Imperial 84/98 blank supplier - Beka Record
- Thread starter bruce98k
- Start date
AndyB
Senior Member
The BK is stamped on mashined surface of handle tang ! already prepared for flashguard placement, so BK in oval when for Beka Records was added post tang mashining, for destination are the inspector proofs important of blade and pommel, in that case to destine real maker of rohling.
Last edited:
Carter goes into detail in his Volume II, page 147 in his summary of the suppliers for the Seitengewehr 1914,
summarizing a period document from the War Ministry on orders for the S14, with Beka-Record among them.
I would think by now this would be well established.
summarizing a period document from the War Ministry on orders for the S14, with Beka-Record among them.
I would think by now this would be well established.
AndyB
Senior Member
BK as suppliers in what details? as blank delivery or mashining and end montage? I believe Carter is wrong in some places. S14 was a emergency construction, comparable by ASG88/98. When different inspector proofs on blade and handle means the blade was finished other place as the end assembly firm.
Normal S84/98 bayonets made by one firm as sample by Solingen should have identical inspector stamp on blade and 2x on pommel its similar to peace production on S98/05,S98/02,KS98. The most important thing is the inspector proofs are area located, in Solingen luckily not changed the proof owner since 1913-18.
Normal S84/98 bayonets made by one firm as sample by Solingen should have identical inspector stamp on blade and 2x on pommel its similar to peace production on S98/05,S98/02,KS98. The most important thing is the inspector proofs are area located, in Solingen luckily not changed the proof owner since 1913-18.
Last edited:
Additional data from Wolfgang in Germany:
BK-Records was a part of the Carl Lindström AG. To this group belonged also Odeon and FP. Based in Berlin, as well as Gottscho.
Gottscho himself did not have any manufacturing facilities, nor any knowledge about the production of sidearms, but had the blades produced at the Mundlos sewing machine factory in Magdeburg and the scabbards at the Phonographische BK A.G. in Berlin...
BK-Records was a part of the Carl Lindström AG. To this group belonged also Odeon and FP. Based in Berlin, as well as Gottscho.
Gottscho himself did not have any manufacturing facilities, nor any knowledge about the production of sidearms, but had the blades produced at the Mundlos sewing machine factory in Magdeburg and the scabbards at the Phonographische BK A.G. in Berlin...
AndyB
Senior Member
For me this are questionable information, firstly no one of these firms made blank rohlings, they were obtained by Steelworks or Stahlhuette of unknown facility, the blade finish was normally done by well known knife makers as they had large grinding stones. Mundlos produced sewing machines i dont known prior this time that they made any knives or cold weapons, but is well known as a montage firm, BK records made phonografs, so certainly not equiped in heavy mashinery, but could mashine the locking nuts, pommel adapter area same as the grips and completage of weapons. The Gottschos and some of the S14 were made from 2 parts so there should be made some brazing of pommel and tang and rivet adding.
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
Anyway when You have a historical documents that confirm that both firm BK and Mundlos delivered blanks- rohlings, so it could be real, anyway i would tend to only mashining by these both firms.
Carl Lindström Company - Wikipedia
Beka Records - Wikipedia
Last edited:
AndyB
Senior Member
Certainly not, as You could see the C inspector proof on blade spine is partly covered by crossguard same as the maker stamp of J.A.Henckels is covered by crossguard which means the blade rohlings was delivered by Henckels, to BK where was tang of handle mashined , added crossguard, here so that covered the old stamp, then were mashined the rifle slot, and grips and mounted with screws, the pommel proof is missing but was normally a G for Berlin or other letter but different to Solingen C proof. When You compare the thickness of pommel above locking nut, proportion of locking lug and thickness of crossguard, it looks as not extra production typical for BK, certainly not typical for Henckels firm of tradition since 1731 by making knives when You look at blade profile.
