Pack Short single etched Dress Bayonet.

[Grofaz45]

Hi,
Bought this at Newark Arms Fair in the UK on Sunday for a very reasonable price it's not a mint example by any means but it's not bad and I really like this etch pattern which is apparently the Pack neutral B pattern and I think the maker mark is probably a early one but I may have got that wrong? Grip bolts are magnetic the hilt is not.The frog was quite dirty and had a lot of horrible silver paint/pigment stains all over it but a good polish with Renwax got it off and it now looks a lot better than it did it also has a stamped mark in the leather to the reverse of what looks like (afa) ? Also has a nice looking knot that I hope is an original period one but I don't know what the colour combinations mean? There is some old staining to the blade which is more on the reverse than the obverse is this a polished steel blade as opposed to a plated one? a lot of questions I know but hopefully someone can enlighten me. Here are some photos but I do find it hard to photograph etching on blades it actually looks a little better than these pics, all comments welcome. Regards, Andy.

[Anderson]

A Nice etched KS98 bayonet by E Pack. As you suggest the maker's mark is one of the early types. Probably mid 1930's. The etching is genuine Pack design, a little worn. The blade is nickel plated and you have the wrong frog. That's a combat K98 frog. You will need a dress/parade frog (no rivets). The troddel is correct, and represents Heer 1st Battalion, 1st company.

[Grofaz45]

Hi, Thanks for this information and yes the etch is a bit worn but for the price I paid I'm not complaining, I had started to wonder about the frog not being a dress type and you have confirmed what I suspected I will keep it for a nice combat bayonet when I get one and find a dress frog for this one. I did a bit of searching and thought the Troddel was probably what you have said it is so pleased about that I presume it would be fine to put this troddel with any Army dress bayonet of the long pattern but not the short pattern is that correct? Also nice to know this one has an early maker mark. Useful stuff thanks very much for your input. Regards, Andy.

A Nice etched KS98 bayonet by E Pack. As you suggest the maker's mark is one of the early types. Probably mid 1930's. The etching is genuine Pack design, a little worn. The blade is nickel plated and you have the wrong frog. That's a combat K98 frog. You will need a dress/parade frog (no rivets). The troddel is correct, and represents Heer 1st Battalion, 1st company.

[Anderson]

For a long blade (25cm) EM dress bayonet this type of troddel is correct. For the 20 cm blade parade bayonets you should fit a NCO troddel which are non specific of regiment or company.

[Grofaz45]

Thank you Anderson. I just realised I titled the thread wrong it is of course a long pattern dress bayonet not short, DOH!

[Frogprince]

A good find, I'm not questioning that many collectors seem to consider the short dress bayonets as intended for (junior) NCO's. But I'm wondering if there is period source material to confirm that? With catalogs non specific, one period publication saying that it was up to the individuals if they wanted a longer or shorter bayonet - with a qualifier that it could possibly be subject to some local (unit) regulation regarding what was authorized. And general regulations as near as I can tell mute on the topic. Best Regards, Fred

[Larry C]

Just my 2 cents and will add to what Fred has commented on ...I would say out of convenience the short bayonet would be less in carry and hindrance that of a long blade version. To each their own butt just my thoughts.
Curious maybe Wim Saris may be able to comment on any hidden regulations in uniform carry.

Regards Larry