Late war diverted/salvaged Eickhorn Behoerden (commercial) 3rd model

[heavy_mech]

I thought it looked like his is ground on the serial number side? If you look at pic #4 and compare the metal finish to the still marked side in pic #5, the surface finish difference is remarkable. Photo 4 seems to show grinding starting just above where the scabbard is positioned and getting deeper up the blade. Sure looks to have been done while disassembled. Am I miss seeing that?

 

[grimlin13]

That`s a nice set.

 

[CanadianAR]

Nice one Wayne! I need to find a scrubbed cof44 for my cof44 collection.

 

[mauser99]

I thought it looked like his is ground on the serial number side? If you look at pic #4 and compare the metal finish to the still marked side in pic #5, the surface finish difference is remarkable. Photo 4 seems to show grinding starting just above where the scabbard is positioned and getting deeper up the blade. Sure looks to have been done while disassembled. Am I miss seeing that?

personally if you look at the graining of the blade it looks like the grain follows all the way up to the cross guard. No break in it anywhere . As where the one I just posted you can clearly see the grind marks going across and the dip in the metal.

 

[heavy_mech]

personally if you look at the graining of the blade it looks like the grain follows all the way up to the cross guard. No break in it anywhere . As where the one I just posted you can clearly see the grind marks going across and the dip in the metal.

Not disagreeing. I can see the grinding on yours plain as day. If you look at those photos I ref'd above I totally believe the 2 sides on Bruce's have very different metal finishes.in that area. To me it appears grinding starts at the line and continues up the blade. The metal finish is VERY different than the other side.

 

[grimlin13]

I thought it looked like his is ground on the serial number side? If you look at pic #4 and compare the metal finish to the still marked side in pic #5, the surface finish difference is remarkable. Photo 4 seems to show grinding starting just above where the scabbard is positioned and getting deeper up the blade. Sure looks to have been done while disassembled. Am I miss seeing that?

IMO, I don`t think Bruce`s bayonet ever had a serial number. The grind is as comparable to other 43cof blades, with the angle of the grind going from top right to bottom left. From what I have seen when a serial number or a date/maker code has been ground off (there are probably exceptions) the grind goes across horizontally. That is how the scabbard is ground on Bruce`s bayonet, (see pic 3) and how Wayne`s blade is ground.
What you may be seeing is the difference in lighting due to the angle in which the pics were taken, also it looks like the grind is a little less aggressive.
I do not know the exact order in which the steps were taken on bayonet assembly 100% but, I believe that they were assembled, then had any stamps/marks applied (small parts excluded). I don`t think the Germans would disassemble a bayonet to grind off a serial number or maker code/name and again, there are probably exceptions.

 

[mauser99]

its possible but, certainly done differently If at all. Maybe these were done by someone other than cof and maybe the work was done by different people using different technics ??? Im sure we never know.

I think the more direct route would be normally taken just grind away what's there..

 

[heavy_mech]

Maybe it is the lighting? Not sure how I'm seeing this so differently? The edge and scallop grinding is consistent from one side to the other, but to my eye the flat portion is significantly different from the marked side to the blank side looks obvious. I'll add the grind looks consistent in texture to the factory grinds of the blade and scallop.

 

[heavy_mech]

its possible but, certainly done differently If at all. Maybe these were done by someone other than cof and maybe the work was done by different people using different technics ??? Im sure we never know.

I think the more direct route would be normally taken just grind away what's there..

For sure. And I DON'T know. I take the same tact when evaluating guns for fakery. They almost always f up the actual metal finish.

Have to add this... I don't think there's any faking of anything here. Just saying about looking at the different metal finishes from one side to the other.

 

[grimlin13]

its possible but, certainly done differently If at all. Maybe these were done by someone other than cof and maybe the work was done by different people using different technics ??? Im sure we never know.

I think the more direct route would be normally taken just grind away what's there..

I would think that there could be a left-side guy and a right-side guy. I know from my personal experience in production line work that some places do have a different person to do left-side or right-side tasks. I have also worked in places that had one guy do it all. I think it would depend on the individual manufacturer and their processes in production/assembly.
I agree with your direct route thought.

