New to me - Unserialized Clemen u. Jung s84/98

[Jawoj_71]

Recent acquisition I found pretty interesting. Clemen u. Jung bayonet with no serials or waffenamts. Scabbard and blade are both marked with the maker mark but only the scabbard is dated to 1939. The frog looks to be a dress bayonet frog.

Is this a commercial private purchased bayonet? The ones I'm used to seeing are completely unmarked.

Seems like it saw some decent use, blade doesn't appear sharpened either.

 

[CanadianAR]

Can you take good clear pics of the areas where typically serial numbered?

 

[AndyB]

Similar blanko pieces from Clemen & Jung are confirmed, even from 1938 so nothing strange probably , could be spare piece for replacement, the spine of blade could be dated near the crosspiece, question remains these points:
-wooden grips by 1939 are not obvious, even on Arnaud pages are reported only wooden grips on similar samples, but i assume some of them are not period but are replacements, should be looked for serialing of assembly numbering, could be too these were stored in fabric and later refitted with wood grips in period 1942/3

k98 bayonets data and registry

-the blueing on blade looks like refinished note flecking areas,
-the frog is for dress bayonet so not proper here.

 

[Jawoj_71]

I have some additional photos of where the numbers or other markings would typically be located.

I can get the grips off later this week to take a look at them.

The frog came with the bayonet, I can try and remove it but it's a little brittle, any recommendations on properly loosening it up?

 

[grimlin13]

I have some additional photos of where the numbers or other markings would typically be located.

I can get the grips off later this week to take a look at them.

The frog came with the bayonet, I can try and remove it but it's a little brittle, any recommendations on properly loosening it up?

At the risk of tearing the frog, it would be best to leave it. Once torn, it`s torn.

 

[AndyB]

When You should damage screws or frog, leave is as is, but i assume the frog should be removed wout problem, is large enough because replaced stitching, with carefully removing it should be gone without crack. The material is thick here. The wooden grips when avialable on all others Clemen und Jung blanko unserialed so i would leave it as is. The right contersunk is not fully covered in grip. personally i would be not 100% certain that the obverse ricasso was not serialed in pre reblueing?

 

[CanadianAR]

Honestly to me, the bayonet looks like it has grind marks where the SN was, but your photo is really not clear enough to say.

 

[Jawoj_71]

I've got some additional photos, it doesn't appear ground but comparing the bluing to an original finish bayonet it's a higher polish.

I included some good photos of where there would be waffenamts and there doesn't seem to be any signs of grinding or refinishing on those parts.

Are there any other documented examples similar to this bayonet from Clemen u. Jung? I am aware of some of the completely unmarked bayonets believed to be attributed to them.

The frog will likely stay on, working it around the stud revealed it to be quite fragile.

 

[grimlin13]

Check these two out.

k98 bayonets data and registry

k98 bayonets data and registry

 

[AndyB]

The additional photos are ok, before taking photo the blade should be cleaned with alcohol, then photo shooting should be done on day light wout flash and on one color background. From last photos could be the blueing is a proper one, remains of 50% of blade,normally you should compare Clemen und Jung with other army piece not with Mundlos. The ricasso was not serialed most real and the pommel was not WaA proofed, so its similar to other pieces reported from Arnaud. Blanko Clemen und Jung Solingen, most probably never delivered to army , could be a reserve or a Behorden piece.