[taudelt]

Picked up the following at a local show. I assume the B.A.IV stamp is for the Clothing Depot of the 4th Army Corps but have not been able to find anything on the A.J.R.98. stamp. Can anybody give me a hint?? Thanks.......

Download Attachment: MVC-095S.JPG
37.38KB

Download Attachment: MVC-096S.JPG
56.06KB

 

[Jan C Still]

Dave
Holsters were not bound by the same regulations as weapons.

B.A. IV signifies: the Army Corps clothing department from which the holster was distributed.

A.J.R.98. The J.R.98 part signifies Infantry Regiment 98. The “A”may signify associated: Artillery unit or Arbeiter (Labor) detachment.
Jan

 

[taudelt]

Thanks Jan......

 

[Guest_V]

... although this "J" looks like a real "J" and not a German "I".

Patrick

 

[Guest_V]

Ausbildungs-Batallion des 98. Jäger Regiments.

Patrick

 

[Jan C Still]

Patrick
" Ausbildungs-Batallion des 98. Jäger Regiments."
(Note: Ausbildungs= training)
Maybe I am missing something here, but according to German and US references (Ruhmeshalle unsere alten Armee and Imperial German Regimental Markings), the highest numbered Imperial Jager Regiment that I can find is 14, or Bavarian 29. The Reserve Jager Bataillons go up to 26. If a unit does not exist, it is very unlikely that a a holster would be unit marked to it.

Do you have more detailed references that indicate a 98th Jager Regiment existed and had a training bataillon?
Jan

 

[Guest_V]

Jan,



I´ve been looking for an answer for some time to the question as to whether there was a directive for the use of either a "J" or an "I" that would distinguish stamped equipment for either "Infantrie" or "Jäger".

Apparently the Kaiser´s army used "I" for "Infantrie", whereas the Reichwehr used "J". Would this be true?
Or is this just one of those things we´ve got to put up with and guess which is meant?


Patrick

 

[Jan C Still]

Patrick
I have observed both the “J” and “I” used interchangeable by the same Imperial Infanterie Regiment. See the three front strap photographs below. The top two are from a 1908 DWM and a 1908 Commercial Army; the bottom one is from a 1917 LP08.


Download Attachment: 20031229163046_RIR72MGK1.jpg
34.78KB


Download Attachment: 20031229163128_RIR72MGK2.jpg
32.64KB


Download Attachment: 200392161145_GFSa10.jpg
54.47KB

Some late World War I unit stampings vary considerable from regulations. Some rules of thumb based on over 800 observed and reported Luger markings follow:
J.R. or I.R. sometimes replaces R. in Infantry Regiment markings.
R.J.R. or R.I.R. sometimes replaces script R in Reserve Infantry Regiment markings.
After 1915, K. (kompagnie) sometimes follows M.G. or sometimes follows the kompagnie number.
Rarely C. (Compagnie, old usage) replaces K (kompagnie)
N.(number) or P.(pistole) sometimes precedes the weapons number.

Have not observed an “I” substituting for a “J” in a valid Jager unit marking. The (below) Imperial Jager Bataillon unit markings mostly follow the markings regulations (Gortz page 23), use a “J”, and are straight forward to identify using the regulations.
* 1913 ERFURT, s/n 4632a : 6.J.2.8. - (6 Jäger-Bataillon, Kompagnie 2, Waffe Nr. 8)
* 1913 ERFURT, s/n 4067 : 8.J.2.7. - (8 Jäger-Bataillon, Kompagnie 2, Waffe Nr. 7)
* 1908 DWM, s/n 7872 : 9.J.1.2. - (9 Jäger-Bataillon, Kompagnie 1, Waffe Nr. 2)
* 1910 DWM, s/n 5179b : J.B.12.1.12. - (12 Jäger-Bataillon, Kompagnie 1, Waffe Nr. 12)
* 1908 DWM, s/n 3732b : 13.J.1.1. - (13 Jäger-Bataillon, Kompagnie 1, Waffe Nr. 1)
* 1916 DWM?, s/n 3734b: 13.J.M.G. - (Jäger-Bataillon 13, Maschinengewehr-Kompagnie) A recording error with the 1916 Erfurt below?
* 1916 ERFURT?, s/n 3734b: 13.J.M.G. - (Jäger-Bataillon 13, Maschinengewehr-Kompagnie)
* 1915 DWM, s/n unk : 26.Res.Jäg.Batln. - (26 Reserve-Jäger-Bataillon )
* 1916 ERFURT, s/n 102 : Bay.Res.Jäg.Batl.2.33. - (Bayerisches Reserve-Jäger-Bataillon 2, Stab, Waffe Nr. 33)
* 1913 DWM, s/n 4735 : B.2.J. - (Bayerisches 2 Jäger-Bataillon )
* 1913 ERFURT, s/n 5763: G.J.M.G.12. - (Garde Jäger-Bataillon, Maschinengewehr-Kompagnie, Waffe Nr. 12)
* 1913 ERFURT, s/n 6396: J.3.M.G.23. - (3. Jäger-Bataillon, Maschinengewehr-Kompagnie, Waffe Nr. 23)
* 1911 ERFURT, s/n 6616: 8.J.M.G.13. - (8 Jäger-Bataillon Maschinengewehr-Kompagnie, Waffe Nr. 13)
* 1913 ERFURT, 1227a: 10.J.M.G.22. - (10 Jäger-Bataillon, Maschinengewehr-Kompagnie, Waffe Nr. 22)
* 1913 ERFURT, s/n 2153a: 11.J.M.G.49. - (11 Jäger-Bataillon, Maschinengewehr-Kompagnie, Waffe Nr. 49)

