S/176 P. weyersburg matching factory error?

[bnz41john]

Just acquired this at a local auction, looks to be a all original 1936 s/176 code with an unmarked frog. Flash guard was used as a hammer, scabbard has a couple of dents. Someone looks like they thought about sharpening but never really did anything but removed some of the finish from the edge of the blade. The blade edge is still totally flat all the way down. Frog looks to have someone's initials lightly carved into the leather. Hard to read.

I am pretty happy with it overall, especially since I paid a mismatched bayonet price for it. But I do have one question.

The bayonet and scabbard have matching serial but the bayonet is lacking the same "a" suffix that the scabbard has, is this a factory error?

 

[AndyB]

The piece looks ok, is possible they forgot to add the series letter on, on bayonet looks like digits were stamped twice, blueing looks ok to me, strange is that the frog could be LW type, but has not middle stitch. Carving on front should be probably from a US Gi?

 

[grimlin13]

I was typing a response when Andy made his post. He said what I was going to say. so there is a plus one on his response.
Also great find on a less common maker/year set.

 

[Slash]

I like it!

 

[Unutt]

Any chance the extra stamp under the 9 is actually the 'a' letter block? I have several very similar. There is not much room between the fuller and the serial to get a good stamp. It looks to me like they tried to stamp near the 3 first and then the 9, and then just gave up. No sign of double stamp under the first two digits and the spacing is not the same on the under stamp as the upper stamp. The stamp under the 9 looks like a lower case a to me. Just saying...

 

[AndyB]

Personally i believe there was hit the serial more time, minimum 2x by middle 33 and 3x time it looks on last digit 9, no one of this looks like a. By Weyersberg was letter normally under middle area of 4 digits, so it should be under 33. It looks like it was forgoten. It was probably not so important, in soldbooks are allways mentioned only digits wout suffix, and when so very scarce.

 

[bnz41john]

Thank you all for your comments. I was surprised when I first got it that the serial number on the bayonet looked so crude, especially for a early manufacture date. Whoever stamped it, maybe it was there first day on the job! haha.

 

[Unutt]

Granted this is an asw and it is on the scabbard but I have several more. I will post as I find them.

 

[Slash]

Personally i believe there was hit the serial more time, minimum 2x by middle 33 and 3x time it looks on last digit 9, no one of this looks like a. By Weyersberg was letter normally under middle area of 4 digits, so it should be under 33. It looks like it was forgoten.

IMO the stamping area of the ricasso is so small, pinched between the crossguard and the high fuller that it was hard to apply the serial number. Hence the double or triple "hits" to the digits. The letter block was simply omitted or forgotten. Not that uncommon to encounter a bayonet or scabbard that is missing the letter block. It happened. I also have a 44cvl that has the letter block stamped inside the top of the fuller.

It was probably not so important, in soldbooks are allways mentioned only digits wout suffix, and when so very scarce.

Some Soldbuch entries do provide the entire serial number with letter block. An example is pictured below. These entries vary enormously. some very detailed and complete - some maker and date - some without date - others with serial digits only as Andrej noted above - have even seen the bayonet type only, S84/98.

 

[AndyB]

Thanks for sharing, the letters on series are not typical for adding, anyway there is missing the date on both rifle and bayonet in soldbuch, so not full information even the serial is complete by both.