Need opinions on 1935 Rough out frog for S84/98. Authentic or Repro?

[Apha-Mike]

I purchased an S84-98-III bayonet/scabbard and this brown rough out frog marked 1935 came with it. The frog was highlighted as authentic and was reflected in the asking price. After receiving it I had mixed emotions as to its authenticity for the following reasons. 1) Condition was excellent 2) Copper Rivets 3) Oxidation on Rivets almost seemed painted on ( I cleaned the front rivets but not the ones on the back.) . 4) Have never seen/heard of early brown rough out frogs. So I posted on a FB group asking for opinions and it was deemed a Repro very quickly. But time has passed and I thought I read references to Rough Out Brown frogs. I recently pulled out the bayonet it's
currently teamed with and I'm still convinced it's authentic. So I'm posting here with a '35 Eickhorn (not the one I purchased it with) and asking opinions. The more I look at this the more I'm convinced it's authentic. 1) Condition of Leather on the strap has appropriate wear 2) The Stamp on the back is not legible except for "1935". Much closer to an authentic maker stamp than the well marked Repros. Careful examination, scraping of rivet oxidation confirms oxidation , not paint. 3) Time has passed and I have had enough authentic frogs and repro frogs to be able to spot the major differences. So that's the background. Here are some pictures would love to hear some opinions/facts regarding this frog and early Rough outs in general. Thanks in advance!!!

 

[Spielkind]

Nice original frog with later added security strap in my opinion.
Please show a picture of the whole backside, to make it sure.

 

[Apha-Mike]

Nice original frog with later added security strap in my opinion.
Please show a picture of the whole backside, to make it sure.

Gladly! Thanks! Added security strap makes sense. I cleaned top/left rivet. Others as is.

 

[pwcosol]

If this frog is a repro, then we are all in trouble! Frogs utilizing Copper rivets with brass washers are seen on a few manufacturers from 1935 but seem to have been eclipsed by aluminum ones and then gave way to steel. Copper, brass and aluminum alloy were always considered important materials not to be wasted where other metals would suffice. What it looks like is you have a unissued
frog which may have had a bayonet sitting in the pouch, but never "mounted" in it (your photo #2 seems to support this). Frogs in such condition are certainly not common from this time, but do exist. I have a few early examples (primarily natural brown "LBA"/ Luftwaffe) which look close to, if not, unissued examples. As for the marking on the reverse, a camera angle "straight-on" often limits definition. Hold the frog in your hand at four feet or so above the ground. Thru the camera lens turn it every which-way in decent light. With any luck you will discover the ideal angle which provides the highest definition and the marking will become identifiable. If you get close, I have Antony Carter's combined and amended Bayonet Belt Frogs book and many manufacturer markings and dates encountered are within it's covers. Hopefully this might make the difference in verifying those on your frog.

 

[luftpirate]

I think its a good repro I would check the stitching under black light. Also rivets look like they are brass. Need better picture of the stud on the strap but it does not look good. Not sure why anyone would go to effort to add a strap post war.

 

[AndyB]

Questionable for me is that frog as is wrong side leather sewed, brass /Cu rivets were used early, for 1935 is its strange, certainly the additional strap could be made later, anyway the strap is not quality made same as the sewing under the bolt on it is not typical. Slash or other expert should be compared with same period frogs, mainly after deciphering of maker.
The Eickhorn 1935 is ok to me. Knob on the first picture is evidently wrong. Is ball and nickeled. So the complete secure strap is wrong. Similar frog would be real in late war but not 1935, similar should be laquered black by Heer normally, even only front side. The debree around Brass rivets are too small for 80 years old piece, it would be good smell the leather.

 

[pwcosol]

Questionable for me is that frog as is wrong side leather sewed, brass /Cu rivets were used early, for 1935 is its strange, certainly the additional strap could be made later, anyway the strap is not quality made same as the sewing under the bolt on it is not typical. Slash or other expert should be compared with same period frogs, mainly after deciphering of maker.
The Eickhorn 1935 is ok to me.

Yes, verifying the actual marking for that date is a must. Repros often have spurious markings... often unknown or incorrect. This may be one of the best ways to verify or refute authenticity. Also, though the photos tell a lot, it is not the same as actually having said bayonet "in-hand" for a thorough evaluation...

 

[AndyB]

Certainly the knob is wrong.

 

[AndyB]

Here a real one LW frog with additional secure strap done around 1939, the brass rivets have a typical long year patina.

