UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons The BCN Bayonet Forum material rivets 98k bayonet frogs

The German 98k bayonet frog can be found with rivets made of copper, aluminium or steel.

To my observation early frogs have copper rivets and late ones steel, but what are (roughly) the change-over years? I.e. from when to when copper, from when to when aluminium and from when to when steel?

it is not easy to say... because the differnet troops had differnet standards...of typs, colour, rivites etc. for example the Police usw copper/brass rivtes very long. The army frogs had until 1935 alu rivets und the luftwaffe use Copper/brass, together with alu ones, up to 1937.

Among the hundreds of original frogs I have in my collection, there is a standard:
Every frog from 1935 and earlier is copper.
Every frog from 1936 and after is aluminium.
Arnaud

As a general outline most of what is described above is OK. But there are some exceptions, and some mixed metals (rivets/washers) equipped frogs. And the parameters can be expanded to include things like brass washers. And blued, and phospahte coated steel. And uncoated (bare)steel, and even some painted ones, with the plain/bare steel ones being generally seen with the last issues. FP

This looks like it might be a very good discussion. Can you please add pictures ?

Thanks
Dave

I don’t have a lot of prepared images but here are few to start.

All of the below are Luftwaffe frogs with one of the copper/brass combination examples to the left. Then aluminum. With the later black leather one to the right having aluminum washers and steel rivets. (The Luftwaffe blue tropical frog to the far right can be seen with either an aluminum or a steel stud. Pictured here is the aluminum one.) FP

This R.F.Nr. coded 1944 dated frog is seen with mixed materials. FP

This German/Italian (combination) frog has steel rivets. FP

This (probable) late war field/small shop repaired frog was aluminum mounted. But now has steel rivets/washers attaching the new back piece (which appears to scrap leather, possibly from an old harness?). FP

Looking in my collection (many hundreds of frogs) it is a fackt, that some markes made cooper/brass until 1937. Police issue used Alu und copper after 1941.

alu up to 1935 is not correct. the most of copper/brass from 1933-35 is ok... but a minorty , most found on Luftwaffe marked frogs are found until 1937.

mixed materials are common since 1940/41... the rest of Alu quantits had been used.

my lastest frog is marked 1945 and used metal rivets.

the blue Luftwaffe canvas frog shon in the picture above is a copy.

Really? The frog has been a private collection for a number of years, and came from a good source. It must be a pretty good copy. It even has a few faint traces of Luftwaffe blue paint on the frog stud. And while it is in reasonably decent condition, it shows a fair amount of actual use consistent with other tropical frogs. And those who have actually seen it in person (including some having a considerable amount of experience collecting Wehrmacht combat items) have never indicated that they thought it was a fake. Nor do I. FP

The Luftwaffe web frog looks perfectly good to me from the photograph. It is exactly what I would expect to see of a used web frog.

Fred,
I've been looking for a fake Luft frog like that for quite a while. Send me your junk!

Denny, I know that you are making light of the situation, but I like my ‘junk’ .

While I really don’t have any idea what it was that prompted the “fake” comment. For comparison purposes here are some tropical frogs from an old photo shoot I did a while back to try and show some of the color variations. As a group the frogs pictured are circa 1942 and earlier. Included are frogs from multiple identifiable makers including those that are named, or have the Fertigungskennzeichen (maker codes). With the bulk of the frogs most regrettably having indecipherable or no discernible markings (the same kind of thing as seen with especially the more heavily used leather frogs). Not pictured as a group are later examples such as those with the R.B. Numbers.

A few general comments/observations: The example at the far upper left hand corner never had a tie strap and is probably quite early. Also seen is the steel frog stud version of the Luftwaffe blue (alongside the aluminum one) which may (or may not) be a little later. While some dye lots are fairly close in coloration obviously others were not. And a number of different styles of fabric weaving and dimensions are also evident. There is also quite a bit of variation with the frog stud holes - even with examples from the same maker. Also noticeable is the fact that while many frog studs are more or less centered, others are noticeably offset to one side. And pouch size dimensions tend to be all over the place with some seeming to be large enough for the model 98/05 bayonets. I would imagine that the time period, who the maker was, and the skill of the workers had something to do with all of the variations that are seen. FP

Very nice Fred! I like your junk too.
I have some of these but have never been lucky enough to score a Luftwaffe frog.

