UBB.threads Forums Edged Weapons The BCN Bayonet Forum German frog with Ki in circle

Hello members,i saw many interesting discussion here, so i will ask about a interesting black colored frog for 98k bayonet from my friend, stamped verically on backside with R.B.Nr. 0/1001/0045, that have interesting large stamp in lower part of backside, "Ki" in circle. Unfortunally i have not a picture, but have similar photo from one of the members, but this have added KM proof eagle. The mentioned frog have no KM eagles. Could anyone provide more information about this stamping? Its not the same problem like found on Lugers? Thanks, best regards,Andy

Hi Andy

Well can't say much about the stampings except for I don't like them.

The eagle above the M seem to be "wrong" IMO the Ki should indicate Kiel but again I am not too happy about it.

Regards
Kim

The Kriegsmarine frog is mine and I’m not immune to being fooled. But I have had the frog for a number of years and honestly believe that it’s wartime not postwar. I have no idea what the significance of the “Ki” marking is but don’t particularly associate it with Kiel. From its appearance up very close, smell (or lack of it), etc. it still leaves me unable to find physical evidence that it’s anything but wartime manufacture. And while it has the flat/hollow style rivets - so do other wartime frogs although they are much less common than those with the conventional ones.

Also - the Kriegsmarine markings, which would not normally be expected on late frogs, don’t trouble me any more than the late issue Kriegsmarine marked pocket pistols (etc.) do. (Caution here: I have seen faked KM frogs so a very close examination is needed.) My thinking being that after a long interval the Kriegsmarine was again specifically allocated hand weapons - presumably coinciding with the substantial reinforcing of German defenses for the Atlantic Wall - with the German Navy playing a key role. And I would also be very interested in seeing the non-navy version of the "Ki" frog Andy mentioned, for comparison purposes.

While we are 'dissing' frogs what are the thoughts on the one posted below the late Kriegsmarine ?? FP

Second frog.

Hello members, thanks Kim for response and answer, sorry FP that i used Your photo, but have not the friend piece photographed, his frog has not the hollow rivets but normal steel ones, the marking and the black shiny leather is same like by Yours, it could be that the KM eagle on Yours is correct, but in this area i am not the expert, from appearance of the friends frog looks good and is probably not postwar made, my friend bought it with a good 98k bayonet that was not reworked or overhauled in any way.thanks for help,Andy from Slovakia

Andy,

I have not seen the Ki. marking before but it seems properly stamped. That is to say, it is stamped with a dull die stamp per armorer marking regulations. It strikes me more as a maker stamp (logo) more than a unit stamp though. I don't associate it with Kiel either as that official markings was "W.K."

FP,

I don't dislike your Italian/German frog but I do see what I think are two differences from the norm. First, the Italian leather back piece looks shorter than most I have seen. It might be the angle. Second, the German leather front piece seems to have a "lip" at the top instead of being cut straight across. Am I spotting the differences or is the photographic angle odd?

Here is an unaltered Italian frog. I think yours looks OK to me. I think there are simply variations on a theme.

Andy, The photos are yours to use to illustrate a point in a discussion good or bad. Even as you share all your hard work with others who are also interested in WW II German combat bayonets. There is no argument that the eagle style is different from early KM frogs. But then the well documented late HSc markings don’t look at all like the early KM markings.

The KM frog has interested me since I first saw it. While the leather is not super stiff, if somebody tried to apply an extra marking now it would be detectible because of the shiny black finish which is also not typical for same era leather frogs. The frog really is a “strange one” which seems to defy what is normally seen. That your friend found a black shiny leather “Ki” marked example (albeit with conventional steel rivets) along with an original condition bayonet I think is probably significant - especially if they look like they were together a long time.

George, First, my most humble apologies. The frog image was taken at a sharp angle with the pouch actually being straight across in the front like conventional German frogs. I didn’t think about it when I posted it, but the image was from when I was experimenting earlier with a camera. I have never seen one in use but my assumption has been that they were late and for German forces using 98k bayonets. Does anyone have information on their actual use?? Best Regards to All, FP

Hello, many thanks for answers George and FP, i have a opinion that the Ki frog is good, yes the stamp could be a shortage for producer. I believe that the friends piece was not heavily used, it looks like the finish of leather was laquered or so not so rough like by other typical late war frogs, best regards,Andy