Matching K98 bayonet S/173G 1935 production with brown bayonet frog marked Otto Koberstein 1935

A superb bayonet marked S/173G indicating production by Coppel in 1935(!). The bayonet has not been sharpened or reblued and has a really nice look to it with most of the original finish remaining.…

fjm44.com

 

[Apha-Mike]

Thanks to all! I played around with some different light schemes and some filters. I can read Hachenburg 1935 but not the maker's name. Hopefully it's recognizable by someone.

 

[Apha-Mike]

Here a real one LW frog with additional secure strap done around 1939, the brass rivets have a typical long year patina.

Matching K98 bayonet S/173G 1935 production with brown bayonet frog marked Otto Koberstein 1935

A superb bayonet marked S/173G indicating production by Coppel in 1935(!). The bayonet has not been sharpened or reblued and has a really nice look to it with most of the original finish remaining.…

fjm44.com

Thanks Andy! I recognize the difference in the secure knob on the strap. I have 3 cavalry strapped Frogs in my collection. That really is a great example. As I said, some things on this say Repro but I keep questioning. That's why I called in you guys. I posted a better makers mark. Thx!

 

[luftpirate]

IMO its combination of elements of all 3 of these repros. Same strap stud as white frog, same brass rivets as black frog, same leather grain and scabbard stud hole cut as brown frog. Probabally aged.

 

[Apha-Mike]

Yes, verifying the actual marking for that date is a must. Repros often have spurious markings... often unknown or incorrect. This may be one of the best ways to verify or refute authenticity. Also, though the photos tell a lot, it is not the same as actually having said bayonet "in-hand" for a thorough evaluation...

In regards to the quality of the leather strap vs the body. The strap is the smooth side (opposite side) of the rough out. Here's a pic of the inside. I can feel it. It's the same smooth as the strap. And you can see on the strap itself that the inside of the strap is the rough out side. Only worn smoother, which also tells me this has seen some wear.

 

[Apha-Mike]

IMO its combination of elements of all 3 of these repros. Same strap stud as white frog, same brass rivets as black frog, same leather grain and scabbard stud hole cut as brown frog. Probabally aged.
View attachment 334527View attachment 334528View attachment 334529

I've handled 2 out of 3 of those. The quality between those and mine is huge. But you also highlighted all of the reasons I suspected it could be a Repro. And yes, It would have to have been aged.
I could highlight what I see as the differences but to what end? The one I do see as the same is the copper/brass rivets on #1. Maybe the better makers mark pic will help! Thx LP!

 

[Apha-Mike]

Yes, verifying the actual marking for that date is a must. Repros often have spurious markings... often unknown or incorrect. This may be one of the best ways to verify or refute authenticity. Also, though the photos tell a lot, it is not the same as actually having said bayonet "in-hand" for a thorough evaluation...

I posted a better pic. I couldn't decipher Maker but Hachenburg and 1035 are clearer. Maybe you'll recognize the maker if it's legit! Thx!

 

[luftpirate]

This is a tough one

I've handled 2 out of 3 of those. The quality between those and mine is huge. But you also highlighted all of the reasons I suspected it could be a Repro. And yes, It would have to have been aged.
I could highlight what I see as the differences but to what end? The one I do see as the same is the copper/brass rivets on #1. Maybe the better makers mark pic will help! Thx LP!

Having it in hand definitely helps. Does it smell old? Do you have a blacklight?

Its a tough one.

Here is an example of 1935 Unit Marked Brass/Copper rivet frog in rough condition that has striking resemblance to yours minus condition and mount. I unfortunately cannot make out the maker.

Pics incoming

 

[Apha-Mike]

Certainly the knob is wrong.
View attachment 334523

Agree. Might be the #1 thing points to Repro. Thx!

 

[AndyB]

Maker schould be G.Schaub. But this frog was laquered on surface but removed in time. The patina on brass rivets looks old, even one was cleaned.

 

[AndyB]

Hruby&Co ?/ Hachenburg /1935 could be the maker on first frog, anyway the name is czech, the Hachenburg stamp is not plain, looks like different size letters?

 

[Apha-Mike]

This is a tough one

Having it in hand definitely helps. Does it smell old? Do you have a blacklight?

Its a tough one.

Here is an example of 1935 Unit Marked Brass/Copper rivet frog in rough condition that has striking resemblance to yours minus condition and mount. I unfortunately cannot make out the maker.

Pics incoming

View attachment 334533View attachment 334534View attachment 334535View attachment 334536View attachment 334537

Unfortunately no Blacklight! Sold it with my Bong in '78! And I can't say it has the same smell as my '41 /'42's but they have a lot more wear on them. Tough to say. I think that knob may be
one thing that says " Repro" unless the maker in Hackenburg can be found. I've done enough "ageing" on Helmet liners to know you can make something look old but you can't always replace the original parts used. The more your guys point out the more I swing towards an aged Repro.Thx!