dgeneral Posted 17 December , 2013 Share Posted 17 December , 2013 Hello, Not a bayonet collector but I believe I have a Wilkinson '15 production Pattern 1907 bayonet with no clearance hole. However the stampings and surcharges are a bit confusing to me. Can any help? Also the scabbard is still a nice chocolate brown. Wondering also if the scabbard hardware is gun steel finish or actually blackened/blued at this time. Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgeneral Posted 17 December , 2013 Author Share Posted 17 December , 2013 Hi, Further to my post, as you can see the original issue date and reign markings have been polished out and re-stamped later. I assume the original stamping is 9-15 because the scabbard is marked '15. Unfortunately the re-stamp issue year (21? then 27) looks to be right over the original year. Was polishing out the previous markings common in the 1920s? I presume the 1CG is for the 1st Battn. Coldstream Guards. Also I wonder if Wilkinson is the maker as their making is not polished at all and may have been contracted to refurbish and restamp it. Looks like a dog's breakfast to this canuck. Anyway whatever help can be provided is much appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 17 December , 2013 Share Posted 17 December , 2013 Hi, Further to my post, as you can see the original issue date and reign markings have been polished out and re-stamped later. I assume the original stamping is 9-15 because the scabbard is marked '15. Unfortunately the re-stamp issue year (21? then 27) looks to be right over the original year. Was polishing out the previous markings common in the 1920s? I presume the 1CG is for the 1st Battn. Coldstream Guards. Also I wonder if Wilkinson is the maker as their making is not polished at all and may have been contracted to refurbish and restamp it. Looks like a dog's breakfast to this canuck. Anyway whatever help can be provided is much appreciated. Yes, you have a Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet made by Wilkinson and Co., which was issued originally to the 1st Battalion Coldsteam Guards in 1915, and then was subsequently re-issued several times, with each re-issue date being stamped on the bayonet ricasso, and I can see re-issue dates of 1927, 1934 and 1939. There are also the standard Inspection Mark's on both the blade ricasso and the scabbard rib. There would not have been any re-issuing of the Maker's Mark on the bayonet, that was always Wilkinson. The stamping on the scabbard ' HGR15 ' is the Maker's Mark for Hepburn, Gale and Ross of Bermondsey, London and the manufacture date of1915. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dgeneral Posted 17 December , 2013 Author Share Posted 17 December , 2013 Thanks! You are a gentleman for helping. Considering how many times it was re-issued ('21,' 25,' 27, '34, '39) I am surprised the scabbard was never blackened. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 17 December , 2013 Share Posted 17 December , 2013 Thanks! You are a gentleman for helping. Considering how many times it was re-issued ('21,' 25,' 27, '34, '39) I am surprised the scabbard was never blackened. Thanks again. The original Pattern 1907 Mk I scabbards approved 30 January, 1908 LOC 14170 were brown, and had an internal Chape. Subsequently, on 11 December 1908, LOC 14678 the new Mk. II scabbard was approved, this scabbard having the external Chape, the LOC also provided for the Mk I scabbard to be overhauled, repaired ( if needed ) and fitted with new hardware, including an external Chape. A further change to the scabbard finish was approved on 21 September 1910 LOC 15271, which required the scabbards to be stained and polished rather than shellac varnished. With your scabbard being dated 1915, it probably still has it's original hardware, although it could have been refurbished in the 1930's, along with your bayonet being re-issued, with many of those re-issued Pattern 1907 bayonets going to the Home Guard. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 17 December , 2013 Share Posted 17 December , 2013 Pattern 1907 bayonet with no clearance hole. The ' Clearance Hole ' requirement LOC 17692 approved December 1915, was applied to new bayonet production as from early 1916, and some bayonets already in service were modified, therefore your 1915 issued bayonet did not have a clearance hole originally, and was not subsequently ' required by regulations ' to have one. LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 18 December , 2013 Share Posted 18 December , 2013 An interesting example on a number of counts. It's extremely unusual to see a bayonet that stayed in service for that length of time, not to have the hole added. Presumably it has been used as a 'dress' or 'parade' bayonet for much of this time, obviously having the stuffing polished out of it ... with the Guards regimental.? It is impossible to say exactly when the regimental mark was added, it could have occurred at any time. If done during the GW, it is the neatest that I have seen.! The manufacture date is unclear but it is probably 1915 (being before the clearance hole was introduced) with the various reissues in '22, '25, '27, '31, '34 and '39. The scabbard does add weight to the 1915 manufacture date, however there is no certainty that it is the original matching scabbard the bayonet was issued with. Especially with that number of reissues you would think it unlikely, however the original brown leather is again unusual to see, so again it does match the scenario. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 1 May , 2015 Share Posted 1 May , 2015 BUMPED - for reference purposes - re forum member JMB1943 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 2 May , 2015 Share Posted 2 May , 2015 Aahhh! JMB's no.4 - thanks for 'pointing' us that way SS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 2 May , 2015 Share Posted 2 May , 2015 SS---keep on bumping; I'd rather have duplicates than miss one altogether. Trajan---thanks for picking up the duplication; as I started to add to the database I thought it odd that the same owner (dgeneral) had the two bayonets with the most re-inspection dates...... I'll continue to add new bayonets as they present themselves. Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 2 May , 2015 Share Posted 2 May , 2015 -keep on bumping; I'd rather have duplicates than miss one altogether. Trajan---thanks for picking up the duplication; as I started to add to the database I thought it odd that the same owner (dgeneral) had the two bayonets with the most re-inspection dates...... JMB, So right, and here is the link to an excellent Thread on this subject and JMB's excellent information and spreadsheet. http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=218182&page=4 Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 2 May , 2015 Share Posted 2 May , 2015 SS---keep on bumping; I'd rather have duplicates than miss one altogether. Trajan---thanks for picking up the duplication; as I started to add to the database I thought it odd that the same owner (dgeneral) had the two bayonets with the most re-inspection dates...... I'll continue to add new bayonets as they present themselves. Yes, better to bump up old threads so the data does not get forgotten or lost! And ta to SS for pointing back to the thread with the multiple marked baby... Funny how some collections/collectors go though, isn't it? I keep finding odd ones over here - a place where bayonets ARE very difficult to source - and then discover that they are unusual ones! Nice thing I have found with excell is that as one monotonously adds one mark after another it does flash up a completion and so a yellow alert goes up. But the adding is the more tedious part of the business... I have just obtained another book with lots of photographs of Germans from named units in it several with Ersatz, and in about a month I'll add these to the main data list... Can't face it right now! There again, I should post something on these Ersatz soon, but essentially the majority of unit-marked Ersatz are marked to regular units. Yes, I am working from incomplete data, I accept that, but in general the trend of these surviving ones confirms the suspicion that they went literally as 'substitute' bayonets to regular and reserve and ersatz units, and not simply to REMF units as Carter believed. Mind you, I am able to use photographic evidence he had no access to and he did imply that photographs might change his view. Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now