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:
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.
