Thats very clear, thanks very much.
Thats very clear, thanks very much.
You are more than welcome but remember, it is only an opinion!!
I have the same opinion so its 2 x an opinion
That the sword blade was originally the property of the Prussian government I don’t think was ever called into question. And it could have been taken from government possession as many other types of arms were by individuals, and/or the warring factions seeking control etc. Which as I understand it, is why a bounty was offered for the return of arms by the authorities that were taken by individuals (and entities). With a faint recollection that the “1920” types of stamps were possibly also used to prevent further thefts, and the selling back to the authorities of arms already in government possession. With as things were settled down a little, private contracts let out for at least some of the overhauling of preexisting arms, which has sometimes made it difficult to determine just who did what and when because of the diversity in markings (or a lack of).
But before that happened it’s reported that at the end of the war an unrecorded percentage of swords had the individual state emblems physically removed with the guards cut down to a simple knuckle bow. Which apparently did not sit well with whomever was in charge(?). And the fact is that the earlier known Weimar marked government property swords were the same as the Imperial issue types complete with intact state emblems (where they were used). And that an unknown percentage of government models have survived untouched in their original Imperial era configuration.
With a significant change early in 1922 (my rough translation): “the General Purpose (or Standard/Uniform) Officer's saber was introduced after samples were submitted, being listed as approved in those period orders as the “einheitliche Offiziersäbel”. Coexisting with the different Imperial era Army sword models until circa 1929. But as I said earlier, I’m not aware of any completely new production for the government of General Purpose model swords until near the end of the 1920’s. With what was done under the auspices of the Weimar government, for especially pistol collectors in years past causing quite a bit of discussion, further research, and some reassessments as new information was brought forward. Best Regards, Fred
Hi Fred, I have read, with great interest, what you say and you obviously know your stuff. However, I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with my logic and opinion? In tha absence of actual proof, logic is my only back stop. With regard to my comments on original ownership and possible post WWI aquisition, I refer to Entry 25 above where the sword's ownership appears to be a queary.
With regards and best wishes MR
If it’s the same entry we are discussing I think that I see three or four possibilities outlined:
“acquired or not returned at the end of the war to the army - and the new owner or his son .... adapting the sword for use during the TR period by re hilting ...... saving some money (by) not (buying) new sword”
Highly unlikely IMO because the late 1920’s version of the “einheitliche Offiziersäbel” other than the markings was the same design as the large 1935 Heer/Wehrmacht order for the swords. But during the Weimar era while things were still in a state of flux, that could be a possibility.
“a military armourer or indeed a civilian contractor to the "new" army creating a none regulation pattern sword for issue to regular troops."
The scabbard may also be recycled and have an Acceptance marking at the bottom (?) - an unknown. But a military armouer or (re)manufacturer has to have a new hilt to install on the blade. There was a “Preussischer Infanterie-Offizier-Degen gerade, mit Füsilier - Montur”, but I think that’s just coincidence that doesn't really have a direct bearing with the sword here. However it does have the same style hilt which is different than the late Weimar - TR versions. And the “P” style guards are very common on German swords - so with no markings on it who knows where it came from?
“The thought of the military accepting the amalgamation of two theoretically incompatable sword patterns to create a bastardisation seems very unlikely??”
This is the Weimar era that’s under discussion, and they allowed by regulation three preexisting Imperial swords and one new model. And some bayonets and other special category sidearms (not to mention the various firearms etc.). What does that say about how they were looking at things as Germany and the Army tried to cope with the economy and the situation they were in?
“that some dealer or collector has not just cobbled together two bits of swords. This latter point, I am not inclined to believe!!”
I have not seen anything in the pictures I’ve looked at that leads me to believe that it’s a dealer or collector parts piece that was put together. On the other hand, I still have I think a legitimate early TR period reworked bayonet that was so well done that it took me years to come to a conclusion about whether or not it was a factory original or a rework. My point being, that I already had some background/expertise to fall back on with the bayonets, and it still took me a long time to make a decision. And I think that just like with the pistols some further study may be needed. PS: With certain provisions awarded or heirloom sidearms were permitted, but IMO the sword here falls outside of that category.
With my best regards, Fred
Hi Fred. I think that the answer is almost certainly within the correspondence in this thread which is why I have found the thread so interesting!! Having served in the Supply Branch of the Royal Air Force for longer than I care to recall, I know that all the composition parts required to rebuild both edged weapons and firearms were available through military channels and swords were regularly refurbished through contract sources. So, who knows the answer for definate?? Ergo the whole debate rests on logic and reasoned opinion. It is a pleasure debating with you!!!
- - ------- - -
Hi Doug, Now look at what you sword has started!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LOL
Hello again Michael, While some discussions are in fact debates (especially when it comes to certain fakes) I looked at it more as a matter of exploration and different perspectives. Also having a recollection of arms and vehicles etc. sent back for repair/overhaul that had to be done at higher echelons. And knowing first hand of times when “self help”, local, and/or specialized sources were used to solve a particular problem when not feasible or timely through 'official' channels. And perhaps with time and some more research we may have some better answers to the puzzle.
With my best regards, Fred
And yes Doug - it’s all your fault!! ………………...
Sword is nice but as stated a mystery I too have seen some rehilted ones like this with WW1 blades and WW2 NCO type handles maybe the Reichwer theory could be correct. I like it anyway. timothy
A few additional comments in passing. The sword hilt appeared to have some traces left of a heavy patina which if found in that condition - I personally would have at least initially left intact. And perhaps even longer, if I thought there might have been a question later on about originality. With the other one being about the various rework/other stamps that were applied to arms that were overhauled/rebuilt. With my immediate recollection being that they seem to be seen mostly on the earlier vintage overhauled Luger pistols. A relatively minor number of period reworked bayonets (circa late 1930‘s - very early 1940‘s using the straightwing eagle). And some of the TR era remanufactured German cavalry sabers, like this example with some intact Imperial era acceptance stamps. But no trace of Weimar markings if it ever had them. Best Regards, Fred