Hello All, I have this well worn frog that is stamped on the rear with what appears to be LZ4. Under that stamp is a faint outline of wings (Eagle?) Then what seems to be the maker's mark J. BRESL..... Also on the backside of the holder it appears to be stamped 45. Does that mean 1945? I am trying to figure out the LZ4 designates. I ran it by Carl @ old-smithy but he has never seen it. Any feedback would be much appreciated. Thanks Baker324
can you post pics of the whole frog? LZ 4(Hauptmann Quast) carried out many scouting and bombing raids around Warsaw between August 1914-February 1915.The railway yards and the Warsaw forts seemed the preferred targets. LZ4 was the Zeppelin that was detained by the French after making a forced landing at Luneville in 1913: so! a pssible connecton to WWI? and stampings are not in a place I would look for?
Ray may have a point ( ouch ! No pun intended...). I've been checking the relevant Armes & Militaria article about K98 bayonet frogs and I'm wondering about the double-row of stitching which can be seen in the pic. This doesn't appear usual for a WWII-era item...?
absolutely martin, that concerned me too..possible it has been restitched? but where the stamp marks/maker are? is not the norm either..
Wow, so the plot thickens. This came attached to a CSZ bayonet that I recently bought. I figured it did not go with that bayonet, probably just added over the years. I got this lot from a family whose father processed German prisoners during the war. Probably the pride of the lot is a mint Reichskriegflagge. This frog picture is the only one I have on this computer of the 3 total in my gallery here that might show more. I can tell you it does not have a strap for the handle and it does not appear to be cut off. The front of the holder feels suede like and not smooth like the rest. I will post more this evening. Any thoughts on the Eagle stamp? Thanks to all. Baker324
thats o.k. pouch leather rough side out, but from pic it could be a piece of leather from something else, and cut to make back piece? as the stampings are not correct?
closest eagle pattern match I could find online; none of the imperial Germany designs seems to fit, although that doesn't rule out a manufacturers trade mark
Another picture and a link to my gallery with many more pictures of the frog. Let me know what you think it is. Thanks! Baker324 Gallery - WWII Forums Gallery
This is frustrating and I'm going to have to admit defeat ; I just don't have enough material on the subject. Armes & Militaria #282 has a very good article on the subject which at least leads me to believe that what you have is basically a K98 frog - the later type without pommel-strap ( as indicated by the extended stitching ). I can only conjecture that at some stage it's been privately modified with additional ( maybe repair ? ) stitching and extra leather..... Other than that, I'm stumped......
o.k. baker, I can see the issue here,, the frog is 2 parts, off different frogs, at least? and the back is an upside down piece, cut off from where the belt would go thro, you have another frog piece added to repair, hence the weird stitching arrangement, and the broken stich runs, so the item is a mongrel, that is why the stamp mark was in a strange place, and the 2 rivets which appear to be alloy and metal? as one is rusted, and are seated too low on the pouch, that tell's you it's upside down fixed piece..... ray..
having looked at the pic gallery, you'll see the 1 remaining rivet in it's correct and original place, rivet, look along top edge to the left..and the 2 rivets seen, are wrong, and it's just been badly put together, value? none in truth, other than useful for repairs, if leather can take anymore abuse? that is......see previous post for summing up.. and also! the frog pouch, instead of narrowing top to bottom, is widening, that's all wrong..
Sniper1946, Martin Bull, et al. Thanks to all for the in depth investigation and replies. It appears you all certainly know your stuff on these frogs. Too bad, I was hoping it was some rare named item from some commander of one of the airships you mentioned earlier. I can now see what you mean about it being mated together from two. I assumed it was just old and had split. Thanks again for your efforts I very much appreciate it. Baker324