Hi Guys, In order to provide a more clear answer to Kilian's question, I will throw out my general rule as to the compostion of leather Wehrmacht S84/98 III frog rivets through the years 1934-45. 1934-1935:Copper with 1936 being a transitional year with most being aluminum in 1936. 1937-1941:Aluminum with 1942 being a transitional year with both Aluminum and Steel about equal in 1942. 1943-45:Steel
There are exceptions to all rules but I will submit that my rule will stand at least 90% of the time.
It appears that failures of the aluminum washers under extreme use and Aluminum's value as a strategic metal ended most it's use after 1942 as a leather joining material.
Here is my near mint 1942 frog with both aluminum and steel washers used with aluminum studs. Hope this helps! Jeff Bernsh---Owner Tenmile Creek Antiques Ltd.

I do like the idea of a plus or minus 90% “rule” for most of the frogs which are encountered.

Before this thread I had frogs sorted by type ie: Luftwaffe, Police, Navy etc. The thread has made me rethink that approach and I now use a date sort and am refining it a little to deal with the undated examples. As commented on, there are a number of exceptions which I think makes it even more interesting when setting the parameters. For example: In a quick resort I found two aluminum riveted 1935’s. A 1940 (or later) Police frog using copper rivets with brass washers. A pair of steel riveted black Luftwaffe frogs by the same maker in 1940 (one all steel and the other with aluminum washers). A 1940 dated frog with aluminum washers and copper rivets. And a 1941 dated frog with both aluminum and copper/brass rivets and washers. With all of the different makers involved it seems obvious that some had larger stocks of previously manufactured components than others. And that as they ran out of old stock began to use steel. I also tend to like the “strategic materials” argument a little more because when the frog studs (for tie straps) are looked at by 1942 the aluminum studs seem to have virtually disappeared.

Posted below is another exception: The “no rivet” frog (no holes, no evidence of rivets/washers) which came with my 1941 crs “Tr” marked bayonet, Which when I found it looked like it had been on it forever. FP

Hallo,

first the blue DAK-frog. Yes i think it is a pretty good copy. I see several. They were most made out of original green ones by coulouring (so the price is higher) .
Unfortunately the stitching is often not stainable, because it is colorfast. (.. so it is green... Original ones allways deliverd with blue stitching from factory.
The frog stud hole in the front is very big...

You also can read the Artikle of Franz Ehle in: Deutsches Waffenjournal (DWJ), 10/2003 ex Page 58. "Achtung, Fälschung" (Beware of Fakes).

the other one you show on the picture is like my one... i get two frogs from a paratropper how had joined the Afrika campain.

I get the webbing... and frogs in blue and yellow, the boucles and the bayonets.

he also carried yellow canvas belt and frog with a LW boucle with yellow canvas strap.

Luftwaffe used frogs in overview from right to left:

DAK frog yellow, DAK-frog blue, copper/brass 1935,
copper/brass 1936, copper/brass 1936 ( very rare long stiching, alu 1937, alu 1936, alu 1937, alu 1938, steel 1940, steel 1940 with hollow rivet inset short line of stichting, steel 1941, steel 1942, steel 1943, steel 1942 and steel 1944.


Many makers had quantetis of produced alu rivets
in stock... they used them until the alu ones are depletet.
Since 1940 the alu rivets...like alu boucles... had a Stop of producing. At this time always steel ones were made.

The chaning oft producing ist not the same as a stop of using by frog makers... alu rivtes in stock were used until they are depletet. So frogs exists, made after 1940, with alu rivtes oder mixed steel/alu rivets.

so... next example.

Modell98 frogs with strap used parallel until 1937 brass/copper and alu.

top line from right to left:

brass/copper Reichswehreagle navy stamped, brass/copper 1937, and brass/copper 1936.

The brown ones are not Luftwaffe modells... they are stock quantites of never black cloured army isse. all bear the mark B. or B36 / B37 of "Heeres Bekleidungsamt Berlin"

bottom line:

alu 1935, alu 1935 SS-marked frog, alu 1937 (B37), alu 1938 nazi-eagle marked navy frog, alu 1939.

up to the next:

frogs without strap army issu mosttime found with alu rivtes.

Luftwaffe ones with long third stichting until 1937 often found with brass/copper. The ones with short stitching with alu.

From right to left:

1.Very early Reichswehr frog from 1933 "B"-stamp, cooper/brass
2.alu 1935 painted black
3.alu 1936 stock example, unsued B-stamp
4.Luftwaffe 1936 brass/copper, long stitching
5.frog with strap, 1940, mixed rivets
6.+7. frogs with steel rivets 1942

1936 frog, stock, B stamped

Luftwaffe frog 1936 cooper/brass

So...next example.. police frogs.

you can not say, that the produktion "until 1935 brass/copper", until 1940 alu, than steel or mixed".

from right to left.

