutting edge is just a little runner wear from going in and out of the scabbard.

No worry about it, maybe they used in late 30 .ies chrome plating, i believe its no fake, only the finish of the bayonet could be replaced after WW2, the scabbard and frog are ok, the rough tooling on ricasso is normal same like in fullers for WW1 war production, i dont like only the spine blade area near crossguard,very heavy tooled for OEWG, but it could happened by preparing of the surface for plating.Nice piece offcourse.best regards,Andy

Thanks for the comments Andy. For my first NCO I seem to have gotten an odd one, but that's part of the fun.

So the hypothesis I'm going with, anyone correct me if I'm wrong, is that this was a somewhat crudely finished war-time blade that was chrome plated in the 30's, the scabbard possibly repainted at the same time and given a new 1934 frog. The second pin in the crossguard was ground down at the time of plating. There's no trace of it visible now.

I'd like to get an appropriate knot of some kind for it. Any online reference for the different types of knots that would have been used in the 30'S ?

If anyone's seen another with a single pin in the crossguard like this please let me know, I'd be curious to see it.

Thanks,
Tim

Here is one normal Infantry piece. best regards,Andy

Tim,

I agree with Andy that this is a proper Austrian NCO bayonet. Look at ebay for the distinctive knots but be careful as they, like everything else, have been faked. Imperial knots will usually have the cypher of the current Emperior while later ones will typically have the uncrowned double eagle or the white/red/white Austrian rondel on the stem.

Here is an example of an Imperial officer knot with the cypher.

George

Tim L:
I also have a couple of those Aust.NCO's that are plated...
Years ago I heard that these plated pieces were Austrian Police, used after WWI.
I have one that has been re-assembled with the guard inverted, with the guard hook in the place of the muz. ring...I've had quite a few belly laughs when I've trotted out this piece.
I believe that the second rivet on the guard was inadvertently ground off and that the blade was also partially ground at the same time...I don't think you could rub that much metal off the blade by just withdrawing and returning the blade to the scabbard.
It's been an interesting discussion on this blade.
Best Regards,
Jack

Thanks for the help everyone. If I find a knot I think pass it by for review.