Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

1913 Vickers bayonet a fake?


welshdoc

Recommended Posts

After hijacking Nicks thread on RAF bayonets I thought I should continue this hijacking on this thread

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...p;#entry1026547

I thought I should continue this hijacking on this thread so here it is

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/we...oc/IMGP1638.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/we...oc/IMGP1640.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/we...oc/IMGP1651.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/we...oc/IMGP1652.jpg

Now I should add I know nothing about bayonets (cant even spell it) so I have no axe to grind or bayonet for that matter, but I thought this may be of some interest in its own right so here goes.

The ofending item which Seph has kindly informed me is not what it should be has been sitting behind my wifes doll collection for about 3 years scince buying it in a boot sale and once I found it didnt fit my SMLE I rather lost interest in it. So I thought I had better do a rapid search and came up with

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Vickers-Bayonet-1913...926164001r32095

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/Vickers-Bayonet-1913...926164001r32095

I have now had a good hard look and can see no evidence of grinding away of any marks. The word Vickers and the V in the circle look identical to Sephs and others on the net and the crown with GR appears fine too. There is no sign of 1907 just the offending 1913 which does look a different stamping to the other examples. The mark on the other side looks like a xmas tree with underneath 9C over I think a B

I understand that a proper Vickers would not have a clearance hole suggesting that this peice is not right. The hole though is quite a lot larger than my other bayonets , I dont know if this proves its a fake or not.

So let battle commence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not a V in a circle is a V in the letter C denoting Canadian ownership. The Tree is the British Broad Arrow and there are three inspection amrkings for Enfield.

Regards.

TYom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tom, more questions

does this make the bayonet an Enfield ?

So also are all the others on the internet (and Sephs) with the V in the C Canadian?

Did the Canadians then not have British rifles ?

How about the big hole?

Were all bayonets dated?

Gareth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am certainly not an expert but:

One of the identifying features of Vickers 1907 Bayonets is an oversized clearance hole.

I think I disagree with Museum Tom - It is a vickers mark, not a canadian ownership mark (see Sephs pictures in the other thread)

Seph has implied he thinks the name, date and mark are "wrong". I don't know enough to say - at least from pictures - they do look remarkably distinct and clear to me, given the lightness of the crown for example.

The only thing that would have made me suspicious is the absence of an acceptance/manufacturing date on the blade. I do not know if that is possible or not (I don't think I have ever seen a 1907 without one, and my single P13 and M1917 both have them.... I will now have to ferret out my copy of British and Commonwealth bayonets to have a look.)

Interested to see what the consensus here is

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chris if the blade is correct and the handle is correct (for a 1917) big hole and all , then I guess the 1907 was removed and 1913 replaced. but it doesnt look like it was ground down, Ive looked obliquely and tried a micrometer caliper on it. , so we are back to the Question were they all dated? and is this a correct(ish) Vickers which has been messed with?

As for the name Vickers the weakly pressed upstroke of the V and the poorly deffined S seem remarkably similar to the Genuine items as does the V in the circle (or C) which has the identical areas unimpressed. There is no date either side of the V though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It looks to me like a bayonet for a P14/M1917 Rifle. Why the March 1917 marking, I've no clue as I'm under the impression that Eddystone, Remington, and Winchester produced bayonets for the P14 Rifles they made, leaving Vickers, etc to produce bayonets for the No 1 Mk III Rifle. The 1913 would simply mean it's made to the 1913 pattern.

Here's a few pictures of a M1917 US marked bayonet I've got for comparison.

post-38335-1224167389.jpg

post-38335-1224167423.jpg

post-38335-1224167483.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One more of the markings.

post-38335-1224167737.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Its not a V in a circle is a V in the letter C denoting Canadian ownership. The Tree is the British Broad Arrow and there are three inspection amrkings for Enfield.

Regards.

TYom.

Tom.. sorry.. your incorrect. The V within a circle in this instance, denotes the standard Vickers logo = Vickers Crawford.

Seph

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I just checked and Skennerton and Richardson (pp188-190) is not much help.

It shows a pre production Vickers P13 with no clearance hole, no grooves in the wood and no visible markings on the ricasso!

The authors also state Vickers produced about 1,500 P13 bayonets in 1917.

(This would indicate the rarity as, give or take a few thousand, most sources suggest Remington made 1,243,000 p13s and Winchester made 225,000)

In reference to the AMERICAN produced bayonets Skennerton and Richardson say the bayonets and scabards, "bear the manufacturer's markings, RE for Remington and W for Winchester, along with British Acceptance markings for the pattern designation (1913) and production date in the form of month and year" (emphasis mine)

Which still leaves the question: would the Vickers have had a production date stamped on the ricasso?

For my money....yes, and it should be from March to ?? 1917. (Vickers had produced 410 p13s by April of 1917 according to the same source - p191)

but.......

refs from: Skennerton, Ian and Robert Richardson. 1986. British and Commonwealth Bayonets. Ian Skenneron: Margate Australia. (isbn 0 94974904 4)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with Seph that this bayonet certainly appears to be dodgy.

There are a number of points that make me say this.

