Collection

What a beautiful collection of Bayonets and frogs. My fingers hurt from scrolling and I should've worn a bib for the Drool factor. Thank you for sharing. So many desirable pieces in one place. That Zelt back ground really helps with the photo's and makes the bayonets stand out.

Bret
 
Ferlach 39 and Eickhorn 40

Hello,

Incredible luck to find this very rare 1939 Ferlach today.
Its serial number is one of the smallest recorded on the observed models.
The second of the lot recovered is a more classic Eickhorn of 1940. The maker of the frog is not common.










Best regards
Aws
 
Last edited:
Congratulation on this very early Maschinenhaus Ferlach, nice condition ,here with rotated maker stamp on blade. The Eickhorn 40 have replacement wood grips and the frog added looks like repro piece? but maybe i am wrong, but the rivets looks not good.
 
Last edited:
Re,
The handles are well mounted of origin.
One finds some on the first series of 1940.
L.Heyden is a rare manufacturer of frogs.
Its confection resembles fabrications of Hubertus.

Br Aws
 
Last edited:
Wood grips are certainly replacements,i have confirmed piece in no letter block in dbase from Eickhorn 40,no wood there,but it could be done by repair in 1942 or post,about frog i would to hear opinion of Slash about this piece.But when You know this maker so is no problem then.
 
Great bayonets, great pictures. Viewing your collection here is like going to an S84/98 III museum without the crowds and there is no threat of infection except for "bayonetitis".
 
AndyB said:
about frog i would to hear opinion of Slash about this piece.
Click to expand...

These are great pieces. Especially the OMC which is an amazing early example. Congrats. I agree with Andrej regarding the grips on the Eickhorn as replacements. They were certainly phenolic scales when originally factory assembled. The frog is very problematic for me due to several issues. Personally, it would not be for my collection as original. I have never seen a L. HEYDEN marked bayonet frog. The rivets are very problematic as is the thread and stitching pattern. The overall appearance of the leather as well as the frog hanging hook hole also give me pause. Aws mentions that it is similar to the Hubertus made frogs. The Hubertus marking is not a maker. It is a trademark for the Kuno Ritter firm of Solingen. They did not make these frogs in spite of what the late Roy Williams states in his book. These frogs were subcontracted from an unknown maker and mated with Kuno Ritter bayonets for distribution. The Hubertus marked frogs are also earlier production than 1942. The primary issue with the frog posted here is the marking. The marking on this frog is KOLN without the umlaut. The marking should be KÖLN which is to be expected on any period original item. As stated earlier, I have never seen a bayonet frog from this maker but combat belts are known. Attached below is a photograph of an original belt from Heyden. The belt here is also dated 1942. Please compare. Note the difference of the font, spacing, umlaut is present, upright dash instead of dot after the L, placement of the date, etc. Yes, the stamped marking for a bayonet frog could be different than those applied to a belt but there are issues here. As previously stated not a frog that I would have in my collection. My thoughts only .....
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1467.jpg
    IMG_1467.jpg
    307.8 KB · Views: 18
Thanks Slash for adding the details of marking, i personally dont like the Heyden, 1942 and Koln stamp on the frog, looks like done per hand not as is on belt per complete stamp die, i have heard that are already exist very good repros of similar frogs. The stitching material looks new, so probably UV light test would present a fluorescecing stitching?
I have Eickhorn 40, 7647b with proper serialed brown bakelite grips, by period repair should be wood grips serialed to the piece.
The Ferlach piece is probably the earliest ever reported, 269 piece of Ferlach.
 
Last edited:
Frogs modified by Germans

Hi,
Collecting the S 84/98 is also collecting the various frogs used on these models.
This week arrived with a S/174 36, these two frogs modified by the Germans:
On the left a confection from an Italian model for bayonet carcano, the second one much rarer but also uglier and more fragile, made from a French bayonet Gras....










B.regards Aws
 
Last edited:
Hello,
I received this Eickhorn 38 from block n last weekend, a series that seems to have been fully delivered to the Kriegsmarine, from several examples observed. The strap has been mounted upside down on the frog.








B.r Aws
 
44clc.....
 

Attachments

  • EA9E47E9-98A6-4E04-93E5-C9702C730501.jpg
    EA9E47E9-98A6-4E04-93E5-C9702C730501.jpg
    363.7 KB · Views: 32
  • 16F14848-6835-42CD-9598-9A0E44D3B5B9.jpg
    16F14848-6835-42CD-9598-9A0E44D3B5B9.jpg
    415.7 KB · Views: 33
  • 2E6BF66B-9A5D-452E-BB98-76C9155C4AE7.jpg
    2E6BF66B-9A5D-452E-BB98-76C9155C4AE7.jpg
    414 KB · Views: 31
Nice win of the KM Eickhorn, 38 bunch is confirmed, the secure strap was probably wrong positioned by repair?
clc 44 looks like a mixed material used on grips, wood and red plastic in early E range.
 
Hello guys,
A few arrivals in the last few weeks. 🍻
Double : S/155 36 - S/174K - S/184 G- WKC police
S-codes are my favorite 🤗





















Best regards Aws
 
nice bayonets mainly the early ones, the S/174K has frog with repairing rivets, the S/184G piece looks like Weimar era unit stamped remains of 110 as weapon nr. on both parts, that is interesting, the frog is early too with Art.Regt.nr.25 marking.
The WKC blanko is probably reworked with new blueing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top