A common M89 Prussian dress sword what is not so common is that it is a issued sword with military acceptance marks on the spine. The crown over the W is for King Wilhelm the 93 is the year and a inspection mark. The dual maker marks on the blade mean one of them supplied the blade the other finnish putting it together. The blade unit mark is for the I Artillery Regiment. The scabbard mark is also for a artillery regiment. I'm not sure what the first letter is if it's a E than that is for Erstaz. The only other edge weapon I have come across that was marked like this was a dress 71/84 bayonet.

 

Dow,

Thanks a lot for the information provided!

Douglas.

 

Another note Eickhorn was strictly a edge weapon maker. Erfurt as you all know was a weapons arsenal That made all kinds of things except dress swords to the best of my knowledge. This is the first M89 I have seen or heard of with a Erfurt mark. I will check with one of the sword forums for more opinions.

 

Thanks for the additional note.
As I said, any input is great.

Douglas.

 

Douglas,

I believe the unit mark is for Ersatz Battalion Artillery Regt. 2 weapon 29.

Ron

 

Ron,

It makes sense. Thanks for the info!

Douglas

 

Here is a reply from a advance sword collector apparently he has a Erfurt marked M89 too.
Dow, My compliments for a relatively scarce addition to a collection (as compared to the private purchase examples). It's not the earliest one I've seen, but it's still a fairly early one. And a good example of a government issue Infantry Officer's sword.

I haven't looked at them in a while, with my recollection being that the brass hilted example on top is about ten years later also with the Erfurt marking. With the blued steel hilted 'Kriegsmodell' lacking same. Best Regards, FP

 

Dow,

Once more, thanks for the additional information. I will pass it to my friend. I'm pretty sure he will be glad to know that.

Douglas

 

Regimental property, as opposed to private-purchase officer's sword; issued to officer candidates, who once promoted had to buy their own swords.

 

Correction: This bothered me and finally got around to checking: this is an Infantry Officer Sword M89; the Artillery M89 has a different grip and curved blade. Therefore the unit mark does not compute. I have no idea what is going on with this.

 

Hmmm, interesting. I will pass this information to my friend.
Thanks again!
Douglas

 

Douglas,


"Small Arms Marking Instruction" Berlin , 28 January 1909
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I. General Regulations article 2. section f.

"Weapons of units and formations not listed above will be marked only upon mobilization, and only if such weapons bear no previous markings.
Officer's swords and revolvers and pistols, issued to units in accordance with paragraph 8,3 of their small arms allotments, are to be stamped with the marking of the respective unit..."

This sword is marked in accordance with the 1909 regulation marking order.

Ron

 

Ron: That may be, but it doesn't account for an IOD 89 marked for an artillery outfit, which should have gotten an AOD 89.

 

My thought would be that, when Infantry Officers no longer carried sabers in combat, that it could have been religated to a mounted artillery unit.

By far, the majority of unit marked swords / sabers that I have seen, exhibit artillery or munitions column unit markings.

Ron

 

Officer's arms were private purchase. Branch transfers were not unheard of. A former infantry officer assigned to fill a vacancy in an artillery unit upon mobilization might very well retain his sword and it would be marked accordingly. I doubt that he would be required to purchase new weaponry because of a branch transfer. Just a shot in the dark.

 

Private purchase arms exempted from unit markings.
I don't recall when the order discontinuing swords for infantry was issued., but if it followed the order cancelling the use of unit markings then the transfer idea doesn't work.
Of course, that still leaves the possibility that somebody didn't get the word...
We really need a sword specialist for this.

 

Private purchase arms exempted from unit markings...
We really need a sword specialist for this.

Good points on both counts. I suspect that there were branch/unit transfers among non-comms/officer candidates as well, but further comment is above my pay grade.

 

Ron,

I agree. I don't think it would be unusual, at all, for personnel to be transferred as compliments required at the outbreak, as well as being very routine toward the end of the war. Cavalry units were commonly transitioned to Infantry units, disbanded, etc.

Evidently as the 1909 order indicates, some officer's swords were issued. A "gray area" translation of the order could have prompted some officers to have even private purchase weapons unit marked to be in compliance. Unit marking was ordered to cease in late 1916, early 1917, but there are examples of 1918 production weapons with unit marks.

As for discontinuing swords for infantry issue. I stated " when Infantry Officers no longer carried sabers in combat". I have never seen a WWI combat / field photo of an infantry officer wearing a sword. I have seen mounted artillery officers with swords in field photos, in front line settings.

Ron