1913 Vickers bayonet a fake?

[59165]

Just wondered if we could do a '07 ptn thread (including hookies & attachments)as good & comprehensive as this one as,like I said,if it helps stop the forgers & helps folk make better decisions on buying,it'll be a win/win type of thing?

What you all think?

Dave.

[David Filsell]

I wasn't knocking anyone, collector or expert, and this is not my field. (Yes, I know, I should shut-up). But it does seem a strange thing to fake, requiring huge expertise and technical skill for a relatively small return. Now I can understand the thrill of the "I've fooled the experts", but this seems relatively small return for the amount of sheer effort, and if I understand correctly, this example raised little in cash terms. Could it simply be experimental - a knocked off sample?

Now I will shut-up.

[4thGordons]

Just wondered if we could do a '07 ptn thread (including hookies & attachments)as good & comprehensive as this one as,like I said,if it helps stop the forgers & helps folk make better decisions on buying,it'll be a win/win type of thing?

What you all think?

Dave.

The danger perhaps is - that by the same token it Helps forgers......... by providing all they need to know in one place rather than making them go and look it all up?

As I have neither the money nor the collecting interest to afford any of the bayonets likely to be forged... this doesn't overly concern me but it is perhaps worth thinking about.

Seph has made a good number of posts in other threads which illustrate many of the similar things related to Hooked Quillon 1907s especially, a search for those might show up the info you need.

At this point I think I have exhausted any useful input I may have or be able to offer

Until there is a comparative Vickers 1913 marking to look at, or new information regarding production date stamping (or lack thereof), or new evidence regarding an exchanged crosspiece on Welsdoc's bayonet, it would seem there is not much further I can go without becoming more repetitive than normal.

Plus.... I am supposed to be working!

[TonyE]

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)

I know which one I would believe every time. The REME site is full of errors, one example being a South African Reider conversion of an SMLE to semi-auto. They list it as a British conversion from WWI (which would have been a Howell rifle). I have handled their example and told them the mistake and even offered to go through their catalogue and correct it, but the reaction I got was effectively "what do you know".

Skennerton on the other hand is a vastly experienced researcher and probably knows more about Enfields than anyone else. I also know he is correct on this because I have researched the original documents regarding the Vickers P.14 contract at Kew.

One other wild idea. Could it be an '07 with a new extended muzzle ring welded on and the grips changed or grooved? In one of the close ups of the muzzle ring there could be a faint mark where it has been welded.

Regards

TonyE

OK, I admit Skennerton is a mate of mine.

[4thGordons]

One other wild idea. Could it be an '07 with a new extended muzzle ring welded on and the grips changed or grooved? In one of the close ups of the muzzle ring there could be a faint mark where it has been welded.

Regards

TonyE

OK, I admit Skennerton is a mate of mine.

Very good point! tough to do I would suspect without leaving any trace.....(often the giveaway on Hookies no?) but certainly a possibility

and I agree, I accept Skennerton's statements over the REME site. Change of one digit on the site 5 to 7 would correct it. It would be half a page of errors in the book (inc. several references) to reverse it....

and I don't know the bloke!

[welshdoc]

there is no sign of a weld , both ends of the crosspeice show the same sign of age and finish. While yes it may be a replaced crosspeice and wooden grips the muck at the juction is old its not been altered in the recent past , Ive had it about 4 years and it looked the same when I bought it. Old and manky like me. If and I am willing to accept that it is a fake its either very cleverly done or was done a long time ago. Also why on earth go to all that effort and sell it via an intermediary in a boot sale?

I think as has been said we need a comparison, has anyone here ever actualy seen one of the 1500 1913 issues, other than the one in Skennerton's book?

[59165]

"what do you know".

Heads n clips,mate.Heads n clips n guns for em

Regards

TonyE

OK, I admit Skennerton is a mate of mine.

He plays a great piano

I know...shutting up now

[TonyE]

I shall be seeing the chap who owned the one illustrated in Skenneton's book at the end of the month. I will find out if he still owns it and see if I can either have a look at it or get photos.

Regards

TonyE

[4thGordons]

I shall be seeing the chap who owned the one illustrated in Skenneton's book at the end of the month. I will find out if he still owns it and see if I can either have a look at it or get photos.

Regards

TonyE

Tony,

Not sure that will help as it ( a preproduction example) appears to be free of all markings and without a clearance hole!

Chris

[findabetterole]

59165...

A superb idea, but I think it would be better enhanced as a Q & Ans thread. Anything and everything about the Enfield Pattern 1907 bayonet that you wanted to know about, but were afraid to ask!

Go on.. ask! Start us off using a new thread.

