New Collector: Evaluation on this 1940 Clemen & Jung K98 Bayonet?

[TheDude1]

Hello all,

Thanks in advance for the help. I'm a new member eager to learn and eventually contribute. Below is a brand new addition that I'd love feedback on. At risk of boring you with obvious information, I did plenty of my own research.

Numbers matching 1940 Clemen & Jung bayonet w/ 1941 E.O. Gotze & Sohn frog. As I understand it, a plain "cqh" is one of two marking methods used by Clemen & Jung in 1940. Not pictured is the back of the sheath which is stamped "cqh" with "40" underneath. Also "40" is stamped on the side of the blade near the base. There's a dent at the back of the sheath and some brown smudges/streaks on one side, but there's plenty of bluing overall.

In addition to anything interesting that may jump out, I have three main questions:

1) How uncommon is this bayonet? A registry data post on here from 2012 claims this is the least observed manufacturer of their samples. Additionally, a "K98K bayonet registry and photos" website does not have any examples of a plain cqh.

2) Is this 1941 frog period accurate for a 1940 production bayonet?

3) Was this a good value at $140 USD?

[Larry C]

Yo Dude ....never think we could be bored that you more so than other new users has done their homework...nice to see that. Glad you attached the supporting link as well.

I can say that $140 US is a very good price as these bayos are now climbing to $500 depending upon condition and correct details.
The forum is fortunate to have some seasoned collectors within and surely they will be along shortly to comment further.

The timeline of the bayo and frog ..I would say ..the frog may have been added on later during the period as it may have been damaged or added postwar.

Matching numbers are a big plus
You did well IMO for $140
The Bayo Gents will have more to say.

Regards Larry

[AndyB]

The piece is nice when matching, problem here is the sharpening as its not period, but done postwar, the cqh 1940 code is scarce to find. the frog is of LW type. the screw here were dissasembled as not well countersunk are mounted, so there could be mixed parts or not in handgrip area, but wout dissasembly its no more to say.The blueing on the piece looks ok, question is the price as its probably mirroring the sharpening minus, normally the price would be higher by not touched piece , there was evidently some damage in area of frog on screws so possible the frog was mounted on other bayonet, the frog has a typical wall hole on backside as it was nailed on wall for decades probably.Any frog could be used on this bayonet, but it could be a so called rig piece, when end of 1940 production was joined with 1941 frog. E.O.Goetze & Sohn, Gersdorf

[TheDude1]

I didn't even notice the sharpening. That's disappointing, but I'm still happy with it overall for its scarcity. Thanks for sharing!

[Anderson]

You're happy with it. That's the main thing, but it is a low volume maker and not seen that often. Being a matching serial number set, that is probably more important to most collectors over whether the blade is sharpened.