1913 Vickers bayonet a fake?

[Old War Skule]

Looks like the stamps jumped when struck, which is pretty common. Most British bayonets I've seen exhibit this to some extent.

After looking at all of the pictures, I'm inclined to think that it's real and you got the bargain of a lifetime.

[4thGordons]

Right - my 2p again.

I have looked through all the photos and frankly I am not sure I am much the wiser!

a few observations:

My US Pattern 13 and the other Pattern 13s that I have seen (all US made) have UK proofs on the back BUT DO NOT HAVE A CROWN.

The crown would, IMHO, be the hardest of the marks to fake realistically.

I see no obvious (or subtle for that matter) signs that the crosspiece has been messed with (ie replaced) - I suppose the one other place to look for evidence of this would be under the wood of the grips. Have you removed them and had a look there?

The Vickers name and symbol look fine to me. When compared to Seph's pics for example

The "1913" does look unlike the stampings on the P1907 or the US built P13

The absence of an date of manufacture (or is this actually a date of acceptance??) is another question to me.

HOWEVER, I have no other 1913 vickers stampings to compare it to (I have not been able to find a picture even) - so while I have assumed that it should be like the others (1907 etc) I have no way of knowing.

Similarly if the date stamp is a date of acceptance/issue (we refer to reissue dates when they are stamped there - can this be clarified) - if a bayonet was never "accepted" (we know there were all sorts of problems with the P14 & bayonet contracts at Vickers) and only a tiny number of P13s were ever produced, perhaps we should expect oddities in this case?

Tony's suggestion of looking at the proof marks on a known Vickers P13 is excellent - if we can find one! If we can then I suggest looking at ALL the markings (inc the date!)

In the mean time - would it be reasonable to expect the same proof stamps may have been used a few months later on Vickers P07 blades? if so then Seph has a sample of 6 he can share for the purpose of comparison.

I keep coming back to the question: IF this is dodgy - HOW was it done?

If started with a US produced p13 blade then all the marks, including the crown and proofs would have to be added, as would the oversize hole etc - seems a stretch to me.

If started with a Vickers 1907 pattern then the "1913" would have to be added (obscuring the 1907) and the crosspiece would have to be changed - difficult but not impossible (for example there are lots of "Turked" 1907 bayonets knocking around - with shortened blades and a mauser crosspiece and muzzle-ring - the latter process would be the same as is needed here)

I cant think of another basis other than making it from scratch which would seem pointless

I have to admit the absence of the manufacture/acceptance date is what puzzles me most. (see question above)

the 1913 looks odd - but I have nothing to compare it to....

So - Tony/Seph -

1) Do any US produced P13s (ie all the others!) have crowns?

2) Any souces for pictures of KNOWN Vickers P13s? so we can compare date stamping style (I at least have nothing to compare it to and we know of variations with P07s for example)

3) Can we compare Vickers proofs from P1907s to those on this blade or would they be different.

Chris

[findabetterole]

OK.... lets answer a few questions here!

Welshdoc...

All '07's except those manufactured by Lithgow (Australia) were stamped on the left ricasso (blades flat: cutting edge to the left) with the date of manufacture = Day & Month = EG: 5 '16 = May 1916. Lithgow stamped for full year only, untill the early 1920's when they adopted the British system.

US manufactured P1913's = Remington & Winchester, also used the British date system. The US manufactured Model 1917's were dated as WW1 Lithgow items = full year only.

The Vickers clearence hole in the pommel is actually the same size as all other '07' manufactures. Its an optical illusion which makes the clearance hole on Vickers examples look larger.. brought about by the bevelling of the outer edge of both sides.

TonyE...

For the Vickers example in question, the stamping of 'Vickers' and the King's Crown are quite normal.. not messed with. Its the 1913 pattern number and the Vickers logo which have been tampered with. As you quite rightly mention though, it can be quite hard sometimes to determine the authenticity of an example by purely viewing a photograph. To handle an object in ones realm of expertise is the best way. Ones knowledge plays a great part though, even if only a photograph is available, as in this case.

David...

The dishonest, if they feel they can recover the cost of manufacture with an undetermined profit margine, will replicate anything! One of the latest scams in these past few months, has been in plaster 'Dead Mans Pennies', made to look original Bronze, and supposedly in a marble surround. This item is all onc peace with the surround. However, this is a digress, but it illustrates how the scum of the earth pray upon the unweary. Even professional collectors and museums have been caught out at times. Supply and Demand... thats the key. Where there is a demand for a certain item.. someone will supply, fake or not. There has also been this past few months, several faked '07' Quillions.. Chris and TonyE can verify that. In the collecting world, no matter the subject... if your gut feelings say there is something not quite right about the peice... don't ignore your feelings.. examine the piece.. verify your knowledge of the piece.. walk away!

