Pattern 1914 Bayonet Frog

[shippingsteel]

I have come across this Pattern 1914 bayonet frog, which is part of an overall set which I can only describe as presenting in "ultra sleeper" condition.

I was hoping to get some thoughts on this item from the leather equipment specialists, particularly about the maker details and inspection markings.

Here is the reverse of the frog, showing what I believe is the makers details on the helve carrier strap. I think I can make out "Hall Green" and "1916"

So I understand this is most likely a British made frog, given that Hall Green is located near Birmingham. Does anyone have anything further on this.?

And the top section of the back of the frog showing a Broad Arrow and some kind of inspection marking. A Sale mark appears to have been overstamped.

The set has colonial links which explains the Sale mark, but I was wondering if anyone has seen this style of inspection mark before on leather equipment.

Thanks for any assistance you may be able to offer on this.

Cheers, S>S

[Grovetown]

The maker is XL-ALL Ltd. Best known for vintage bicycle-type motorcycle seats. Have dim recollection of seeing a 1903 Pattern bandolier by them, but not 1914.

Generally speaking, 1916 is a bit late for 1914 Pattern so I wonder if it is actually 1915.

Cheers,

GT.

[trajan]

SS, try contacting http://www.karkeeweb.com/index.html#home for more details - they have helped me with many a leather WW1 frog! No need to thank me for the advice

[shippingsteel]

The maker is XL-ALL Ltd. Best known for vintage bicycle-type motorcycle seats. Have dim recollection of seeing a 1903 Pattern bandolier by them, but not 1914.

Generally speaking, 1916 is a bit late for 1914 Pattern so I wonder if it is actually 1915.

Cheers, GT.

Excellent stuff - thanks for that GT. It certainly does seem that they made the P1903 bandolier as well, just located one in a search, at the National Army Museum.

Listed with reference number #68802 in an Inventory Search it states the following details :-

"Leather bandolier for mounted troops, 1915; similar to 50-round bandolier pattern 1903 for infantry, but with four extra pouches, giving a 90-round capacity; the bandolier is fastened by two buckles and fixes to a brass triangle; next to one of the buckles is the maker's trademark and address and date of manufacture is stamped, 'XL-ALL Ltd/ HALL GREEN/ 1915'."

So I guess that wraps up the question of the maker, with it appearing in the exact same format. I'm not sure about the date, haven't got the item to hand, will check when I can.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

They did metal stuff also, e.g., "Shell fuzes. Carburettors. Aeroplane pressings. Bolts. Nuts. Universal joints. Hand and rifle grenades. Oxy-acetylene welding." CF: http://www.bocn.co.uk/vbforum/threads/85436-No-24-Mk1-Markings

[shippingsteel]

Generally speaking, 1916 is a bit late for 1914 Pattern so I wonder if it is actually 1915.

I had another look through the photos and messed around with one of the images a bit, and yes I think your spot on GT ... it does appear to be 1915.!

Thanks again for your help. I have the greatest respect for the accumulation of knowledge that is found on this forum. Why would you go anywhere else.?

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

The maker is XL-ALL Ltd. Best known for vintage bicycle-type motorcycle seats.

Here you go - courtesy of http://occhiolungo.wordpress.com/page/13/

One year later than SS's frog!

[trajan]

... I have the greatest respect for the accumulation of knowledge that is found on this forum. Why would you go anywhere else.?

SS, try contacting http://www.karkeeweb.com/index.html#home for more details - they have helped me with many a leather WW1 frog! No need to thank me for the advice

The source I suggested contacted me to say that a 1915 example of a Frog, Infantry Equipment, Pattern 1914, and XL-ALL Ltd 1915 marked, is recorded by Carter... Just goes to show how useful outside contacts and a bit of book learnin' can be!

[shippingsteel]

And apparently there is now a nice example to also be found in the "shippingsteel collection".

Give me "real collector experience" any day of the week ... it certainly is an undervalued commodity.!

PS. Thanks again GT, for the heads-up on the maker, it is much appreciated.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Give me "real collector experience" any day of the week ... it certainly is an undervalued commodity.!

Indeed, that's exactly Rog of Karkee's forte! Have you visited his web site?