Vickers made some pre-production P.13 bayonets, but these had smooth grips, no clearance hole, no acceptance marks and no manufacture dateand only the Vickers logo . Clearly this is not one of those because apart from the lack of a date, it has none of the other features.

Vickers did eventually make a short run of 1,500 P.13 bayonets in 1917 before they commenced manufacture of the P.1907, but those would have had a manufacture date as do other normal P.13 bayonets. Now it is possible that this bayonet is an early piece from this production but it is unlikely.

Having said that, it is strange that the blade shows no signs of being tampered with. Also, the "V" in circle is the Vickers logo not the Canadian ownership mark, which is a broad arrow within a "C".

It is hard to tell from just photographs though. If it is something unusual but genuine than one needs to get the "feel" of it to make a judgement.

No doubt Seph will have something to add!

Regards

TonyE

Ooops! Looks like several posts have crossed.

Regards

TonyE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I have been told a genuiine 1913 Vickers is worth £1000 !! thats why , a Sanderson for example would be about £50 .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just out of interest, who would bother to forge a bayonet!!

Apparently a lot of people - there is a whole section in the back of the book I quoted.

The gain is potentially quite large - I should imagine that a certified genuine Vickers p13 would sell for several hundreds of pounds. If you were taking a standard p13 blade (fifty pounds?) erasing it and restamping or engraving a different date on it and selling it on for five or six times the money........?

just one request:

can you (welshdoc) provide the dimensions of the crosspiece and muzzle ring?

Chris

Edit: (SNAP!)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thinking out loud:

Possibility 1) a genuine early run, undated Vickers p1913 blade. Which would be an interesting and valuable piece (contradictory evidence - lack of manufacturing date)

Possibility 2) a forged Vickers p13 bayonet (evidence for - lack of manufacturing date, concerns about nature of dating stamp)

If 2) How done? most obviously:

A. A Remington or Winchester P13 with markings erased and additional markings added (this would be a LOT of markings to add)

B. A Genuine Vickers 1907 blade with grips and crosspiece replaced and "1907" replaced with 1913 (so probably just 07 replaced with 13 and everything restamped or engraved to look standard), given the usual position of the acceptance dates I should imagine it would be quite hard to erase the 07 without removing the dates.....

Replacing the crosspiece would be tough to do without leaving a sign I should think - hence my question regarding the measurements of the crosspiece, as these dimensions are the fundamental difference between the two weapons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhhha

the length may give a clue here!!

My p13 overall length of the cross piece is: 78mm. From blade back to top of ring is 36mm

My p1907 overall length of the cross piece is: 65mm. From blade back to top of ring is 24mm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doc?

In the last photo,it looks like the Vickers has been put on by a centre pop or engraver(vibratory type)bit similar to medal renaming but,might just be bad photos.

If it was me,I reckon that the blade there (ricasso/buckaroo.whatever)has been skimmed as in all stamps not erased,but coated over.Complicated process & not (maybe)worth the time & effort.

Having said that,what is that shadow of a (poss.)9 just to the left of the date '1913,why is the C missing a bit at the bottom & (finally Esther)why is the 'ers' of Vickers a really wierd font/style?(see the bent E?)

I'm wondering if someones welded /rewelded the blade from one bayo to another.

Hard to say unless you have it in yer hands.though.

Nice macro shots!Wish my brownie could do that.

Dave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely agree that it looks like the date and "VICKERS" has been done with an engraving tool. also I am very suspicious of the difference in depth of the crown and the other markings.

The clincher would be to compare the inspectors number on the acceptance stamps with the numbers on a genuine example. I may be able to do that if I can get hold of a collector I know who has a genuine example.

People will fake almost anything in the militaria field. I purchased a so called .45 Gardner Gatling cartridge from a well known cartridge dealer from Malta via the dreaded fleabay. I paid £50 for it, which is a good price had it been genuine, but a quick clean when it arrived showed the headstamp had been recently engraved. I eventually got my money back after various threats and the usual protestations of innocence.

Caveat emptor!

Regards

TonyE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for some reason phtobucket dumoped my pics from the other thread so here they are again

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/we...oc/IMGP1638.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/we...oc/IMGP1640.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/we...oc/IMGP1651.jpg

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/we...oc/IMGP1652.jpg

This is Sephs real bayonets with identical vickers stamping and diffferences in the crown to vickers intensity.

the reason they look odd in the first set is that I took the pics obliquely to show that there was no grinding or hollows.

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...107721&st=0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dave the letters are not engraved as under a loupe the ends are square, the 1913 does look odd though not 100% sure its engraved but if stamped not by the same dyes as the letters. There is deffinately no ghost 9 as for the missing bit of the C see sephs pics!. There is no way in my opinion that there has ben any messing with the blade bar the number, there would have to be some sort of blemish and there isnt

Tony this was purchased from an elderly chap in a bootsale with no other militaria, neither he nor I had any idea about it, I think I would have got it even cheaper but some prickhead said to him that it was worth more . to me it was a WW1 bayonet for my SMLE , but of course it wasnt it didnt fit..

Dave camera is a little pentax optio 60 only 6 MP 3x pysical and 2X electronic zoom with a short focus setting.

Gareth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...