1. frog of 1925 with steel rivets
2. frog of 1929 copper/brass
3. leather frog 1936 alu
4.+5. A.Fischer 1937 Leather/canvas frogs in brown and withe with alu rivets.
6. frog out of 1940 with steel rivets
7.+8. Frogs from J.de Valk Adam. made 1941/42 with copper/brass.

The army issued frogs from Valk ADAM to the same time 1941-1943 were produced with steel rivtes.

italian captured ones allways exist with steel rivets.

End of war production, poor quality ones out of used leather pices were made with steel rivets.

from right to left:

1.made out of poor quality pig leather, painted black, steel rivets

2.code stamp marked with date 1945

3. ink stamp marked with date 1945

at last... some examples with hollow rivets.

from right to left:

1. police frog out of 1936 with steel hollow rivtes

2.+3. RzM frogs, possible SS or a other staat organisation, nickel plated steel hollow rivets...one with brass, the other with alu stud.

4. Brass hollow rivets, produced 1941 by v.D.Horst Leiden.

5.+6. late war R.B.Nr. marked frogs with and without strap, hollow steel rivtes.

7. frog leather/canvas, late war time, found on kommercial bayontes, maby produced in czech for the support of german allis in the east. Not common in german army.


not shown: many frogs with brass hollow rivets were produced before the war.

i forgot the pic

only less examples of german altered austria/czech frogs most can be found without rivets or with steel ones. rarly such frogs can be found with alu rivets.

in every pic... the frogs shown from left to right!!

Hello gardist,
You do have some very nice frogs. I used to get DWJ, but have not done so for a while and don’t have the issue you mentioned, so I cannot comment on it.

Let me ask you a couple of questions. If all (or most) of the other (non-blue frogs) from that period have white or light stitching. Why did they make an exception for only the blue frogs?? Might that not be a sign of something being dyed using modern dyes? Also, these frogs are over 60 years and have a tendency for the color fade somewhat - especially if they were used. Is that also not a factor?. As for hole size. Sometimes they get a little stretched from having a bayonet in them. And sometimes it seems to be from something the sewing machine operator did, as seen from the wide variety of hole sizes in my earlier picture.

Also, as a general matter, they did not normally date stamp reworks. Therefore I would tend to be suspicous of such frogs, and even more if they had 1945 dates.
Regards, FP

Not pictured as yet are the frogs for use with the folding shovel which often use a different kind of rivet/washer assembly. FP

Regarding J de Valk Adam. J. de Valk was a Dutch manufacturer based in Amsterdam. A´dam is a Dutch abbreviation for Amsterdam.

How do you tell the difference between army, navy, police and luftwaffe frogs? By the markings is obvious, but are there other ways to tell?

hmmm. the pic is not the best. the stiching of the blue one is a little bid darker because of a litle bit dyrt. the edges are used... tomorrow i will make better ones.

the 1945 frogs are original. with a little bit luck in germany you can find. i found them with serval other stuff in a farm...dirty but in a good shape. nerver been sold... not from a trader.
one has a strap cut oft.

They did sometimes use a darker thread, and the Luftwaffe with the steel (tie strap) stud to the left uses a blue thread around the perimeter of the hole. And at times it seems they used whatever seemed to be at hand. Like the black thread on this late issue tropical frog, which also uses a doubled over lightweight canvas instead of webbing. FP

so now i take time to post pics of the frog. After i get them...i try to clean it carefully.
but the stitching now is more brown than white.
a litle bit damaged und some parts of the stiching is gone.
The frog is the same type and colour shown at Ehles artikle.

A little better look at the front of the pouch. I thought I had an image from the front of the entire frog, but if I have it, I can't find it at the moment. FP

else...

Gardist, With your latest images your frog looks a lot more like my steel stud mounted one. Take a look at my first image of the tropical frogs and the two Luftwaffe frogs together. Then to the right look at the others with lighter and darker thread for the holes and straps. If a tropical frog was postwar dyed it is going to be a solid blue not a variety of colors. And looking at the tie strap again Does it look like it has been dyed, or is it slightly faded in places like your frog?