 

[mauser99]

For sure. And I DON'T know. I take the same tact when evaluating guns for fakery. They almost always f up the actual metal finish.

Have to add this... I don't think there's any faking of anything here. Just saying about looking at the different metal finishes from one side to the other.

faking never entered my mind... I just think one was in serial production one not. The fact the markings are ground on one and not the other is another mystery of these that we will never know the answer to.

 

[AndyB]

There would be nice to see details of the removed area of stamps, maybe is there visible remains of year it could be its a 44 piece. Its possible the Heer production was rejected from what ever reason and used in Behoerden contract. The mashining could be differs a little thats not strange.

 

[pwcosol]

Regarding these late behoerden S84/98 T3s, there are some established facts. The majority are either of Eickhorn/"cof" or Horster/"asw" manufacture. They appear to have been produced at approximately the same time... the latter half of 1943 into first half of 1944. Eickhorn examples almost exclusively bear lite-colored wood grips. These often exhibit distinctive, slight bevels at the rear of each grip panel where they mate against the front side of the pommel where it meets the tang. In addition, both serial numbers and manufacture markings show evidence of removal before finish was applied. In some examples, remnants of the code/date is observable but rarely the serial number (if there was ever one applied). Finish is often a matte blue or "dusky" gray color. The Horster variant typically has orange to red phenolic resin grips, blued finish and moderate machining markings. If any markings were removed from the bayonets, I have not seen any examples where this was obvious. In addition, some bear the E/519 acceptance stamp at the beginning of the T/O slot at the rear of the flashguard. The acceptance marking might also be hidden underneath it as well. This marking and location is unique to Horster. Lastly, there are examples which are difficult to attribute to either. I have attached photos of five behoerden for reference. They are arranged in sequence from their position in the first (group) photo... with #1 starting on the bottom to #5 at the top:

#1 Eickhorn. Note defect on right side of spine about 1.5 inch. forward of crossguard. This is under the bluing but reflected light makes it look brighter. Litely "dished out" areas under the finish indicate both serial number and code/date were ground off.

#2 Unknown variant with darker wood grips and "dusky" gray finish. Note shorter ricasso space before beginning of edge and fuller than Eickhorn.

#3 Unknown variant with darker reddish grips and brushed/blued finish. Shorter ricasso area like #2. Horster?

#4 Horster. Moderate brushed metal with blued finish. Orange colored phenolic resin grips. Lock button machined flat after installation. E/519 WaA.

#5 Unknown variant. Heavier brushed metal (to include flashguard as well) with blued finish. Reddish grips. Wider ricasso area. Issuance serial number stamped on crossguard.

 

[pwcosol]

Remaining photos from post #33 above:

 

[AndyB]

Nice samples anyway here is no one similar removing as on the second piece, the Eickhorn has removed the maker but serial number on obverse was never applied and Hoerster is well known wout any marking on ricassos but with WaA519 on rifle slot or sometimes with one single proof on pommel. It would be nice to see the Mauser99 piece in detail of ricasso, the piece is too probably never used. Light color of one grips speaks for long time storage out of sun, on one place, for decades. No sign of adding or use with frogs.

 

[Slash]

The Horster variant typically has orange to red phenolic resin grips, blued finish and moderate machining markings. If any markings were removed from the bayonets, I have not seen any examples where this was obvious. In addition, some bear the E/519 acceptance stamp at the beginning of the T/O slot at the rear of the flashguard. The acceptance marking might also be hidden underneath it as well. This marking and location is unique to Horster.

Thanks for the summary on these late Behoerden models pwcosol. The information above however regarding the Eagle WaA519 acceptance stamp is inaccurate. This marking in that location is NOT unique to Hörster. Almost all S84/98 produced in Solingen during this period bear this marking regardless of maker. This applies to military contract examples as well as Behoerden pieces.

