Need opinions on 1935 Rough out frog for S84/98. Authentic or Repro?
- Thread starter Apha-Mike
- Start date
luftpirate
Well-known member
I wonder if the frog is original but a "Dealer" added the mount strap to make it more desireable.
Apha-Mike
Active member
Thx! I'm checking on the H Ruby Hackenburg Maker. Not much info on the web. Wish someone had a list of makers.
Regarding the city of manufacture, since a couple letters were hard to read, I tried a few combinations and the only one which exists is "HACHENBURG". There was no reference to any manufacturer of any German frog found in Carter's compiled & expanded BBFs book by either name starting with "H" and even coming close to what is marked on the frog in question, or having attribution to the city of "HACHENBURG". However, luftpirate, in response #21, has a least verified one manufacturer of German field equipment, H. Ruby & Co | Hackenburg (likely the only one) from this city. The listings in Carter's BBFs book is extensive, but neither he nor anyone else would consider such a compilation as complete. Now the question is resolving the disparity between the known H. Ruby & Co. name from that marked on the frog. Always possible one company was bought out or merged with another sometime in the mid-1930s and the lesser company name ceased to be used. There was a lot of this going on in Germany with firms expanding to get more contracts from the Reich. At this point, would be a big plus if the manufacturer name can be verified, but even so, the jury is still out on this one...
Last edited:
Apha-Mike
Active member
I think I found the answer. I noticed this earlier in comparing straps on my other ones. This one has been restitched. SOmeone replaced the original. That would explain a real maker with a modern strap knob. Whadya think? See pic
Attachments
Apha-Mike
Active member
Thx! See my reply #26 for the answer. You mentioned a replaced stud (knob) See the pic of restitching.
Apha-Mike
Active member
Bingo!
Apha-Mike
Active member
I think the strap is original but the knob was replaced for some reason. The strap is the most worn piece of leather on the piece.
BTW, I don't consider the frog in question to be "rough-out" as was the case with German frogs issued during WW1. The natural leather finish does not bear that outer, smooth treated apperance more prevalent later (until a return to it late in WWII). As pictured, it is not unusual to see it actually on the inside layer of a frog body or pouch. Here are a few WWII German Army issued frogs (note the variations cross-straps installed or never installed):
https://www.k98kforum.com/threads/standard-german-s84-98-t3-frogs.24835/
https://www.k98kforum.com/threads/standard-german-s84-98-t3-frogs.24835/
Apha-Mike
Active member
Follow up: In discussions with a pretty knowledgable source, I was told in the early years new recruits were issued brown rough outs and were responsible for greasing and blackening their own gear.
Look on the inside belt loop of any s84/98 frog and you'll see what I mean. This is one of those. And H. Ruby & Co. did use copper rivets. Pretty rare too. Thanks for everything gentlemen! As always I learned a lot!
Attachments
Apha-Mike
Active member
It's H. Ruby & Co Hachenburg confirmed
AndyB
Senior Member
The coat of frogs were done by armorer or by distribution from depot not by soldier, secondly the brown leather secure strap is strange same as the strap has same sewing in middle as on side, which means 1935 is not real for adding the secure strap there, i would certainly smell on leather, and compare the stamp on different items as it could be fake maker stamped, is not problem. patina on brass parts does not looks extra old. Teoretically it could be the strap was added later and repair was done with new knob. By never distributed and not coated frog could be the piece real, when this maker used the wrong side of leather on surface. For this should be compared other frogs of same maker and period.
Last edited:
AndyB
Senior Member
Secondly on Tornister is the H larger as second R, which means the maker is Hruby & Co. not H.Ruby. This name is certainly slawian.
www.auktionshalle-cuxhaven.com
fjm44.com
Mützenriemen?, gemarkt "Hruby&Co" Hachenburg 1941, L-42 cm, sehr gut erhalten
Mützenriemen?, gemarkt "Hruby&Co" Hachenburg 1941, L-42 cm, sehr gut erhalten
www.auktionshalle-cuxhaven.com
Brown leather equipment belt marked Hruby & Co Magdenburg 1939 size 90
Textbook pre war brown equipment belt marked Hruby & Co Magdenburg 1939 in unissued condition. The belt is a medium size 90 fitting most mannequins with ease. Impossible to upgrade piece in ex…
fjm44.com
Here are a few links to leather equipment from the maker Hruby&Co Hachenburg:
fjm44.com
fjm44.com
www.dba.dk
www.auktionshalle-cuxhaven.com
The rivets on the first frog are different from the flat ones used on repros usually.
I still have no problems with the bag, looking at the photos.
But it´s better to hold it in your hands to make a decision on originality.
Pre war equipment belt marked Hruby & Co Hachenburg 6/1938
A pre war equipment belt marked Hruby & Co Hachenburg 6/1938. Pre war equipment belts are very hard to find, especially in mint condition like this. The size is a large 105, a good fit for larg…
fjm44.com
Pre war equipment belt marked Hruby & Co 1939
A nice pre war 1939 dated equipment belt in true mint condition. Nicely sized 90. A pre war equipment belt thats never been blackened!
fjm44.com
Militær, * En tysk Abe fra 1937 - RAD 5/70 *, Her er et...
Militær, * En tysk Abe fra 1937 - RAD 5/70 *, Her er et specielt tilbud til dig, som samler på originale ting og sager fra Deutsches Reich perioden. En tornyster / rygsæk eller * Affe * ( Abe ). Det navn, som den blandt de tyske soldater fik som "kælenavn" på grund af den behårede frontklap...
