UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons The BCN Bayonet Forum CROSSED RIFLES - EICKHORN - INFANTERIE REGIMENT UNITS

Eickhorn crossed rifle etched blades with infantry’s unit’s markings. Long, short and pionier blades. There are many unit etchings by all the bayonet makers. This is a group done by Eickhorn and seems to be one of the favorites of the etched bayonet collectors. It has been very difficult for me to seem to get the correct lighting on these photographs but I thought this would give anyone doing research on different units some help. If you have a different Eickhorn unit in your collection it will also help if you post it to this group.

Photograph #1 front view

Photograph#2 Pionier model

Photograph#2 Front view

Photograph #3 Long blade

Photograph #3 Long blade front view

Photograph #4 Long blade

Photograph #4 Front view

Photograph #5 Short model

Photograph #5 Short model front view

Photograph #6 Short model stag grip.

Photograph #6 back side stag grip

Photograph #7 Long blade

Photograph #7 Long blade front view. Has distributor stamp mark.

Photograph #8 Short blade - pomel etch

Photograph #8 Short blade blank side with stamped trade mark

Photograph #8 Pommel Close up..
After about 30 photos this is the best close up I could come up with. Everyone seems to toss this subject around when they see one so if you have a better clear picture of one you have for compairson with the same subject wear and tear lets see it.

Photograph #9 The last two Eickhorn bayonets. A long pionier and short blade with same etch for compairson.

Photograph #9 Pionier and short blade with stamped Eickhorn trade marks. It looks like I was starting to get the right lighting on the last photograph. I hope you liked the crossed rifle models. I will try and roll out the cannons on the next go around.
Sincerely
HUBERTUS

You must have forgotten bayonet collector rule #2,
NO COLLECTOR CAN OWN NO MORE THAN TWO OF THE SAME TM, ETCH, ETC.



I know what you mean about lighting, reflections hard to deal with.

I wonder how many different unit markings there were??????????????

Thanks again.

There were quite literally many hundreds of Infantry regiments. Add in all the other branches of service and the numbers grow correspondingly. German regiments were the basic "building blocks" of the divisions. After WW I the German Army (in theory anyway) was reduced 100,000 men. With the Allies not paying much attention to the reserves. Which for the active army would have been roughly equivalent in terms of manpower to something less than 10 divisions for a total of 30 to 40 regiments depending on how they were configured. After Hitler came to power the German Army steadily began to grow from that supposed 100,000 man baseline. The mobilization of 1939 called up portions of the reserves and eliminated the relatively short two year enlistment's of currently serving soldiers. Which I think is why we are seeing with these bayonets the lower numbered regiments of the not yet fully expanded army. Trying to connect these units with the divisions sometimes can be challenging, and when you factor in the changes it gets even more interesting.

Not only is this particular grouping of bayonets a testament to the skills of the Solingen craftsman who made them, but it seems to show something else chronologically. There may be another grouping of bayonets waiting to be presented. But I don’t think I see any of the later wartime Eickhorn trademarks - as seen for example on some of the late German naval daggers. FP

Hubertus, you do own wonderful and interesting bayonets. Many collectors do not even have plain bajonets in such a nice condition in their collections. Now it is totally clear for me why these cannot be found any more.....

Fred,

Eickhorn trademarks used on these beautiful examples are credeited to the years 1935 to 1941. This is the only trademark I've seen on TR pieces.

Von Ryan

Wayne

So when Eichkorn started using this TM the etch bayonets were no longer being made.

Terry,

It's lovely...the Eickhorn trademark shown is the later trademark used (after 41). Please show us all the ETCH on the piece (as we were discussing ETCHED dress bayonets.

W.

Wayne,

I think Terry’s example shows some of what I was trying to say much better than I could explain verbally. I was not questioning the bayonets themselves. Or the period catalogs. But have doubts as to some of the timelines and when certain bayonet characteristics were instituted. Relying more on the observable characteristics and other information. Instead of catalogs which are time sensitive. And sometimes omit things that might (or might not) be significant.

And if we are focusing just on etched bayonets that includes not just the generic ones, but those which are are unit marked as well. Where this gets more interesting is with the unit marked ones. For example prior to the invasion of Poland, Infantry Regiment 499 was operational. And by early 1941 regiments at least into the 700 range were in service.

I’m not a specialist collector of dress bayonets nor am I claiming to be one. But unless I’ve missed something I’ve never seen a unit marked dress bayonet that was even remotely close to those. If that is a correct assumption then I have to wonder why that is. I think that I already have an idea as to what was happening. But want to see what the highest numbered regimental bayonet observed is first - to see where it fits into the (period) timeline.

Regards, Fred

Sorry to add confusion on this debate. My blade isn't etched. I was just wondering if you had seen any etched blades with this TM.

