Kriegsmarine naval sword

[DBaker]

Hello Everyone
There are no swastica's in the flags. I was referring to the inspection stamp on page 500 of Mr. Wittmann's book being identical to the sword being posted here. The etch pattern on page 499 is also identical to the sword being shown here as well. Minus the swastica's to the flags. While I am in agreement with the forum members here about the inspection stamp and accountability numbers only being present on the government stock pieces. There must have been some exception to this rule.. There seems to be compelling evidence of this based on the photos of page 499-500. Same sword, same model, same etch, same inspection mark, different accountability numbers....It seems that maybe a government stock piece might have been upgraded to officer or something. I do not know. It also seems strange that the only time I seem to witness the N or O accountability mark it seems to be on naval swords that bear the old Wiemer bird used up till 1938. Not all of the time mind you but most of the time. An example of this is on the Horster example at bottom of page 500 of Mr. Wittmann's book. If we look at Barry Brown's naval sword we do not see the N or O designation on his hilt or scabbard. I believe there seems to be some exception to the rule here regarding private purchase swords and government stock swords concerning their markings, placement, and blade embellishments.. Please feel free to continue the debate on this sword as I would like to come to a resolution to this conundrum. I humbly appreciate all thoughts and opinions.......

[Frogprince]

At one time there were some fairly strenuous arguments made that the Luftwaffe was in the business of selling daggers to those in that branch of service which accounted for all of the (in circulation at that time) Luftwaffe acceptance marked blades that had later personalizations like names, coats of arms, etc. added to them. But at the end of the day, none of the proponents ever produced a period document of any kind of such a sale. And how could you tell a private property dagger or sword from a government owned one if they came from the same maker? Or for that matter, a private purchase pistol versus a government property pistol - if it was not for the Waffenamts that set them apart?? With the topic showing up again last year on two other forums if memory serves me correctly, with the link here from one of them.

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtop...87838&start=15

And while many aspects of the matter using the Luftwaffe as an illustration could possibly be helpful, it’s not the topic at hand, so the focus is now directed to the Kriegsmarine. Which used the KM acceptance mark not just on government property weapons (such as pistols), swords and bayonet frogs (etc.). And inventory (accountability) markings like the Nordsee and Ostsee series on bayonets, swords, and pistols. But not 100% across the board as some exceptions are seen here and there, and timing a factor with the especially the later issues where most of the shortcuts seem to be. With the above a very short summation of some of the things that have been discussed at other times and places. FP

[Barry Brown]

The earlier N and O referring to the Northsea and Baltic fleet stations are not always seen on TR issue pieces, but certainly on Weimar issue carried over into TR period.
Please see attached scan from Tom Johnson's vol. 6 which shows an issue dirk with similar engineer establishment property stamps to my sabre, but with Hamburg stamping in addition.

[Barry Brown]

This is a Hamburg stamped TR KM issue dirk with similar stampings. Note, no Weimar N or O attribution. The font and the TR KM eagle stamps on the Tom Johnson book piece and my sword and dirk are identical.

[Tiger 1]

Just some thoughts from another navy collector....

Depot or government owned equiptment was purchased at a certain price point, usually at the lowest possible price. This effectively eliminated extra cost options such as gilted hilts and scabbard hardware, ivory grips, glass eyes in the lionhead hilt, etched, blued or damscus blades among other options.

There are things about this saber that don't quite square with accepted depot or government owned examples are the following.....

The optional glass eyes.

The blade etch is obvious. The quality of the etch looks to be very shallow and quite possibly photoetched. The #2.clise. up pic of the trademark and the etch shows very poor control of the resist as seen by the pebbly background in some areas as well as indistinct lines.

The etched trademark instead of a stamped one is another concern.

The eagle M acceptance stamp without a depot number may be okay but needs to be verified with known examples.

Sorry about floating a cloud of doubt over your saber.....it just doesn't look quite right. Perhaps in hand it may be different. IMO from what I see in the pics I think at best it's a parts saber with a mixture if original and some 'enhanced' parts and markings.

All the best,

Tony

[DBaker]

Hello Barry Brown
Thank you for the extra photo's and the comparison of your dagger and sword. If you could please tell me who the maker is of your fabulous dirk.? I love the markings and the extra cogwheel mark on both your sword and dirk. The reason I ask is that although very similar to each other the Kriegsmarine inspection stamp has some albiet slight differences from the dagger to the sword. First, the sword mark has 4 sets of feathers in the bird and the dagger seems to have 3. Secondly, the M placement below the bird and swastica is in a slightly different location from the sword to the dagger. I was curious to know if this had anything to do with these being produced by two different edged weapons producers. Now, if both of these edged weapons are from the Eickhorn firm how do we explain the variation.? Do we suppose that they used one inspection die for swords and another for daggers.? I am not sure...Thank you kindly in advance for your reply....

[Barry Brown]

Hello Barry Brown
Thank you for the extra photo's and the comparison of your dagger and sword. If you could please tell me who the maker is of your fabulous dirk.? I love the markings and the extra cogwheel mark on both your sword and dirk. The reason I ask is that although very similar to each other the Kriegsmarine inspection stamp has some albiet slight differences from the dagger to the sword. First, the sword mark has 4 sets of feathers in the bird and the dagger seems to have 3. Secondly, the M placement below the bird and swastica is in a slightly different location from the sword to the dagger. I was curious to know if this had anything to do with these being produced by two different edged weapons producers. Now, if both of these edged weapons are from the Eickhorn firm how do we explain the variation.? Do we suppose that they used one inspection die for swords and another for daggers.? I am not sure...Thank you kindly in advance for your reply....

The dirk I show is by WKC. The book piece TM, unknown. The author did not show nor identify the TM.