[trajan]

Back from breakfast duty... So, would this be 'London Brown'? Cf. http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=209028&hl=%2Blondon+%2Bbrown - and note especially 4thGordons, post 5.

[trajan]

Hi SS,

Just to help others, as you haven't yet cross-referenced to the associated thread and discussion at http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=212100 I thought it it might be of use to do so for others following this one

TTFN,

TRajan

[shippingsteel]

And here is the overall view. As you can see the matching condition of this set would seem to suggest that they have been together for quite some time.

In fact it is the obvious sleeper qualities which persuaded me to try and find out some more about the Sold out of Service mark (when found on Patt.14)

In Australia it is a commonly seen mark on British supplied weaponry from the pre-war period, usually found on the Enfield rifles, bayonets & scabbards.

So it is a useful clue when trying to ascertain some of the history behind the various pieces. With the mark indicating it has been shipped to the colonies.

The bayonet and scabbard are certainly both Australian used, and the frog has the SOS mark. So perhaps it all came together sometime during the war.?

But I have never seen photographic evidence of any Patt.14 in Australian use. Perhaps the frogs were an easy replacement for some Australian Pattern.?

As usual it's all speculation, but it's not everyday that you come across such a rig, and as such I thought it worthy of some further discussion and research.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Very nice! Hope you got it at a bargain price?

My understanding is that the frog for the Infantry Equipment, Australian Pattern (Leather), the so-called 'Australian Pattern 1915' frog, was modelled on the UK P.1908, and that in general, Australian leather kit was usually replaced by Patt. '08 when the lads got to Europe. Whatever, although possibly a mis-matched set (is that a Lithgow P.1907?), still a nice set-up whether a contemporary set or put together post WW1.

Trajan

PS: Forgot to add - always happy to be corrected on my 'book learnin'!

[trajan]

SS, you may know this, you may not - I found it lurking in the archives ... But even if you do others may not! Apropos Australian use of webbing. This is IWM Q 585, dated 18 May 1916, a photograph of a "Soldier of the 2nd Australian Division using a wind direction indicator (an anti-gas precaution) in a front line trench at Croix du Bac, near Armentieres", with a nice clear view of a hookie in a web frog.

[shippingsteel]

The bayonet and scabbard are certainly both Australian used, and the frog has the SOS mark. So perhaps it all came together sometime during the war.?

But I have never seen photographic evidence of any Patt.14 in Australian use. Perhaps the frogs were an easy replacement for some Australian Pattern.?

As usual it's all speculation, but it's not everyday that you come across such a rig, and as such I thought it worthy of some further discussion and research.

So with the above in mind I began to search for any such evidence ... and as I always say, where there's smoke - there's fire.! It didn't take very long.

It appears that the above shown set is a 100% correct Australian Light Horse rig, with the Patt.14 frog certainly being used by them at home and abroad.

I have found some photographic evidence illustrating this bayonet frog in use by the Light Horse ... (reproduced here strictly for research purposes only)

The first shows a Trooper still in Australia, prior to shipping out as a 1916 reinforcement. You can clearly see the buckle between the stud and the hook.

The next shot is obviously in Egypt or Palestine, with the Trooper comically astride a commandeered donkey.! Again you can clearly make out the rivets.

So case closed I do believe, and I can now rest much happier, knowing that there is historical evidence to support the sleeper credentials of this bayonet.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

So case closed I do believe, and I can now rest much happier, knowing that there is historical evidence to support the sleeper credentials of this bayonet.

Oh well done that man! But for the sake of 'closing the case', would you provide details as to where these photographs came from? For example, as I did with the dated IWM photograph above in post 15? At the moment we just have you word for it that they are WW1... And after the DrakeG incident it would be nice also to know that no copyright is being inadvertently breached - wouldn't want to see them suddenly being removed so that in future we can't see them! ​

TTFN

[trajan]

the Trooper comically astride a commandeered donkey.!

Oh I don't know me old cold chisel! The full photo shows him looking quite comfy rather than comical! The donkey, on the other hand does look comical with that, er, what would one call that attachment at the rear lower end?

This version of the photograph, by the way, is from: http://www.getbucks.co.uk/news/news-opinion/animals-world-war-one-donkeys-7222713

There is also a cropped version at:http://jewsdownunder.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/anzac-on-donkey.png

Neither unfortunately give the original source...