Mützenriemen?, gemarkt "Hruby&Co" Hachenburg 1941, L-42 cm, sehr gut erhalten
Mützenriemen?, gemarkt "Hruby&Co" Hachenburg 1941, L-42 cm, sehr gut erhalten
www.auktionshalle-cuxhaven.com
The rivets on the first frog are different from the flat ones used on repros usually.
I still have no problems with the bag, looking at the photos.
But it´s better to hold it in your hands to make a decision on originality.
Seems the rucksack from post# 21 is the latest dated piece of equipment mentioned by Hruby & Co. Would be helpful to discover if they were ever issued apha-code as cover for their firm's name.
I think some of the smaller companies were not, from similar pieces of field gear bearing only manufacturer names through WW2 (although the use of contract numbers stamped on such equipment later might have superseded both names and/or alpha codes).
I think some of the smaller companies were not, from similar pieces of field gear bearing only manufacturer names through WW2 (although the use of contract numbers stamped on such equipment later might have superseded both names and/or alpha codes).
Apha-Mike
Active member
I decided to take a closer look at the stitching used to secure the strap and found evidence of additional stitches above and below the strap. This could be either signs of rework or just additional stitches to secure the strap. It looks 3 stitches above the strap and one below and It looks to be the same thread as the used in the frog in general. (See pics) Comparing this strap to other Mid War cavalry Frogs it is the same: rough side of leather on the inside smooth side facing out. I think the strap and the leather is consistant with the other leather used on the frog and is original to this frog. THE STAMP: I attached a picture of the stamp on this frog next to the HRUBY stamp supplied by luftpilot. I could not copy or" save as" the pictures of the other HRUBY stamps as the website did not allow it. In my opinion, it is the same stamp. Using Occams Razor I think it makes more sense that this is an Authentic frog (Strap TBD) rather than a very well done Reproduction that copied a real stamp as someone suggested. It is hard to believe they stamped the repro in such a way as to make the real makers name almost unreadable. Regarding another question as to the amount of oxidation on the copper rivets for its age, I would suggest that it it obvious this frog is in superior condition vs. others of similar age and there is no way of knowing when it stopped being cared for. The oxidation process could have started in 1965 for all we know.HRUBY & Co. is listed as a manufacturer of frogs in Ray Williams book A COLLECTORS GUIDE TO GERMAN BAYONET BELT FROG 1825 - 1945. I appreciate everyone's help, input, and knowledge. I certainly learned a lot! I think this one was pretty interesting and better that it turns out to be authentic! It's my opinion that this is an Authentic Bayonet Belt frog made by HRUBY & Co of Hachenburg German in 1935. The Strap is either original, or added later,(TBD) and the strap knob was replaced at some point after the war. It's an excellent example of a frog in it's original condition unblacked. A scarce or even rare example. Along with the pictures I mentioned I included a picture of the frog which is currently paired with a matching 1935 Carl Eickhorn which is also in beautiful shape. Thanks again!
Attachments
AndyB
Senior Member
When the piece is unisued how could it lost his knob?, the secure strap is problematic all the way as is there cover part has wrong sewing, the maker is normal visible here, only Your first pictures were low quality. We still dont have details of the secure strap and the new knob area. It could be the brass patina was cleaned in time, so it looks not proper now. Fakers do various things, but when is no smelling after new leather it could be old frog, anyway most real by someone reworked not properly. The sewing on the last pictures in middle part looks reworked clearly. As the secure strap was added later.
Last edited:
Great discussion and good work in identifying the maker correctly as H. RUBY & Co. > HACHENBURG > 1935. Too many concerns here for me to feel comfortable with the frog in question. Most if not all of these issues have already been pointed out and discussed. The retention strap is clearly a replacement. And a sloppy one at that. The reverse protective patch construction and stitching is not all what one would expect to see. The retention stud is not an original example in my opinion. The "rough-out" construction does not bother me one way or the other but the lack of finishing is another matter. Not what is usually seen with original examples of this period. I personally do not care for the overall stitching construction either. All of this aside the main concern I have is with the marking itself. I have five Ruby frogs documented in my data bases and the markings are all consistent - Company > Location > Date in three lines, all caps but for the Co. Have these dates recorded 4/1935, 6/1935, 1/1936, 6/1938, and 8/1939. A notable difference is the date line in which all of the frogs I have documented have a digit with a back slash before the four digit date. An example with the 6/1938 date line can be viewed here:
www.k98kforum.com
The frog in question does not have the same date format as the other examples. More importantly it lacks the format noted in 1935 on two other pieces as well as other pre-war markings. I understand that maker's markings can change over time or even differ for the same period but this along with the other concerns discussed puts the originality of this frog in question. My thoughts only ......
As noted by the OP, Ruby is documented by Roy Williams in his reference work on German Bayonet Frogs however he incorrectly identifies the location line as Marienberg.
help with ID'ing bayonet frog maker
Hello, I currently have this frog paired with a '42 dated bayonet and scabbard, I can make out some letters and "1938" but my search for maker has come up empty. Any ideas? Thanks! -John
www.k98kforum.com
The frog in question does not have the same date format as the other examples. More importantly it lacks the format noted in 1935 on two other pieces as well as other pre-war markings. I understand that maker's markings can change over time or even differ for the same period but this along with the other concerns discussed puts the originality of this frog in question. My thoughts only ......
As noted by the OP, Ruby is documented by Roy Williams in his reference work on German Bayonet Frogs however he incorrectly identifies the location line as Marienberg.