Last edited:
AndyB
Senior Member
When look at different books like Carter new russian copy of Voronovs, same as other samples, is evidently that J.A.Henckels produced blade blanks as one of the great knives producer, as they could be found on Frister&Rossman Berlin and Anker Werke S98/05 production. Frister & Rossman was a sewing mashine facility, never made any knives prior WW1. Similar to Anker Werke Bielefeld, a sewing mashine company.
Last edited:
So Andy, you are proposing that the finisher was Beka-Record and not the blank supplier.
Based on what Wolfgang sent me, I am open to this possibility.
So then in my bayo book I would actually have BK as the finisher with blanks supplied by Demag, Henckels, and Rich A. Herder.
Appreciate you opinion here.
Based on what Wolfgang sent me, I am open to this possibility.
So then in my bayo book I would actually have BK as the finisher with blanks supplied by Demag, Henckels, and Rich A. Herder.
Appreciate you opinion here.
AndyB
Senior Member
Certainly BK was the finisher of the handle and completation of the piece, the blank suppliers could be Henckels, R.Herder and Demag when there exist so combination. The pommel area should have only one proof and different normally from blade proof. This is visible on S84/98 and S98/05 bayonets of war period. Carter is wrong on various places in his book, dont forget his books were writen 40 or 50years ago. Unfortunally Voronovs added some of his errors in the new reprint.
I believe these all is already in my correction that i sent You some months ago.
I believe these all is already in my correction that i sent You some months ago.
Hi Andy
Have you ever seen an S 84/98 n.A. with the maker BK in oval?
BK is only known as maker of S 14.
Other S 14 producers, like Odeon, did finish S 84/98 under their names, why not BK as the only one than?
All J.A. Henckels S 84/98 I´ve ever seen have the crossguard over the maker stamp.
Send you pm.
Regards
Have you ever seen an S 84/98 n.A. with the maker BK in oval?
BK is only known as maker of S 14.
Other S 14 producers, like Odeon, did finish S 84/98 under their names, why not BK as the only one than?
All J.A. Henckels S 84/98 I´ve ever seen have the crossguard over the maker stamp.
Send you pm.
Regards
I tend to agree with Andrej here in regard to the S14. If one examines the details of the S14 with BK marked blades it is clear the blanks were not made by the same firm. The shape (depth, width, curvature, etc) and positioning of the fuller and the ricasso are noticeably inconsistent. If one places these various blade patterns into like groups there may be as many as three or four different makers of the blade blanks. Which were ultimately finished by Beca-Rekord. These blades can also be found with at least three different spine frakturs - G, T, and U; again indicative of the blanks coming from different sources. It is interesting that they chose to place the BK marking on the ricasso of the S14 but under the grips of the S84/98nA.
AndyB
Senior Member
Nr.6 Gebr.Hartkopf nr.7 is Gebr.Heller? gramatical error in nr2 Deutsche Maschinen fabrik AG
to nr.8 i dont saw any complete proofed J.A.Henckels pieces, only delivered blanks, do You have samples with doubble C proof on pommel?
about the other pieces should be examined per piece, as to sample i never saw a Siepmann or Kupper with full proof of Solingen on pommel, so they should be only blanks supplier not finisher.
But real pieces should be compared and looked for proofs.
to nr.8 i dont saw any complete proofed J.A.Henckels pieces, only delivered blanks, do You have samples with doubble C proof on pommel?
about the other pieces should be examined per piece, as to sample i never saw a Siepmann or Kupper with full proof of Solingen on pommel, so they should be only blanks supplier not finisher.
But real pieces should be compared and looked for proofs.
Last edited:
Andy you really think that you can completely assign a maker bases solely on factur inspections?
As long as we cant positively ID a maker I will continue to assign Siepmann and Kupper as contractors.
I will add a note with your uncertainty regarding these firms as blank suppliers.
As long as we cant positively ID a maker I will continue to assign Siepmann and Kupper as contractors.
I will add a note with your uncertainty regarding these firms as blank suppliers.