Trajan

EDIT: as with post 14, I had better also add "reproduced here strictly for research purposes only"!

[18th Battalion]

If anyone's looking for a P1914 Frog complete with the Helve carrier, which seems to usually be missing on the examples I've seen: this is in an upcoming auction, made by Stuart Surridge & Co. 1915. Estimate £250-£300.

http://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/lockdales/catalogue-id-2891686/lot-23459647

[shippingsteel]

For anyone interested in the Australian scabbards, here is a closeup of the production markings that are found on the Lithgow made scabbards.

This one shows the markings in the standard configuration, with the word LITHGOW, then the A within a seven-pointed star, and the date 1912.

Skennerton states that "The Small Arms Factory at Lithgow, NSW commenced operation in 1912, and the first batch of Australian made bayonets were sent to store with 40 SMLE Mk.III rifles in May, 1913" - British & Commonwealth Bayonets, p.274

Which would place this scabbard amongst some of the first that were made at Lithgow. They must have undergone quite a long testing period.?

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

If anyone's looking for a P1914 Frog complete with the Helve carrier, which seems to usually be missing on the examples I've seen: this is in an upcoming auction, made by Stuart Surridge & Co. 1915. Estimate £250-£300.

http://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/lockdales/catalogue-id-2891686/lot-23459647

Very nice indeed! But a wee bit outside my pocket money range...

[trajan]

It appears that the above shown set is a 100% correct Australian Light Horse rig, with the Patt.14 frog certainly being used by them at home and abroad....

I have found some photographic evidence illustrating this bayonet frog in use by the Light Horse ... (reproduced here strictly for research purposes only)...

So case closed I do believe, and I can now rest much happier, knowing that there is historical evidence to support the sleeper credentials of this bayonet.

Having been able to do a bit of book learnin since SS published those photographs I now have to admit that I would be happier if I could see the belt strap/loop and the rivets in the first one. The belt strap/loop on the GB P.1914, as in SS's recently acquired example, is very distinctive being narrower than the frog proper. However, there are some Australian-made leather frogs that copy the GB P.1914 in all details but with a frog strap/loop that is the same width as the frog proper, another difference being that these also have the rivets above the retaining strap-and-buckle. These frogs were being made as early as 1910 (and continued to be made until 1942!). The second photograph - no problem. Clearly a P.1914.

But given that bayonet/scabbards/frogs are interchangeable, and that there is a SOS mark on SS's frog, indicating this may well have been disposed of as late as 1921 (or later), then I think it best to regard the SS's whole set as a 'marriage'. This is not intended to take away from SS's joy over his acquisition of a fine piece of history (and one I wouldn't mind having if I had the kind of money required to get it!), but simply to clarify the record, that the evidence is not so clear-cut that this bayonet/scabbard/frog set represent a long-forgotten sleeper in its original format. Now, if every item in that set had a SOS mark, then I would have no problems at all!

TTFN,

Trajan

[shippingsteel]

Here is some more photographic evidence of the Patt.14 frog in use during the war, supposedly with Australian troops at Gallipoli. Should I trust this caption.?

The cropped image shown below clearly shows the rivetted construction, buckle and belt-loop. The original version (with zoom) can be found at the AWM site.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

While the British sun helmets threw me for a moment (on Aussies.?) some further investigation into the 9th A.L.H. on Gallipoli shows this to be absolutely correct.

Apparently the entire 3rd LH Brigade landed as reinforcements on Gallipoli fitted out with these sun helmets, so as not to give away their presence to the Turkish.

Here are some more links to pictures of the 9th LH in the trenches. THIS one of a MG position near the Nek, and THIS one of sniping (note bandoliers & helmets)

Cheers, S>S

[Fromelles]

S>S

Unfortunately the frogs pictured aren't one in the same as your example. The Australians were issued their own pattern from well before the start of the war. Though they are almost the same, the main differences are there is no rear strap and it is made without the textured finish to the leather as well as not being narrowed at the top (belt loop).

From memory the earliest of my frogs is dated 1909. I don't have any photos to prove what I say, but if I can, I'll have to dig them out and photograph. Maybe someone else can provide examples in the meantime.

There are a few photos showing Aussies using Pattern 14 equipment, but it was very much the exception than the rule.

Dan