PS: (The picture was taken with fluorescent lighting so the color is slightly off.) FP

yes, some versions were used... light green to umbra brown...

the blue canvas frogs exists with serveral blue thread.

interessting. can you post a better pic, so the colour can be seen clarly. i can not say if its greenblue or darkblue


here is a late DAK frog...out of my collcetion.

these frogs not only been used in afrika... on the hole southern front (Südfront), south russia, itali, balkan etc. canvas was used.
in late war canvas frogs and belts were given to the troops.
the the produktion mabey runns longer.

when cotton been re-coulord it has differnt varity of coulors...because the original frog had differnt colouers... so the blue is more darker, lighter or owns parts of green. It is difficult.
the originals i know most had the same coulor with only a very little of varity. some parts seems to wash out faster than others.

the next question is... in what way the manufakturer coloured the parts?

yes...the M42 frog. differnet typs exist. 4 rivtest or with two hollow rifest and 2 other ones.

at the pic it is shown the mixed version.


the m42 often been copyed. a fake one you can recognize on the wrong r.b.Nr., a Stud in the form of a lens(like a ufo) and the wrong hollow rifites.

backside

@Kilian... hmmm. it is difficult to find a name of the differnt vareties of frogs.

the differnet offices orderd at the factorys. The Luftwaffe wants browns coulord ones with short line of stitching, the marine wants brown ones... army natural, and the differnt police offices wants differnt things... it was fist a question of money.
you can see...the army always used the "cheaper" ones... police the "luxus" versions. finde made, best leather, coulord...brass/copper rivets etc.

airforce wants painted brown...often with thin lines at the edges.

i´m searching by my DAK frogs for similaritis with your blue alu stud frog.

i think the original maker is LAGASA Dresden.

because:

1.the strap is a little bit wider than others. the canvas is a little bit differnt. the stiching on the edges is the same as your one.

2. the end of he stitching at the end oft the front part is not very common in this way.
The only producer i know was LAGESA Dresden.

3. the big hole in the front for the frog stud. typical for LAGESA Dresden

4. have a look an the canvas of the front part. is it different to the back of the frog? finer webbing?

here some pics... in my oppinon it is the same material. only the steel stud is differnt.

but i know this type also exist with alu stud.

else

else...

else....

It’s basically the same frog except for the pouch webbing. With the other colors I have at least two types of webbing and frogs from the same maker that are different. I think that a lot has to do with what was available. Or why would different colored parts be assembled to various frogs??

Also, I have some well used M42 frogs that came with bayonets that have the “UFO” style button (if we are talking about the same thing??). I’m not saying fakes do not exist or could not be made. But I don’t like to say all of a particular type are fake when we see so many legitimate variations. And some of these frogs have been around a long time and were not high priced items.

PS: There is a German word for it (which I don't remember at the moment). That refers to small (what we call) "cottage" industries. A small private enterprise that makes something. And the LAGESA Dresden that you are referring to (like all of them) was a collective that gathered the products from these small makers to sell to the Wehrmacht. My point being that I think that is enough of a reason by itself to see legitimate variations. Even holster makers, who were usually larger and under the jurisdiction of the Heereswaffenamt inspectors at times had to use substitutes. So why not the small makers? Regards, FP

A few more images of some tropicals taken with incandescent lighting. First an image showing the front. Note the very similar large hole on the frog at the far left. The pouch also has the close weave fabric which you describe as coming from LAGESA Dresden, although the frog itself does not have legible markings. I think that the frogs show some of their age/wear in the image, although it might be a little more apparent in the next image.

The rear showing the wear/age I think to a better advantage.

If this is the “UFO” type frog stud I don’t think that they are fake. This stud is on the late tropical frog to the right. There was not just one source for frog studs (or rivets/washers), but very likely multiple makers of that particular component which was machined.

Lastly, the two frogs to the left are what we call “breadbag” frogs, appearing to be made from the same material as the Brotbeutel in the same range of colors. Thread colors range from orange, to white, to black. And the leather seems to be from lightweight scrap leather mostly from cows (although the one to the far left is pigskin). Most probably circa 1945 they could have been made in the KZ’s. To the right an R.B. Numbered (circa 1943/later) hollow rivet frog, and to the right of it a conversion of a Czech Vz24 frog to a German style frog. The Czech frog has steel rivets, and washers on the back, but aluminum washers on the pouch front. It also has an aluminum “UFO” type frog stud. Regards, FP

very interesting thread here, i would add that i have a reworked kvz42 black leather frog with Alu rivets. best regards,Andy

Good Morning Andy!!

Thanks for the additional input as regards the time parameters with aluminum rivets.

