M-18 Pants?

[C. Roelens]

Gents,
No way these are Swiss!! look at the high back. The suspender buttons look like the type you see often on ww1 breadbags. Also all Swiss pants and breeches have belt loops with suspender buttons on the inside.And the lining is dead on WW1 late war German.
Swiss trousers WW1 and WW2 use a heavier grey wool and completely different grey cloth liner.
I mean come on guys, dont be so suspect in looking for the perfect 'Ink Stamp'

Eric.

Eric,

I have to agree. Do you have any idea what those faded numbers are underneath and below the 1918 ink stamp? Could the fresh looking ink stamp be a reissue mark? I'm just curious... not trying to throw another log on the fire.

Chuck

[Gene T]

Here are some of my Swiss breeches. The pair on the far left (red piping) is WW I vintage (Ord 14).



I think the differences between these and the pair that started the thread are pretty obvious.


Regards,
Gene T

[Adler 1]

They are German WW1 Steingrau trousers allright... Mine are stamped BA IX 1916. They were supposed to be worn together with the M16 Bluse as a simplified model...
These trousers are very hard to find because they were made only for a few years...


Adler

[PlaceOfBayonets]

Not adding up. If they are model 1918 Hosen they should not have been made for more then 10 or 11 months.

W.

[Adler 1]

They are M16 to go along with M16 bluse...
Because the one for sale is stamped 1918, it doesn't mean they are M18..

Adler

[MilitaryCollect]

Hello,

That sounds right. I just assumed they were M-18 due to the stamp. Here's another photo of the stamps without flash. It reads "BA XV 1918 1 R."

Christopher

They are M16 to go along with M16 bluse...
Because the one for sale is stamped 1918, it doesn't mean they are M18..

Adler

[PlaceOfBayonets]

For an item issued along with the 1916 Bluse it sure is a very little known part of the uniform. Everyone's heard and seen of the Bluse but not the pants.

W.

[phild]

Don't take this the wrong way but this is the most hosed up thread that I have seen in a while!

There are two completely different types of trousers/breeches being mixed up and discussed without regard (seemingly) to what is what.

The trousers are the pattern introduced around 1916. The breeches (BIG DIFFERENCE between the designs of trousers and breeches) are dated 1918...but there is nothing introduced so far to indicate that these are any type of special or specific later model (much less a M18 what ever that might be) than those introduced in 1908.

I think that we have established for everyone that they are not Swiss. They are German and pre-1940 for sure without any question. The only possible question is if the 1918 stamp is period to 1918 or was it added later to make a pair of 1936 (or 1926) vintage breeches appear to be WWI. My belief is NO, these are in fact 1918 origin, but IMO this is the direction that the discussion needs to progress.

[Hoss]

Absorlutely phild,
Could that be size markings underneath 1918? Its hard to make out.
Iam really sorry but here goes.... Could they be earlier and the 1918 stamp be
a wartime reissue??
The Germans had to reuse uniforms from the wounded and dead thoughout the War. Could that explain the faded mark under the strong later stamp?

Eric.

[phild]

Absorlutely phild,
Could that be size markings underneath 1918? Its hard to make out.
Iam really sorry but here goes.... Could they be earlier and the 1918 stamp be
a wartime reissue??
The Germans had to reuse uniforms from the wounded and dead thoughout the War. Could that explain the faded mark under the strong later stamp?

Eric.

Yes, I think that what you said above could be the case, but what I think is more likely based on what I have seen on a number of WWI uniform items is that the ink used in the various marking sets applied (by different people and locations) varied in its ability to endure washing and fading. I have seen as a general rule that unit stamps and BA (Corps/Depots) held up stronger and sharper than size stamps....

The faded markings could be a maker name or size stamps.....less likely due to the size and location that they are a unit stamp.

I will also say that it is has been my experience that uniform items from the 1920s - mid 1930s have almost always had an abundance of stampings including (often) multiple units, condition grading, and strike outs...this is also somewhat true of pre and very early WWI German items. I generally see (not always) much fewer markings on later war WWI material than that from about any other period.

[Hoss]

Yes phild,
I,ve seen that too. What do you think of the 'fuller looking' 1918 stamp. I,ve seen that many times before on 17/18 clothing?
Have I been fooling myself all these years. do you believe it to be a period mark?

Eric.

[Gene T]

In Juergen Kraus' profusely illustrated book "The German Army in the First World War", he seems to imply that all breeches issued to the cavalry, whether of the M-1908 or M-1915 pattern, with the notable exception of those issued to Saxon regiments, had either leather (M-1908) or suede (M-1915) seat reinforcement panels. Several examples of these are shown on pp 177 - 179 of the book (English version), including one from a Saxon Uhlan regiment, showing the unique cloth reinforcements as well as non-regulation buttoned (rather than taped) ankles.

<OMaybe it's the picture angles in the original e-stand listing, but I don't really see a substantial 'cavalry’ type seat reinforcement on the pair of breeches in question, only a thigh-and-knee reinforcement. If anything, they bear more than a passing resemblance to the M-1920 "Breeches for Dismounted NCOs and Other Ranks" shown on page 197 of "The German Reichswehr" (English version) by Schlicht and Kraus. According to the authors, the M-1920 is essentially the same as an earlier model that had been introduced to the Provisional Reichswehr in 1919, which was intended to be worn with puttees and ankle boots. It continued to be issued through 1927, when puttees were discontinued.

Since puttees and ankle boots were common late in the war, it's certainly conceivable that the immediate precursor of the M-(1919)1920 breeches had been trialed by 1918, and that we are indeed looking at one of the few surviving examples; making the speculative "M-18" designation quite appropriate in some ways, even though it's not in the reference books.

This is sheer speculation of course, but there seems to be enough circumstantial evidence to make it at least plausible.

Gene T<O</O

[phild]

I think that the stamp looks believable, but faking that would not be hard.

I agree with gene T.

I have looked carefully at all of the reference books and I think that the problem is that there just are not enough surviving examples (like hundreds of pairs...but instead more like just several!) to make a lot of sweeping conclusions on all of the varieties that may have been produced.

I know that with issue/contract tunics alone the variations are almost endless in terms of fabrics, fittings and small details. One would think that with trousers and breeches it would be even greater as they were a little less of the focal point and may have been produced in twice the numbers (wear out rate) as the tunics.

[PlaceOfBayonets]

I think the last two posts are prudent voices of reason!

W.

[MilitaryCollect]

M-18 Pants?

Fly.