Prussian M95 - JR74

garlanj

garlanj

Active member
Hello all.
This is my latest addition an M95 for JR 74 (1st Hannover).
The shell and metalwork (apart from the wappen) seem to be in pretty good condition for a helmet that’s 120 years old.
Front.JPG
The liner is complete and still supple with no torn holes in the fingers and what looks like the original lacing.
Inside.JPG
The helmet is stamped JR 74 1899 and 9(or 2?)B 1901 on one side and 8 I| on the other
Peak 1.JPG
Peak 2.JPG
The cockades both seem to be original as is the chinstrap although it does seem VERY long – never seen one this long before.
The wappen as you can see has lost a leg, but I was fortunate enough to have bought one off a French dealer about a week before this one came up on German eBay small ads.
I’d welcome your thoughts and comments
 
The chinstrap is for Ww1 steel helmets, the Cs for the steel helmets are 5cm longer than the pickelhaube Cs. I haven't studied if jzp and kurassier helmets have Cs that are of normal haube length or longer though.

Nice markings.
 
Good shout Amy. I assumed that as the mounts were brass the owner of the haube just had a long face :)
 
garlanj said:
I assumed that as the mounts were brass the owner of the haube just had a long face :)
Click to expand...

That´s what I am presuming too. There was no exact length for chinstraps.
Long and fat faces are needing some long chinstraps. You can see those differences on period picts.

Philippe
:wink:
 
That's a really great looking helmet with excellent markings, congratulations! =D> :thumb up:

And congratulations on finding an excellent original replacement wappen in order to swap out the damaged one that came on the helmet. That's not an easy task to find one of these on the loose. =D> :thumb up:

by member argonne: Philippe:
There was no exact length for chinstraps.
Long and fat faces are needing some long chinstraps. You can see those differences on period picts.
Click to expand...

+1. Well said, thank you.

Best Regards,

Alan
 
I don't know about the 8, might be 8th company.
But the II stands for zweite garnitur, meaning it was good, but not as good as the I garnitur.
At least I think so..
""The helmet could be marked at this time with a roman numeral called a garniture mark. This indicated the “goodness” of the helmet. A good model would be marked with one Roman numeral and then further garniture marks would be added as inspections took place and the condition deteriorated. Grades were from I-V with I being the best. For most uniform parts the company had to keep three sets of each article on stock. The best set (erste Garnitur) was only issued for mobilization or parade and was recollected again after parade. Second set (zweite Garnitur) was the “better” service uniform and third set (dritte Garnitur) was the drill and exercise set. For spiked helmets there were only two sets. When soldiers were sent home after service the regiments had to discharge them with a complete uniform (no helmet but cap – Krätzchen) – which was certainly not erste Garnitur.


A leather helmet was supposed to be good for 10 year. When the soldier’s enlistment was up in 2 years the helmet went back to the Kammer. I do not have the stock levels for Kammers but it makes sense that excess helmets were sent back up to the BKA. The subordinate leaders would of course keep the good ones and send those in worse shape back. When it arrived back at the BKA it could be re-inspected and a new garniture grade issued if it had degraded in the previous owner’s use. It was then ready to re-issue. A new date and possibly a new garniture mark added. This example on the left was issued three different times. The company was required to keep two helmets, one that was issued to the soldier. Not all helmets had these marks. According to the estimated life span of the equipment the regiments received an annual budget to purchase equipment from the army corps. If the regiment managed to save money from this budget they could spend it on extra equipment, so called “außeretatmäßige Stücke”. That explains how all those many, many anomalies of regiments found their way into the “official” equipment of a unit. E.g. some cuirassier regiments kept breast armor unofficially after 1888 which had to be paid out of those unofficial savings. The NCOs responsible for the Kammer (Bekleidungs-unteroffizier) were responsible for keeping the company stock (Bekleidungskammer) proper, clean – and profitable! The one on the right is garniture III. "

The above was copied from Joe's site, https://pickelhauben.net/depot-marks/

Greetings, Coert.
 
That's very interesting Coert - thanks for pointing that fascinating article out. So the fact that the two digits are different shows that it started out as a I and then became a II at some time in its life. I'm assuming the loss of a leg on the wappen would have been far more serious than just a II :D
 
I doubt that helmets were sent "back" to the Bekleidungs-Ämter, as up to somewhere between 1899 and 1904 the Bekleidungs-Ämter were not involved in purchasing / providing helmets (from "Dienstanweisung für die Bekleidungsämter" 1897 resp. 1904), rather the regiments would have to send 1% of the helmets to the B.A. to be inspected to ensure the regiments bought helmets that fulfilled the specifications. Note the absence of a B.A. stamp in the helmet above.

After this date (somewhere between 1899 and 1904) the larger B.A.'s received all helmets, inspected and stamped them, then sent them to the regiments (with "larger B.A." I mean "erweiterten Betrieb", where the conscript tailors, leather workers, etc. are mostly replaced by a larger number of civilians).

Helmets in my collection from B.A. VII, which had the "erweiterten Betrieb" since 1901, are still without the B.A. stamp when dated 1906, but with B.A. stamp when dated 1910 and later, so it took some time to follow the guideline.

My interpretation of the stamps is that I.R. 74 received & stamped the helmet directly from the manufacturer in 1899, then issued it to the 2nd battalion in 1901 who stamped it too, and it was used in the 8th company. I agree that the "II" is for the Garnitur.

Regards, Lars
 
b.loree said:
Excellent analysis Coert and Lars, helmets with good markings are always the best.
Click to expand...

I agree, excellent analysis Coert and Lars.

I wasn't aware of the this level of detail re. the process used to manage helmet inventories and the marking system employed.

Thanks to you both for taking the time to share this.
 
I always thought that it was for the number of times
the helmet was issued by the Kammer
Steve
 
Yes, Garitur II, that's why the 2 "I"s are not identical, Garnitur I at first, and later changed to II.

Regarding the length of the chinstrap leather, we had approximately that of the head circumferences, i.e. approximately 55 to 60cm. As Philippe (Argonne) perfectly said, this can be seen in the period picts.
 

Attachments

  • jug.M15 D écartés.JPG
    jug.M15 D écartés.JPG
    91.3 KB · Views: 10
  • Ecarts D différents.JPG
    Ecarts D différents.JPG
    104.8 KB · Views: 10
  • écart jugul.# - 92R Brunswick.jpg
    écart jugul.# - 92R Brunswick.jpg
    103.8 KB · Views: 10
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top