With My Best Regards, FP

man.. really a variety of frogs, i havent even seen half of these, great thread i do have a couple of dusins of frogs but mostly normal army ones with strap but also a single luftwaffe never bought a frog by itself, but it seems to be very good collectible area too..

An excellent discussion of frogs.

There are certainly fake frogs out there but I think we need to keep in mind that there are many, many legitimate and interesting variations as well. I have always kept an open mind concerning frogs since they were in fact often made by small cottage industries makers as well as established leather workers.

I am also particulary fond of reworks such as those shown by FP and Guardist. They sort of prove the point that odd-ball frogs can be correct.

Here is another example of the bread bag frog.

The LAGO´s or the LAGESA´s are a collective society. Little and bigger firms comming together, like a "firm-Group". The Lagos/Lagesas take care in distribution, sale etc. So the Produkts bear the name of the LAGASA...because the office was the like a agency.
The firms of producing...often rual ones, were to smal to stand the competition on the marked.

The LAGESA/LAGO was there professional representation and bussines agency. The real firms... we don´t know the names.

But the little firms produce himselfs. Maby only Parts...other another fitted together.
This firms produce the belts, too... because the back of a DAK frog and the front part are out of the same material and widness.

The colour changes from maker to maker, maker of the colour, mixture of colour. There were no official standards of the right colour.

in case of the blue one DAK frogs, there was only a little order of Luftwaffe...not a long time production.
Not every firm made parts or colour for these frogs. The parts mainly taken out from normal produktion run...in their sand-blue-tan colour... and have been coloured blue.
I think it was only one order and only one short produktion time.
This is the reason the colours normal have very less differents.
the liitle differnst came from the former colour. Vor example: you have a white, a sand, a green und a dark green t-shir and colourize them with the same colour...the the results are little differnts.

i know the Luftwaffe troops in afrika only get blue webbing in the first time (only one delevery), later only sand coloured webbing.
blue one never had a come back.

LAGASA Dresden trademark also find on Belts.

here now a complete LAGESA Dresden set...with a Aurich belt boucle with green canavas strap.

The LAGO´s or the LAGESA´s are a collective society. Little and bigger firms comming together, like a "firm-Group". The Lagos/Lagesas take care in distribution, sale etc. So the Produkts bear the name of the LAGASA...because the office was the like a agency.
The firms of producing...often rual ones, were to smal to stand the competition on the marked.

The LAGESA/LAGO was there professional representation and bussines agency. The real firms... we don´t know the names.

But the little firms produce himselfs. Maby only Parts...other another fitted together.
This firms produce the belts, too... because the back of a DAK frog and the front part are out of the same material and widness.

The colour changes from maker to maker, maker of the colour, mixture of colour. There were no official standards of the right colour.

in case of the blue one DAK frogs, there was only a little order of Luftwaffe...not a long time production.
Not every firm made parts or colour for these frogs. The parts mainly taken out from normal produktion run...in their sand-blue-tan colour... and have been coloured blue.
I think it was only one order and only one short produktion time.
This is the reason the colours normal have very less differents.
the liitle differnst came from the former colour. Vor example: you have a white, a sand, a green und a dark green t-shir and colourize them with the same colour...the the results are little differnts.

i know the Luftwaffe troops in afrika only get blue webbing in the first time (only one delevery), later only sand coloured webbing.
blue one never had a come back.

LAGASA Dresden trademark also on Belts.

here now a complete LAGESA Dresden set...with a Aurich belt boucle with green canavas strap.

you can see... the belt has the same colour than the back of the frog. made out of the same material

Lagesa frogs who bears the trademark(!!!) considers out of the same parts. putting together like a kitt.

always
- green back

with

1.
- brown-kaki strap with big stiching around the hole. canvas with big eye. canvas pice backside the strap.

with

- front part out of brown-kahki material, big eye canvas


2.
- green strap without stitching. canvas with little eye. leather pice

- front part brown-kaki, little eye canvas.


mayby other one exists without trademark. only mayby

pic of the secound modell:

Gardist, A very nice rig . A couple of thoughts on the comments presented. There is agreement on the LAGASA types of markings being from a collective. And as George stated makers could be larger or much smaller. The word I was looking for was the German word we interpret as a “cottage industry” which could even possibly be a one or two man shop. Such as someone who perhaps normally repaired saddles and harnesses, having some hand tools to cut the leather (or fabric), and a sewing machine.