Chris...

The only crowns that you will see on any other P13 & M17's (M17's only up until British cancelled contracts = September 1917), is as a part of the inspectors stamp on the right ricasso.

Seph

[4thGordons]

TonyE...

For the Vickers example in question, the stamping of 'Vickers' and the King's Crown are quite normal.. not messed with. Its the 1913 pattern number and the Vickers logo which have been tampered with. As you quite rightly mention though, it can be quite hard sometimes to determine the authenticity of an example by purely viewing a photograph. To handle an object in ones realm of expertise is the best way. Ones knowledge plays a great part though, even if only a photograph is available, as in this case.

Seph

OK Seph but if the Vickers and the Crown are normal (by which I assume you mean original) - are you saying this started life as a Vickers 1907 blade which had the date, crosspiece/muzzle ring and wood changed?

or......

Chris

[findabetterole]

Yes.. quite possibly!

Seph

[4thGordons]

Yes.. quite possibly!

Seph

OK

Would one way to establish this be to compare the inspection/proof stamps on the right ricasso, to those on your 6 Vickers 07s? if they are the same would that not establish that it is a Vickers blade at least?

Chris

[findabetterole]

Yes it would. In fact, I've already done that Chris, as Welshdoc can confirm. The blade at least looks to be an original Vickers.

Seph

[4thGordons]

Yes it would. In fact, I've already done that Chris, as Welshdoc can confirm. The blade at least looks to be an original Vickers.

Seph

Excellent, (sorry my psychic powers are a bit low tonight )

So it would originally have had issue dates on it also then? which have been totally removed (why? presumably because it was too late in 1917 or 1918?), a new crosspiece fitted with no (yet discovered) evidence or indication of this, and a spurious 1913 date added. (if it is an genuine Vickers blade there is no need to monkey with the Vickers symbol is there? see post 28)

or...... it is genuine?

Just like the fake hookies that turn up, to demonstrate it is a fake it would seem to me we need to see:

1) evidence of the replaced crosspiece (which I suspect if it is to be found will be found under the wooden handles) This must have happened if it is a genuine Vickers blade but not a P13(correct?).

or

2) an example of a verified Vickers marking of "1913" to indicate the differences with this one. To me, although it looks "different" I cannot say with certainty that it is not the style used on Vickers -P13s for the simple reason I have not seen any other Vickers P13s (even pictures) which provide me with a comparison. I can't make a judgement on the basis of one example. If other examples can be shown then I will be happy to make a judgement, absent those examples I don't see how we can.

[just playing devils advocate: If someone said: "no - that is how all Vickers P13s are marked", how would that be refuted / or even proven - it would seem to me the only way is to examine another example or 2! - two that look different = fake, two that look the same = genuine]

or

3) evidence of the removed issue dates. (unless there is another explanation as to how a genuine Vickers blade has no issue dates on it)

[welshdoc]

The "big hole" does indeed have a bevelled edge.

Idont know if its my imagination but the word Vickers is about 1mm closer to the crosspeice than Sephs. I muat reiterate (and thats why I took the oblique) pics there is no sign of any removal of a date, there would have to be a lot of metal removed to get rid of the date stamping and it would have to have left a hollow. If on the other hand it has all been shaved than as said all marking including the crown must be fake and put in to question many other bayonets authenticity.

I must admit that with all the wonderful knowlege coming out here Im getting the feeling that its a Vickers 1907 (undated) blade which has been put together with the Vickers 1917 handle. Either that or a complete and total fake (but why was this not on EBAY being touted as real?).

Question again

1 were any blades (any manufacturer) undated with the year ?

2 Are vickers blades and handles very common and so easy to put together to fake?.

3 Could this bayonet have been put together at the time?

Gareth

Just to note this recent item on EBAY it is very similar to the one I have and is presumed to be a fake as well

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

[welshdoc]

Just found some information from the REME museum anyone near by to it?

http://www.rememuseum.org.uk/arms/blade/armbay.htm

[59165]

Thanks for the camera info,Gareth.I'm still looking for a good all round one & may have to go for a digi slr so I can use assorted lenses.

Thanks also to Seph,Tony,Chris & anyone else whose contributed.

More threads like these & a lot less folks are gonna get ripped off.

Dave,still not a collector

[welshdoc]

Just to stir the pot a little more the following is direct quote of information from the REME museum web site mentioned earlier I hope they do not mind

"The Bayonets issued with the .303 inch Pattern 1914 rifle were the British sword Bayonet Pattern 1913 and the US Bayonet M1917. With the exception of a very small quantity of P13 Bayonets made during 1915 by Vickers Armstrong Limited, all were made in the USA by Remington or Winchester. The early P13 examples sent to Britain by the American makers were produced without the oil hole in the pommel, but in 1916 instructions were issued to all British manufacturers to add this alteration to future production. Armourers were also instructed to carry out this modification when bayonets were returned to store or submitted for repair. These exhibits are all US Bayonets M17. Two of the three held still require the oil hole to be drilled."

