I've never seen this marking before but I assume it's bogus since fakes seem to account for 99.9+% of SS items encountered. Opinions from the brethren would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Len
Len,
Yes these are bogus markings that have been applied to probably an original KS98 bayonet. These markings turned up years ago but I don't know the source of them.
I must respectively disagree with Orpo. I own one, vet purchased, with original early NCO portepee and frog. Wittmann's SS book also depicts several of them from respected collections. To my knowledge they are only so marked on the shorter, NCO bayonets, not the longer, EM models. They are somewhat rare and the one here appears authentic. Several years ago a fake was on eBay from the Czech Republic. The grip plate rivets were wrong and the stamped information on the blade, although the same as this one, showed inconsistencies with authentic examples.
I don't know the source either, but the hilt on this one is zinc. And I've seen it done underneath the plating on a pitted blade with the same type markings as also seen on bogus SS sword blades (from circa 1970's(?). As for those pictured in the book you can't tell anything from the low resolution photos. Also from the book since when is "VA 401/37 SS" the SS code assigned to Mundlos? And then there are the early directives from Hitler and others as to what was approved and the RZM.
The one in TW's SS book, attributed to the Barry Brown collection, appears to be be exactly like mine, including the "drop" configuration at the tip of the blade. The hilt is zinc-based. The stamped markings are somewhat deep and I have no doubt the blade was stamped before the blade was plated, not stamped after such. The SS portepee on mine has a cloth tag, dated 1935, which would coincide with the early issuance and wear of these bayonets.
The bayonet markings above are etched not stamped (take a better look). And in reality dist. markings and some maker marks etc are stamped after plating on dress bayonets.
If the markings are etched, that would add more credibility to their authenticity. It would mean they were etched prior to plating, if normally prepared. The symbols on mine appear to be stamped, but could be etched. In any case, they are very deeply set. I'm not familiar with who stamped what when, but it seems that stamping after plating would run a chance of breaking the plating which could lead to corrosion, lifting and peeling. Perhaps some makers bought the blades elsewhere and stamped them with their logos upon receipt.
Something that I think could be added to the discussion:
JANUARY 16, 1935
Bekanntmachung gemäß Artikel 1 § 5 des Gesetzes gegen heimtückische Angriffe auf Staat und Partei und zum Schutz der Parteiuniformen vom 20. Dezember 1934 (Reichsgesetzbl. I S. 1269). Vom 16. Januar 1935.
................................
I. Uniformteile
1. Bekleidungsgegenstände für die Politische Organisation der NSDAP, für SA und SA-Marine, für die SS, für das Nationalsozialistische Kraftfahr-Korps, für die Hitler-Jugend mit dem Deutschen Jungvolk, dem Bund Deutscher Mädel und den Jungmädeln sowie für die Deutsche Arbeitsfront:
...............................
2. Sonstige Uniformteile:
a) Leibriemen mit einer Mindestbreite von 45 Millimetern, Schulterriemen, Sturzhelme für das Nationalsozialistische Kraftfahr-Korps, Koppelschlösser, Zweidornschnallen, Dienstdolche der SA und SS, Fahrtenmesser für die Hitler-Jugend und das Deutsche Jungvolk, ............................
b) folgende Ausrüstungsgegenstände, sofern sie für die NSDAP oder ihre Gliederungen bestimmt sind: Tornister, Zeltbahnen, Brotbeutel, Feldflaschen, Kochgeschirre, Trinkbecher, Spaten, Ersatzteile zu den vorgenannten Gegenständen.
Sämtliche unter I aufgeführten Uniformteile müssen sichtbar das Schutzzeichen des Reichszeugmeisterei der NSDAP tragen. Sofern das Schutzzeichen nicht aufgestempelt oder eingeprägt wird, ist ein Anhängezettel mit dem Schutzzeichen anzubringen.
Die Erlaubnis zur Verwendung des Schutzzeichens der Reichszeugmeisterei der NSDAP wird den Herstellern von dem Reichsschatzmeister der NSDAP mit der Erlaubnis nach Artikel 1 § 5 Abs. 1 Satz 1 des Gesetzes erteilt.
Die Anhängezettel mit dem Schutzzeichen sind von der Reichszeugmeisterei der NSDAP in München zu beziehen.
........................
Berlin, den 16. Januar 1935.
Der Reichsschatzmeister der NSDAP
und Generalbevollmächtigte des Führers
in allen vermögensrechtlichen Angelegenheiten
der NSDAP
Schwarz
Der Reichswirtschaftsminister
Mit der Führung der Geschäfte beauftragt:
Hjalmar Schacht
Präsident des Reichsbankdirektoriums
There is no bayonet listed... above typo??
It is very easy to tell if stamped or etched. And of course there are fake blades out there with etched marks done before they were plated...
Looking at depot north sea etc.. and dist.marked navy daggers, swords. dist marked bayonets, police bayonets,waffen amt luft daggers the rare issue marked luft group swords. these are all stamped (marked) after plating... But I do not collect ss bayonets and just posted that the marking in the picture was etched. If people fake etched bayonets it is a walk in the park to do this.