They did not make the materials used which came from: machine shops, metal stampers, leather processors, chemicals (for leather finishes) and the fabric mills which had the necessary very large machines to process the plant fibers and make them into finished webbing rolls. Really a discussion by itself. But those who physically assembled the frogs were really only the last step in a long production process.

I also agree that the blue frogs were probably not made for a long time. I probably should have documented it at the time. But my best recollection is that the first blue frog I posted came from a U.S. veteran who lived in Texas who had been in North Africa. With very likely most of the frogs going to the U.K., one of the ANZAC nations, the U.S. etc. I also think that some blue web gear was seen in Italy, but I’m not a uniform specialist, and am open to their input. My point being that the reason a lot of items are not normally seen in Europe or Germany is that (as was stated) they were not used there. And as a limited issue item there are going to be scarce or very scarce. Because as we know only a relatively small percentage of the total number of items made have survived over the intervening years.

Using an earlier image, how about some “kit” frogs using not green, but different colored backs?

And for your consideration: There is a little bit of a story which goes with these that I won’t go into at the moment. But here are some frogs where the maker seemed to be using leftover remnants to manufacture usable frogs for the folding shovel. Regards, FP

no.. the studs you are showing are all originals.
these more like a mushroom.

the fake ones i meen are like a "lense"... two soup plates put together...

these m42 often carried a strange, black rubberlike colour. Often numbered with a wrong R.B.nr. 0/001/0088 (one 1 is missing) or without a number. The rivets on the top had a flate head. the hollow rivets are not the correct version. often blued.

here a pic i get out of the www:

yes i agree with you, that the making of webbing gear is a part of a specialized indurtsrie.

The same combination of firms exists until now. Calles "Genossenschaften". ofte "Mittelständische Betriebe".
Most little specialized firms of clothing industrie made this.
Surly by booking by LAGO/LAGESA.

j.de valk ADAM allays produced with this typ of frog stud.

a othe interessting fakt is the time of producing the dak frogs. to my observations i been thinking until 1944.

on the pic you can see to frogs, a leather one and a webbing one. the frog is Stamped RB.Nr. 0/0554/0005... the canvas frog is stamped but i can only make out 0/???????05. a date is not there. this kind of staming coming in 1944 (middel to end of the year).
The leather frog in origin was brown issued und possibly painted black by a soldier.

standing on the bottom the strap hast the some high.

the studs are the same

the widness of the strap is exacly the same...
there are finer than other ones.

retaining straps often has this wideness.

so i think... both examples were made in 1944 by the same maker.
(possibly by j.de Valk.??)

suds

straps

no... i don´t say every maker produce grren backs. only often found by lagesa dresden.

i own many colours too.

yes i own of the m42 with canvas back, too.

but beware: a lot of copies exist... some very well done:

http://cgi.ebay.de/KOPPELSCHUH-LEDER-TROPEN-WEB-WEHRMAC...p1638Q2em118Q2el1247

und some less copys.. with the "lense" studs.

why do the us collectors called the canvas/leather frog "bread bag frogs"??

the same material used for serval kinds of bags, jackets, gaiters, rucksacks, canvas covers, tents, so on so on... not only bread bags...

these frogs often been found on commercial bayonets. these type of frogs not common in the german army.
since 1944 the troops more and more don´t use bayontes. they carried rifels without bajonett adapter. the elite troops of WH, SS and LW are carring fingthing knives.

so they were made in the eastern part, maby czech... for third class troops like volkssturm or east europe alies of germany... who gets commercial bayontes sold by german firms. without a number and a proof the heeres-waffenamt wasn´t involved.

Gardist, There is a lot to comment on, and I have other duties which are going need my attention very shortly. In reverse order: I don’t know who the first one to call them “breadbag” frogs was, but the name “breadbag” became what they are referred to. I think that AndyB who lives in Slovakia wil tell you the frogs are not seen in that part of the former East Block. They are also not seen in England, but are seen mostly in the U.S. and to a lesser extent France. With southern Germany being where both nations operated side by side in the last days of the war. There is more, but that is the foundation.

As for the frog link you posted I tried it, but was not able to see an image. Perhaps you could get it and post it?