The color or shade of the later red phenolic grips is not a valid indicator of maker either as by middle/late 1943 all of these grip scales were produced by the same subcontracting firm or perhaps a cooperative. The best method to accurately determine the maker of any unmarked Behoerden bayonet, regardless of period is to examine the internal markings/stamps found on the blade blank, flashguard and locking lug assembly. A working knowledge of the internal makings found on maker marked examples is very helpful in identifying the producers of the unmarked Behoerden pieces. More definitive than examining blade grind, finish, machining, etc which can vary to some degree even with bayonets from the same maker.

In addition to Hörster and Eickhorn, unmarked Behoerden bayonets were also produced by WKC, Coppel and E. Pack (and possibly others) during this period.

 

[pwcosol]

Thanks Slash for the additional info and clarifications. Just to be clear, regarding the E/519 acceptance marking, you said "This marking in that location is NOT unique to Hörster. Almost all S84/98 produced in Solingen during this period bear this marking regardless of maker." We are aware Mike Welser had been tracking S84/98 T3 manufacturers and associated WaA acceptance markings since the 1980s. In his two booklets
(Reichswehr and Wehrmacht bayonets 1920-1945), the recorded WaAs bear this out for 1943/44. The notable exceptions being Mundlos/"ab", Ferlach/"bym", Chatellerault/"jwh" and Corts/"ddl" (use of both E/519 and/or E/25). As for location at the head of the T/O slot for Horster, my assumption was based on the often visibility of the marking. Only on rare occasions have I taken down any of my bayonets to the point of removing the flashguard and am unaware of what other manufacturers may have applied a WaA in that hidden location. As for other late behoerden, one of the pictured examples may be a E.Pack. Had not considered both WKC and Coppel, so need to take a much closer look at those I have labeled as "unknown variant".

 

[AndyB]

WaA519 is reported 1942-45 by Solingen firms.

 

[Slash]

Just to be clear, regarding the E/519 acceptance marking, you said "This marking in that location is NOT unique to Hörster. Almost all S84/98 produced in Solingen during this period bear this marking regardless of maker." We are aware Mike Welser had been tracking S84/98 T3 manufacturers and associated WaA acceptance markings since the 1980s. In his two booklets (Reichswehr and Wehrmacht bayonets 1920-1945), the recorded WaAs bear this out for 1943/44. The notable exceptions being Mundlos/"ab", Ferlach/"bym", Chatellerault/"jwh" and Corts/"ddl" (use of both E/519 and/or E/25).

May not completely understand the response above but I stand by what was previously stated. The Eagle WaA519 marking on the blank spine is not unique to Hörster. All of the Solingen producers exhibit the Eagle WaA519 (during this period) and for almost all makers it will be found on the blank spine above the TO slot. This is the case until that acceptance stamp at that location was eliminated by some makers very late in production. Corts, Ferlach, Mundlos and Staatliche (Chatellerault) are not marked Eagle WaA519 as they are not Solingen producers. Welser does provide charts with WaA information by year/maker however much research has been completed since the publication of those monographs. The material could be updated for accuracy and completeness. As examples, Eagle 49, Eagle WaA537 and Eagle WaA820 (and others, all associated with bayonets) are not even mentioned by Welser.

As for other late behoerden, one of the pictured examples may be a E.Pack.

Late Behoerden 5 in post #s 33 & 34 appears to be an example by E. Pack although I am uncertain based on the photos provided. Better pics, preferably disassembled would enable a positive identification.

 

[pwcosol]

This is what I wanted to ascertain and appreciate knowing this. Perhaps I should have stated the later Horster bayonets can often be found with the E/519 "out in the open" as opposed to being concealed under the flashguard as most others of the period seem to be. Looked at all my '44s and observed evidence of their respective WaA at the T/O slot on:
asw/u-bloc, bym | 4/A-bloc (E/938), cof/u-bloc, crs/NLB, cul/c-bloc & fnj/b-bloc. There were a few others (primarily asw) where there may have been a hint of the top of the eagle's wing at the very edge of the flashguard.
Thanks!