I have seen examples of SS Eickhorn swords with etching on top of the plating. It could well be photoetching. Somewhat light and easy to spot. Beyond that, I don't recall fake etching and I probably wouldn't know a fake stamp if I saw it, unless the subject was incorrectly depicted, there were problems elsewhere on the piece, the quality was poor, etc. In the case of the bayonets at hand, the markings are very deep, so, if an etching process was used, the blades remained in the acid for a long time to eat into the steel that far. I have no idea why. I have not seen an edged weapon trademark etched so deeply, but there are always anomalies and exceptions. Opinions might differ and do. That's fine, as long as they are based on facts and logic so far as is possible. My concern, like the smooth-tail logo Himmler dagger misinformation of a few years ago, is these bayonets will be branded fake by collectors, doing a great disservice to the hobby. I don't care if their markings are etched or stamped, the only question here is are they authentic? I have no doubt they are. Apparently, TW, Barry Brown and others agree. Some disagree, which is also fine, but speculation alone and that these are sometimes faked is not convincing to me they are all with bogus marks. If you think they are fake and find one, please let me know. I would like a chance to buy it.
One other piece of this puzzle are the bayonet frogs. With a number of these bayonets they are seen mated to SS portepees with dated tags (or it could be missing), and overall they seem to be in very good condition. So where are the corresponding SS - RZM marked dress frogs to go with the bayonets? With the only RZM marked "SS" frog that comes to mind a service type - where some miscreant stamped some new "RZM" markings over a still visible German naval stamp.
I have seen examples of SS Eickhorn swords with etching on top of the plating. It could well be photoetching. Somewhat light and easy to spot. Beyond that, I don't recall fake etching and I probably wouldn't know a fake stamp if I saw it, unless the subject was incorrectly depicted, there were problems elsewhere on the piece, the quality was poor, etc. In the case of the bayonets at hand, the markings are very deep, so, if an etching process was used, the blades remained in the acid for a long time to eat into the steel that far. I have no idea why. I have not seen an edged weapon trademark etched so deeply, but there are always anomalies and exceptions. Opinions might differ and do. That's fine, as long as they are based on facts and logic so far as is possible. My concern, like the smooth-tail logo Himmler dagger misinformation of a few years ago, is these bayonets will be branded fake by collectors, doing a great disservice to the hobby. I don't care if their markings are etched or stamped, the only question here is are they authentic? I have no doubt they are. Apparently, TW, Barry Brown and others agree. Some disagree, which is also fine, but speculation alone and that these are sometimes faked is not convincing to me they are all with bogus marks. If you think they are fake and find one, please let me know. I would like a chance to buy it.
The only example I have owned is pictured in TW's SS book; I have seen a very few others identical which I liked. Mine came with a dagger, an Sturmbann "N" photo album and some loose photos. I was never able to trace the owner's SS service number. At the time I checked a copy of the Allgemeine SS clothing price list for 1938, bayonets were not listed but I think a frog was listed. I believe there was a seperate price list for SS-VT. Everything looked good on the grouping I acquired very many years back so I just accepted the bayo' for what it appeared to be, some kind of early SS-VT dedicated supply attempt - like the RZM-SS helmet which the helmet collectors do not dispute, although the maker of this SS helmet pattern is yet to be identified.
I had only Seen one other for sale like it. I could not make the deal on $$. I'll look and see if saved pics and look if it was near the same As this one. Anything SS is fake to
Start with,'what ******** now days you to prove it right. JMO
Steve,
I am not expert on this but i dont like the RZM markings, same as the SS marking, the book piece have problematic locking nut too. I would be very carefull on similar items, as many were faked in last 70 years.It would be nice to compare other SS dagger stamps with this code maker and similar date.
I'm a little late getting back to the party on this one but I just found it today on the PC looking for something else. This one was on eBay in 05,, is it the real deal? Your thoughts are as good as mine on these ..
Steve
I have a real one, but am not at home right now. I'll compare when I get home later today. I don't know if it's the one noted above, but there was fake example on eBay during the time period noted. The grip rivets, among other things, were incorrect. I believe the fake on eBay was in the Czech Republic. If you look closely, you will see differences in the SS runes and the RZM mark, compared to Barry's.
Grumpy,
That was the only pic I saved of it, but I do remember that it was listed somewhere in Europe,
Steve,
Checked mine. The markings are identical to those on the bayonets of Barry and Len. It was found in an abandoned house with original frog and early black and tan SS portepee with runes on the stem. The portepee still has the cloth tag, marked 431/35. As I recall, the one on eBay several years ago did not sell and I haven't seen it since. The one Steven C. posted is likely the one I saw on eBay.
Most believe KS98 were never RZM marked. I don't know timothy
From the pictures avialable on the various pieces, i would assume the markings is etched not stamped to compare with SS dagger, i believe there is this marking stamped. but certainly is hard to determine from the here avialable pictures.