It is the armourers instructions which are most relevent here to the possibilty that it may be a period if altered peice.

Yet another question for the experts

Is the structure of the blade / handle of the Vickers American type and UK type bayonets ignoring added on bits like the cross peice and wood the same? Sorry not to use the correct terminology but I will only get it wrong and confuse things even more.

[4thGordons]

Just to stir the pot a little more the following is direct quote of information from the REME museum web site mentioned earlier I hope they do not mind

"The Bayonets issued with the .303 inch Pattern 1914 rifle were the British sword Bayonet Pattern 1913 and the US Bayonet M1917. With the exception of a very small quantity of P13 Bayonets made during 1915 by Vickers Armstrong Limited, all were made in the USA by Remington or Winchester. The early P13 examples sent to Britain by the American makers were produced without the oil hole in the pommel, but in 1916 instructions were issued to all British manufacturers to add this alteration to future production. Armourers were also instructed to carry out this modification when bayonets were returned to store or submitted for repair. These exhibits are all US Bayonets M17. Two of the three held still require the oil hole to be drilled."

It is the armourers instructions which are most relevent here to the possibilty that it may be a period if altered peice.

Yet another question for the experts

Is the structure of the blade / handle of the Vickers American type and UK type bayonets ignoring added on bits like the cross peice and wood the same? Sorry not to use the correct terminology but I will only get it wrong and confuse things even more.

lots of threads about this regarding the P07. As I understand it the situations are essentially the same. Prior to 1916 bayonbets were produced without the clearance hole, post 1916 they were produced with it, and any bayonets that went through a refinishing process had it added. I am not sure any of this is relevant here as it refers only to the oil/clearance hole.

A similar process was followed earlier in 1913(?) with the removal of the hooked quillon. Bayonets produced after that date did not have the hooked quillon - bayonets that had been produced earlier had it removed.

As I understand it what we are talking about here is a change of pattern (from pattern 1907 to pattern 1913) and I know of no reason within a period military context that that would have happened.

Just to clarify something : the crosspiece is all that we are talking about replacing here (along with the wooden grips) so we are talking about putting a p13/M1917 crosspiece on a 1907 Vickers blade and substitutube (or carving) grooves inthe wooden grips.

I believe the constructions is: The crosspiece is a separate piece with an oval hole in the center (very close to the dimensions of the section of the blade) and is slid up the blade into postion and then attached.

On terminology - Seph produced some very nice labelled diagrams a few months ago with all the parts labelled. A search should pull it up.

Chris

[welshdoc]

I was thinking about removing the handle to a have a look but realsied that if I did so the beast would look like it has been messed with. As it stands there are no bright marks on the screwheads and the cross cut is pretty full of nice old rusty muck So left alone it shall remain.

One of the questions I asked I think Ive found the answer for , being production numbers

Approx

2.4 million Wilkinson

1.6 million by Sandersom

Enfields half a million

Chapman (JAC) 0.3 million

Winchester 0.2 million

Remington 0.1million

mole 60000

Vickers 10,000

So if this is a correct Vickers (ignoring the date) its a 450 to 1 chance of finding it. So uncommon rather than rare.

[welshdoc]

Thanks for the information Chris, until today I thought the handle and blade were separate , Ive now looked for and seen the construction of the whole thing. As for the hole issue I was wondering if this was a later addition to my bayonet carried out by an armourer rather than at production. Gareth

[4thGordons]

I was thinking about removing the handle to a have a look but realsied that if I did so the beast would look like it has been messed with. As it stands there are no bright marks on the screwheads and the cross cut is pretty full of nice old rusty muck So left alone it shall remain.

One of the questions I asked I think Ive found the answer for , being production numbers

Approx

2.4 million Wilkinson

1.6 million by Sandersom

Enfields half a million

Chapman (JAC) 0.3 million

Winchester 0.2 million

Remington 0.1million

mole 60000

Vickers 10,000

So if this is a correct Vickers (ignoring the date) its a 450 to 1 chance of finding it. So uncommon rather than rare.

I think these figures conflate production figures for 1907 and 1913 bayonets.

I provided the figures for Pattern 1913 / M1917 in an earlier post. (#9)

QUOTE: "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)"

There is no doubt a P1913 by Vickers would be very rare (as in hen's teeth) @1,500 out of @1,500,000

A p1907 by Vickers is one of (the?) scarce makers but, as you say not rare. (Seph has 6!)

regarding the handle: It looks to me (on several of the photos) as though some lighter wood is showing on the grips (as though the bolts/nuts have been overtightened crushing the wood slightly and revealing "new" wood underneath - is this accurate or my imagination?