Terry,

I think I'm wondering the same thing that you are. I have never seen a late trademarked Eickhorn bayonet that was etched myself. But I’m not a specialist collector either, and could have very easily have missed recognizing one for what it was. It they don’t exist, then I think that there is a fair chance that even though the etched Eickhorns we have seen use the 1935 to 1941 trademark, that does not mean that they were made for all of those years. And with that kind of scenario there could be an earlier cutoff date somewhere in-between those two dates.

As another part of the ‘timeline’ puzzle something else that occurred to me is that senior grade NCO’s from the German Army and Luftwaffe would not have carried dress bayonets because they were entitled (because of their rank) to carry officer’s model swords. Nor would have junior grade NCO’s and EM Luftwaffe personnel who had flight status. The corresponding government issue dress weapons for the Luftwaffe are not dated, but the officer’s model swords for the senior grade German Army NCO’s have dates. The last date that comes to mind for them is 1938. Which suggests to me a de-emphasis for dress weapons at least as far as the Army was concerned because the Army was not shrinking but rapidly growing larger.

PS: How would you describe the finish on the bayonet that you posted?

Regards, FP

Terry,

In fairness to you there are probably SOMEWHERE a couple of etched dress bayonets (Third Reich) with your trademark on them. I just have not seen one in any collection or collections I've visited in my lifetime up till now. But then, I had never seen an SS Eickhorn until the last SOS Show either. I try to keep an open mind about these things and IF there is enough logical evidence to make another conclusion like anyone else I may change my mind.

Now, back to your trademark. Wasn't this trademark also used on Eickhorn dress bayonets for export after 1945? I'm leaning to a yes answer here, however some of you guys could help with that question.

See You At The MAX.

Von Ryan

Wayne

I hadn't thought about it being an export bayonet. As you can see mine has fake stag slabs, would they have done that on export bayonets.

Enough of my simple bayonet, I have enjoyed this exchange of ideas as I am sure the rest of the members have.

Dear Fred and Terry and all other contributors to this forum. I want to thank you for this learning session that is in motion, as I believe it not only helps me with my collection but others that like the Etched Bayonets.

On Fred’s behalf I have check the number units and did not realize I missed one which is shown in the front and back photos attached. It is the highest numbered unit I have in Etched bayonet units and it turned out to be a Eickhorn blade with the crossed rifles I had passed over. Number 119

On the conversation with the last Eickhorn stamped squirrel I have attached a group of stamped trademarks of the plain blades. There is a distributor mark on the side of the first plain blade “OTTO BROMER JR. WOLFENBUTTEL. I found none with etched blades of the last stamped squirrel pattern.

The last two photographs are of a forestry cutlass with the stamped squirrel and an etched blade and I have other hunting pieces of this trade mark period that are etched…Maybe there are some bayonets out there that are not found yet with the etches on the late models?

Sincerely,
HUBERTUS

Front photo of bayonet unit 119

Side blade etched name

The squirrels

Etched pattern with late squirrel etch.

A squirrel with a etch but not on a bayonet so far.

Very nice, thanks for taking the time to post pictures. Oh yes, nice distributor on the spine. I hadn't seen that one before.

Hubertus,

Outstanding display of etched Eickhorn pieces, many thanks for showing them. I also appreciate the interesting exchange of opinions and ideas brought up by the members.

Have you ever come across an etched fireman's bayonet that you considered for your collection?

You must have Terry drooling with the spine marked distributor piece. Not only is it an etched piece but it's marked by a distributor he needs for his cache of goodies.

My compliments again on some exceptionally nice examples of etched (and later) dress bayonets. It gives me a much greater appreciation of them and has been a good learning experience for me. From the examples seen it might be a little early to come to a conclusion. But I think that some patterns could be beginning to emerge which might be helpful to collectors as information is collected and absorbed.

When the late Anthony Carter was working on his book(s) of German blade makers I know that he had some problems with the Eickhorn segment. Eickhorn was heavily committed to the war effort. Which might explain a seeming lack of later period etched bayonets due to manpower shortages. I’m also not sure if there was an established or fixed stop/start date for the trademark switchover. And perhaps the start date might be a little earlier than thought (?).

As for Hubertus’s late cutlass I don’t want to digress too far. But would mention that a small, but noticeable, number of hunting guns were manufactured alongside military contracts well into the war. They were made more or less to prewar standards. And I’m wondering if the cutlass presented here might not be explained by this seeming exception to whatever else was going on (?).

Regards to All, FP

Looking at the German Army deployments for the annexation of Austria and the takeover of Czechoslovakia it might not be unreasonable to push back the theoretical end date for the unit marked bayonets another year into 1938. Also, the etched blade cutlass that was posted might be an even more remarkable exception to the rule. To date the late "over the shoulder" Eickhorn marked Navy daggers I’ve looked at have had plain blades like the dress bayonets. I also looked at some of my correspondence with the late Anthony Carter to see if it had any clues to a definite changeover date from the earlier Eickhorn mark to the later one, or if it might have been earlier or not. No luck there. And with his very untimely passing no possibility to see if he had any input that might not have been solid enough information to be published. FP