[Barry Brown]

The dirk I show is by WKC. The book piece TM, unknown. The author did not show nor identify the TM.

I should have added that the eagle stamps were probably done at the factories by resident, or visiting inspectors, but that the property stamps applied at issuing KM establishments.
It can be seen that my sabre from Eickhorn is late, post 1941 TM; I cannot date my WKC dirk more accurateley than that it is the TR period WKC TM. But different inspectors at different factories and different periods might account for differing stamps. e.g., I have 1st pattern lufts with waffenamt "stick bird 5" stamps, others with "stickbird 2", and the birds vary in form.
Your KM eagle stamp is on a Horster blade, therefore the line of inquiry surely leads toward finding other KM stamped Horster examples.

[DBaker]

Hello Barry Brown
I really appreciate your response. I am beginning to understand a bit more in regards to various makers and inspection mark stamps. Part of my problem through my researching has been the lack of available pictures and reference books that illustrate these variations of inspection marks and acountabilty numbers and then on top of that throw in all the various makers. For all intensive purposes this forum has been a blessing in helping to fill in that niche. There are so many wonderful threads and topics here its like having a small library at your disposal. Unfortunately, naval sword information is still lacking. I don't know why. There is not many threads here and not many pictures of various makers, styles, etchings, inspection marks etc......Hopefully this will change in the future. It would sure be a big help.....Anyway, thank you again for your time and information. This has proved most useful for me........

[Ed Sunday]

Being that the German naval sword and dagger go back further than any other german dress sidearm , their are a ton of variations you could NEVER own in your lifetime ! Anything is possible.......and Tom Wittmann is a big naval collector.

[Frogprince]

Being that the German naval sword and dagger go back further than any other german dress sidearm , their are a ton of variations you could NEVER own in your lifetime ! Anything is possible.......and Tom Wittmann is a big naval collector.

While it’s true that during the Kaiserliche Marine era there was a dazzling array of choices for Naval dress blades. I don’t really see how well that relates to the TR time frame. With the number of choices from that earlier era by a single large maker reduced by an average of perhaps 80% or more if you factor in the blade choices. As compared to the TR era. And what is under discussion are TR era non-Army military branch acceptance marked items which include not just dress blades. But a number of other items (including those manufactured for combat forces, with some faking there as well) acquired by the government - not private purchases.

And with all of the diversity of the different Imperial era German states. And the service branches within the different state Armies, there emerged a very small number of selected government (marked) models for the senior grade NCO’s (Unteroffizier mit Portepee). Who did not have the pay or allowances of the commissioned officers for uniforms/sidearms. And if we look at the TR era Army it followed established tradition, as did the Navy. And the newly established Luftwaffe.

Which it seems at least as it related to the Luftwaffe - must not have been not readily apparent to the source mentioned in the link that I posted. Who seemed to have relied completely on what a European dealer said. Which to the U.S. dealer’s credit, was made right to the buyer of that particular item by making an adjustment. Not ancient history - but something that happened just last year. FP

[DBaker]

For everyone who is interested I am still working on this post and trying to verify this sword's originality. I will post information as it becomes available. Thank you......

[DBaker]

new information

For anyone interested or anyone following this thread. I recently took this naval sword to a dealer/collector and had him do a thorough hands on inspection of the piece. His findings are as follows: Etched Horster makers mark is fine. Produced like this after 1938. Sword exhibits 70 years of legitimate age. Also, the sword does not exhibit ever being taken apart and/or disassembled. Lastly, the etched blade appears to be executed during the period and is not the 1960's rebirth Horster etch.... I am also currently working with Mr. Wittmann and we are in the process of contacting Mr. Constabile who was the owner of the Horster sword in Mr. Wittmanns' Naval book which consequently is identical to the one posted here. Thank you Mr. Wittmann for all the help and expertise regarding this sword and Mr. Constabile's sword. Thank you Mr. Constabile for any of your help on verifying this swords originality. Mr. Constabile's sword is pictured on page 499 and page 500 of Mr. Wittmann's naval book. Mr. Wittmann has stated to me that he purchased Mr. Constabile's Horster sword for the photographs to be put in his naval book and that Mr. Constablile originally purchased this sword from a veteran. Mr. Wittmann has also stated that the inspection mark(eagle over M) is fine and of period vintage and that the Horster makers mark being etched not stamped is also fine and of period vintage. Mr. Wittmann has also stated to me that Horster etched their makers marks after 1938 and that this can be seen on their naval daggers made after 1938. The evidence so far concludes that the naval sword by Horster pictured here was not the only one like this to exist when compared to Mr. Constabile's Horster sword. So far these two swords are identical in many ways but there is still some more evidence that needs to be sorted out. Based on the information so far the Horster naval sword shown here is proving to be fine. I will continue to post my additional findings as they are made available.

[glaser]

Did they revealed any information about the absence of the swasticas in the flags?

[DBaker]

glaser
No. I have learned that Mr. Constabile's sword had a checkered grip handle that apparently is not visible in the photos. This checkered grip produced some controversial discussions years ago as being not original. The fact that the sword was purchased from a veteran helped to prove its originality. My naval sword has the celluloid over wood grip. Mr. Wittmann examined Mr. Constabile's sword, purchased it and used it in his naval book. Be that as it may, Mr. Constabile's sword is similar to mine but as was mentioned before there are some differences. The grip for one, and the etched swaz's on the flags. I have learned that WKC and Eickhorn used these etchings on their naval swords but they came period etched with swaz's and without swaz's on the flags. So, apparently, either option was available for purchase. After further investigation with Mr. Wittmann and my experience with the hands on inspection from the dealer I have elected to keep this piece in my collection. Both of these gentleman really love this sword and have expressed this to me on a number of occasions.