[4thGordons]

Thanks for the information Chris, until today I thought the handle and blade were separate , Ive now looked for and seen the construction of the whole thing. As for the hole issue I was wondering if this was a later addition to my bayonet carried out by an armourer rather than at production. Gareth

As ALL vickers 1913s and 1907s were produced after the change (IE in 1917/18) with the exception of the pre production bayonet illustrated in Skennerton, I would have thought all Vickers bayonets (of both types) would have had the hole added in production.

[welshdoc]

The screw heads show no sign of removal or overtightening, the bolts on the other hand are missing, but there is no sign of "new wood", they look like they have been gone a long time the screws are very dark no sign of any marks on the thread.

Im presuming its the bog standard one which has been got at . I am now very confused by it all I thought the 1500 were the 1915 production run without holes. Im going to go back and make notes of the 2 threads so I get my facts right. Cheers Gareth

[4thGordons]

The screw heads show no sign of removal or overtightening, the bolts on the other hand are missing, but there is no sign of "new wood", they look like they have been gone a long time the screws are very dark no sign of any marks on the thread.

Im presuming its the bog standard one which has been got at . I am now very confused by it all I thought the 1500 were the 1915 production run without holes. Im going to go back and make notes of the 2 threads so I get my facts right. Cheers Gareth

THIS was what I was referring to (detail from picture IMP1685) see the top of the hole

I am rather confused by this message:

the screws and bolts are the same thing.... and it looks to me as though the nuts (is this what you meant?) are present

When you say "bog standard" I assume you mean a Vickers P1907?

I believe I am correct in saying ALL Vickers bayonet production was in 1917/18 (see my post #9 and TonyE's post #11) not sure where 1915 came from!

Chris

[welshdoc]

The yellow mark just isnt there in real life, I will photograph it again, it may have been some lint I just dont know,

yes I meant the 1907 as the bog standard

the 1915 came from the REME site

"The Bayonets issued with the .303 inch Pattern 1914 rifle were the British sword Bayonet Pattern 1913 and the US Bayonet M1917. With the exception of a very small quantity of P13 Bayonets made during 1915 by Vickers Armstrong Limited, all were made in the USA by Remington or Winchester. "

As you can see Im way out of my depth and sinking fast. Gareth

[welshdoc]

here are the retaken pics

[4thGordons]

the 1915 came from the REME site

"The Bayonets issued with the .303 inch Pattern 1914 rifle were the British sword Bayonet Pattern 1913 and the US Bayonet M1917. With the exception of a very small quantity of P13 Bayonets made during 1915 by Vickers Armstrong Limited, all were made in the USA by Remington or Winchester. "

I think either this, or the Skennerton book are in error. I woud suggest it is either a typo on the site or a misunderstanding (the original Pattern 14 rifle Pattern 13 Bayonet contract at Vickers failed in 1915 which may have led the author to assume the bayonets were produced prior to this date)

Skennerton illustrates a single (unmarked) p13 bayonet made as a pre-production example by Vickers in 1915 but then goes on to say:

"Vickers production of the Pattern 14 Rifle and Pattern 13 Bayonet was abandoned by mid 1915, although a small run of Pattern 13 Bayonets was eventually done by Vickers in 1917" (p190)

By April of 1917 the same source says Vickers had produced 410 Pattern 13 Bayonets (p191)

Citing weekly returns to the War Office : "Vickers did not commence production until the first quarter of 1917, with the Pattern 13, and by mid 1917 only Pattern 1907 was being manufactured by Vickers....A report dated 13th October 1917 indicates that only 5,000 Pattern 1907 bayonets had been delivered including 1,000 during the previous week. By the week ending 2nd November[1917 ed] production had reached 1,240 per week.....This puts total Vickers production of Pat. 1907 bayonet at about 10,000. Pat. 1913 bayonet production at Vickers was only about 1,500. (p192)

[welshdoc]

Thanks ,sorry for the duff information. So overall one must say whoever put the 1913 on the blade was not a very clever faker as there is no such thing only a 1917. Still its had me confused for days now.

[4thGordons]

Thanks ,sorry for the duff information. So overall one must say whoever put the 1913 on the blade was not a very clever faker as there is no such thing only a 1917. Still its had me confused for days now.

NOOOOOOOO

1913 is the Pattern date, ie the BAYONET TYPE. All pattern 1913 bayonets have it, just as all Pattern 1907 Bayonets have 1907 stamped on them - even those produced in WWII.

What is missing from your example and what one would expect to be there is a PRODUCTION DATE in the form of Month / Year and THIS would be early to mid 1917 for a Pattern 13 produced at Vickers (ie 10 '17 - for October 1917)

[welshdoc]

Bums, Im not half thick. I said I was confused i didnt mention stupid.