I also try not to get too attached to “rules” which are too often seen broken by manufacturers. Markings can be faked, but they can also be copied perfectly. And I have seen more than one Third Reich item that was an original, but was declared that it was a “fake”, because it was not a “textbook” example. If “textbook” was the only way something could be done we would not see single date digit Mauser rifles. Or bayonets, or the Eagle/25 Waffenamt seen on some bayonets. My point being that I try to look at each item on an individual basis. And if it looks, feels, passes certain tests, as compared to other period items then I go from there versus automatically saying it’s bad. Regards, FP

I do hope this discussion will be continued with further much valued expert contributions for a while, as I believe I may unintentionally have initiated the world´s most interesting thread on 98k bajonet frogs

I regret that I cannot contribute to the technical discussion on the subject. But I do agree in general with Fred in that I have learned in over 30 years of collecting bayonets that it is basically very dangerous to say that something did not exist. It is legitimate to be sceptical but it is easier to prove something did exist than that it did not.

I am the proud owner of 1 (ONE) 98k frog (gfg 1942) and will post pics of it in this thread asap. It will be in good company.

A brief update: I took a quick look at a half dozen or so of mostly later frogs looking at the tie strap studs. I actually found quit a bit of variation, and even some that looked a lot like the one under discussion, with perhaps a very slightly less pronounced shoulder. Interestingly one of the studs was actually an aluminum one on an earlier frog. The sample size admittedly was very small. But what would really help a lot I think are some good images of the entire frog under discussion for comparison purposes. I will try to take a couple of pictures tomorrow of some of what I saw.

PS to Kilian: You are going to have to be careful. That is how it starts. There was a time when I had one German bayonet and zero frogs. FP

the frog stud typ i posted is defentifly a fake one. serveral i have been seen.

that have 4 hollow rivets... wrong r.b.nr. 0/001/0088 and a rubber like colour. quantities hab been sold in europe.

newer ones are much better. differnt stamps etc.

the fake studs exist in steel, zink and alu...with sometimes a little bit differents. The Form is quite a result of a lack of correckt maschines... often been seen by indian produkts.

often the front part seems to be stichted like "standing on the head"


About the leather/canvas frog i write with Andy in the german militatria-fundforum.
He owns informations that the frogs been possibly made in czech at End of the war. US tropps captuerd parts of the cezch country and so the frogs mostly were the hand of US soldiers.

Austrian style M95 frogs were found with the same manufakutring details, hollow rivtes, same webbing und leather front. The way of manufacturing is not typical german.

It is possible that they were made realy at the and of the war.
Bevor june 1944 there was no great lack of supply. The realy problem aera was at the eastern front. The most supply goes there.
the canvas/leather frogs must be made End44/45.

An other interesst point is the seleton frog. Serveal found on non-matching SG84/98 out of 1943 and FN24 bayontes. possibly bulgarian?

quote:

Originally posted by Fred Prinz (aka "Frogprince"):
I also try not to get too attached to “rules” which are too often seen broken by manufacturers. Markings can be faked, but they can also be copied perfectly. And I have seen more than one Third Reich item that was an original, but was declared that it was a “fake”, because it was not a “textbook” example. If “textbook” was the only way something could be done we would not see single date digit Mauser rifles. Or bayonets, or the Eagle/25 Waffenamt seen on some bayonets. My point being that I try to look at each item on an individual basis. And if it looks, feels, passes certain tests, as compared to other period items then I go from there versus automatically saying it’s bad. Regards, FP

i never said there are rules... the oposit is normal. the are no realy producing rules.

But...during abservations... i found the same producing prozess, parts etc. on frogs of the same Maker. So mostly the phänotyp is maker spezifikant.

I observed about 200 makers.
Brehme Walsrode and E.O.Götze had the biggest spectrum of typs, materials, rivets etc.
Other ones are A.Fischer and Riese with there rubbert canvas police frogs.

so i never will say that their are rules.

but, what i can say is... generaly producing facts of the differnt makers themselfs.

Nice discussion, to bread bag frog, i only know that some were find on a blanko bayos in Sudeten area in a HJ depot, certainly we dont know its a czech production, as many were found postwar in USA as brinback of GIs? its probably a emergency production with hollow grips, in Slovakia could be find from time to time some canvas frogs, but i didnt saw any LW blue ones, only the normal green or light brown. best regards,Andy

hello. yes i only meen the breadbag ones... not the blue DAK ones.