Jan

 

[klaus]

quote:Originally posted by taudelt

Picked up the following at a local show. I assume the B.A.IV stamp is for the Clothing Depot of the 4th Army Corps but have not been able to find anything on the A.J.R.98. stamp. Can anybody give me a hint?? Thanks.......

Download Attachment: MVC-095S.JPG
37.38 KB

Download Attachment:




MVC-096S.JPG
56.06 KB

taudelt,

the 98.regiment was stationed in Metz and part of the XVI.AK and not of the IV.AK.
"A.J.R.93." translates to "Anhaltisches Jnfanterie Regiment 93" of the IV.AK., please double check the #98.
The 93.IR was part of 8.ID, 15.Inf.-Brigade and IV.AK.

Klaus
Garrison : Staff, I.& III.Btl. and MGK in Dessau, II.Btl. in Zerbst.

 

[Ron Wood]

I believe you are on to something there Klaus. Good eye and good knowledge.

 

[taudelt]

Klaus.. Thanks for your input. It still looks like 98 to me. Sending along a couple more pictures.

Download Attachment: MVC-004S.JPG
42.73KB

Download Attachment: MVC-005S.JPG
31.69KB

 

[Guest_V]

Thank you Jan, for a very detailed summary.

Patrick

 

[klaus]

quote:Originally posted by taudelt

Klaus.. Thanks for your input. It still looks like 98 to me. Sending along a couple more pictures.

Download Attachment: MVC-004S.JPG
42.73 KB

Download Attachment: MVC-005S.JPG

31.69 KB

Taudelt,
thanks for the enlarged pics but they won't change my mind. You got to know your formations before you ID unit markings. May I suggest that you have the ink stamp in question checked by a lab for your piece of mind.

Klaus

 

[Doubs]

FWIW, I agree with Klaus that the digit in question is indeed a "3" and not an "8". The "closure" of the loops on the left side of the number appear to be bleed-over of the ink rather than a fully completed number "8". Just my opinion.

 

[taudelt]

Klaus........ Of all the things in life that I know little about ....unit marking rank high on that list....... I appreciate your opinion. Thanks for your interest and comments........

 

[Jan C Still]

I agree with the holster owner, the ink stamped 98 is in fact a 98. Dave has been collecting marked holsters for many years and his careful observation and determination of the 98 from the actual holster has to be given merit. In my opinion the appearance of ink bleed over is caused by the angle of the photograph and reflection over an uneven surface. The probability that a 93 ink stamp caused the above 98 is in my opinion unlikely.

Care must be taken not to let an appealing translation result in an inaccurate determination of the original holster marking. Let the formations determine what the original stamp signifies, not what the original stamp is.
Jan

 

[taudelt]

Tried to get the morning sun to help us out here. I'm still thinking 98.

Download Attachment: MVC-024S.JPG
54.2KB

 

[Doubs]

Dave, your newest picture cinches it! It's "98" for sure. I apologize for having doubted your conclusion.

 

[Heinz]

It is possible that a mistake is being made by assuming the BAIV and A.J.R. 98 stampings are contemporaneous. The relative positions of the stamps and the apparent difference in wear may indicate the BAIV is an earlier stamp put on before this pistol case found a home with the 98th in Metz. Does not look like it saw the kind of service the IV Corps went through with Von Gronau at the Marne, defending the First Army's flank against the initial French encirclement attack, and later in battles around the Aisne as part of the then new 6th army. (Keegan, The First World War).
I repect Klaus's knowledge and also the appearance of the evidence that this case is marked "98" and this would be a possible explantion. Another is that some supply sergeant in the 93 grapped the wrong stamp out of the box.

 

[taudelt]

Doubs...... Not a problem at all. After looking back at the first pictures I posted I can see how it does kind of look like a 93. Appreciated your interest and opinion.