I don’t question that both the standard frogs, and the tropical frogs have been and are being faked. I’ve seen a number of examples myself and sometimes you really have to study an item before coming to a conclusion. Although usually it only takes a second or two. I am also remiss in that looking at the various other issues I failed to properly address one item that was mentioned: A “strange, black rubberlike colour”. The leather should look, feel, and smell like a 60 plus year old Luger holster (leather). If it does not then you start looking at other things very, very closely. I would also mention that especially with some of the Indian/Pakistani made items they have made some very good stamps which rival the originals. I am speaking directly to some swords made a few years back that exactly copied the originals. There is no doubt in my mind that originals were sent there and were copied faithfully. If they can copy those markings, then (IMO) they can copy anything they want to reasonably accurately. My point here being that any stamping is only one part of the equation, because mistakes and errors are seen on fully inspected Wehrmacht issue items. And I think that you have to look at the complete item in context before making a judgement.

As for the hollow rivets we see them with Breadbag frogs and some other standard types. And just about every M42 I have seen uses one of several types of hollow rivets inside the pouch to attach it (it's virtually impossible to use the standard washer/rivet staking tool inside the pouch). And I have at least one example where the same kind of rivets were used on the upper part of the frog for some reason (the frog is not a modern fake). My point being that I think we have to be careful how we describe things. Because a general statement without some clarification can give new collectors the wrong idea about is legitimate and what is not. And we have to take into account that there might be legitimate differences between how and with what different period makers made items. (Pictures of the fakes would also be very helpful for comparison purposes.)

Also I think we have to be careful when describing what is called a “nib” (?). Which is normally at both ends of the stud when it is machined and is removed afterward. You can see partial “nibs” (if we are talking about the same thing) on two of the frogs I have posted (the red arrow points). I have others where the “nib” is more pronounced. Again I’m not saying fakes cannot have them. But I don’t think that you can say every frog is automatically a fake if it has one, and some more clarification is needed. (I will say this: Generally some effort was usually made to try and flatten the “nib”, but more so with earlier items than late production.)

The effort to alert collectors is very much appreciated by myself and I'm certain many others reading the thread. And what I am really trying to say is that with especially pictures collectors can be better educated to avoid fakes. Versus statements which can possibly be misinterpreted or taken out of context. My own personal preference being side by side images (where possible).

Posted below is part of a very small sample of studs that was looked at as a group but without focusing on the “nibs”.

Here are the tie strap studs themselves closeup. Looking at how some of them appear, some could have been made by swaging or die casting. While others appear to have been machined. After I saw one particular example I went: “OK - maybe there is too much variation to make an absolute rule”. [I’ll let everyone guess which one. ] Best Regards to All, FP

Hello,

i never said the things you make me responsible :-)
the thing i said is: the fakes i know... and this are realy fakes, bear wrong markings... most time a lack of a 1 in the r.B.Nr, the bear ths stud i posted and the all bear a colour out of ruber like material. often with fades in it.
the lense typ stude always found on fakes. and often this fakes had 4 or only 2 hollow riftes. I only write about the fakes!!

i never said this or this frog stud is not ok... i know very well about the differents by originals. this is not what i said or what i meen.

serveral makes had often the same suppliers. differnts in produktiopn are normal. this is not a sign for a fake.

the fake frogs were sold in germany.. often as a copy, sometimes as a orignial

here one pic more of a early fake with a lense stud. tataly wrong r.b.nr. O/001/0088

so... now one of the neuest M42 copys.
sold in germany as a copy by serval trades. aged contition. fantastic stud copy... but with flat doomed riftest. and with wrong R.B.Nr. 0/1151/0038. The original is 0/1001/0038.

number

the original frog maker Schaub lederwaren existst until now and produced frogs in the same way in with the same materials from 1936-1944. you can order:

http://www.schaub-lederwaren.de/uniform%20uniformzub.HTM

here another copy of the germnan market. the stud is not so perfectly made

and i found the lense typ copy by an american trader:

http://www.atthefront.com/g_gear_frogs.htm

but now better ons of this type are availlabe, aged etc.

As promised the pics of my 98k bayonet frog. A used gfg 1942 (Karl Hepting & Co, Stuttgart) with steel rivets. I have always thought it was a normal army issue frog, but I find the surface finish of the pouch rather peculiar. It appears that there is some sort of black paint or lacquer or perhaps a rubbery substance on it. I don´t know what it is.

Rear side

i never said only the stud makes out an original or not.
i only tell about the fake market in germany... with open informations european collectors have.

The alu frogs were prodced are totaly the same as 1935-1940 in alu and 1940-45 in steel until now for german police eqipment and other staff. It is very easy to get the parts needed for a super looking fake. The only differnt often is only the age.

hier a pic of german police eqipment. made by ASKH.

Detail

Rivet

Pouch

Other view

Side view