Seph

[welshdoc]

Thanks to all who have taken time and effort to impart their knowlege re bayonets to us dimwits. I have searched and searched the internet to find a confirmed genuine Vickers P13 but to no avail. I have though sent out a few E mails and hope that we may get the information to put this P13 to bed. If I find out one way or the other I will be back. In the meantime one for the experts

Why was this Vickers 1907 so cheap?

http://cgi.ebay.com/Vickers-Bayonet-1907-9...006117002r28749

[Old War Skule]

Welshdoc, I agree with you that the P1907 in the eBay link you posted went for less than it should have. Lately, I've seen this happen more and more. I picked up a Dunhill pipe with patent dates for 1918 for $55 in excellent condition, barely smoked. Another very similar Dunhill went for over $350 thanks to better photos and description from a seller who knew what he had.

Also, to many US collectors this is just "another British bayonet," and nothing special. I can remember going into a sporting goods/surplus store as a child and seeing cases of P1907s!

[welshdoc]

I must admit the chaps restrictions on bidding were to say the least amusing. I would have been put off but if I new it was a bargain I suppose I would live with it.

[4thGordons]

I must admit the chaps restrictions on bidding were to say the least amusing. I would have been put off but if I new it was a bargain I suppose I would live with it.

Its a little cheaper than some (and the bidding restrictions were odd!) but Vickers 1907s go for around that price on ebay with some frequency. For a while there was a chap who had a couple with buy it now prices about $25 higher.

Chris

[welshdoc]

So although not that common they sell for about the same as a Sanderson or Wilkinson. I suppose its the hookies are the gems of this field (and of course the 1903 Vickers )

[findabetterole]

As has been mentioned, the seller sometimes cuts his own throught by placing ridiculous restrictions upon the auction.

Another reason this Vickers sold for so low a price, is the sellers choice of department.

Also, it could have been placed on the auction site at the wrong time: depends upon who is looking in at the time of the auction. All manner of reasons could effect the selling price. There have been 14 Vickers for sale this year on evilbay... I bought several of them.... missed this one though!

The Vickers in question is a superb example, and I have only seen about three with that manufactrure date. This example should have sold for near to 300.00.GBP, but, due to a mix of the criteria mentioned, it went for cheap-as-chips = 40.GBP.

A lesson learnt by the seller... the hard way!

Seph

[welshdoc]

In addition The problem for UK buyers is that the customs charge massive import tax and handling charges , it would have nearly doubled the cost to import it here if you declared the value. Its stopped me buying from outside eurozone. This thread though has whetted my interest , trouble is my other half absolutely hates the things. Gareth

[TonyE]

I have been in touch with Mike Hibberd who owns the pre-production Vickers P.13 illustrated in Skennerton and he has graciously photographed the bayonet and allowed me to post the pictures.

Here is the left ricasso.

More to come.

Regards

Tony

This is stamped under the grips. there is also a pencilled "2" on the underside of the woodework.

[TonyE]

Finally, there is an "L" with seriphs on the back of the hilt.

Having said that, I do not think it goes a long way towards answering exactly what the other bayonet is, but at least we know what a real one looks like.

many thanks Mike.

Regards

TonyE

[welshdoc]

Thanks TonyE and Mike it looks in wonderful condition. Is the L significant to the pre-production and where is it . I cant see anything like it on mine. Does Mikes have an edge? Has Mike ever seen a genuine production model? Does he think mines a fake as well? Gareth

[Mike_H]

Gareth

In answer to your questions in post 70 - The L is on the back of the hilt, mid way between the pommel and the crossguard, I don't know the significance of this mark or of the 2 under the left grip. The blade has no edge, i.e. it is as manufactured and has never been sharpened. I bought it in about 1980 from a reputable and knowledgeable dealer. I haven't ever seen an example of a Vickers wartime production P13 bayonet. I am undecided about yours - I find the absence of the production date odd. You say it was a boot sale purchase so it was hardly being touted as a rarity and I can't see anyone selling at a boot sale tinkering with marks. Whilst there are plenty of dimwits who try to forge or alter items who make obvious errors I would have thought that anyone trying to present this bayonet as one of Vickers 1500 production would have had the knowledge to add that production date????????? and would have also been pushing it in a more militaria oriented market. Sorry I can't be of more help

Mike

[welshdoc]

Thanks for the reply Mike. If I had bought it on the internet I may have been a bit concerned but the person who sold it had no idea about it and I didnt either. A month dated one was sold on EBAY last week , had similar font to the 1913.

[findabetterole]

Gents..

This comment is not meant to be insulting in any way, shape, or form, so please do not take it as so. It is just an observation made from various sources over time.

Whenever there is a mention of an item being sold as an 'Estate find', or 'Owned by a war veteran', or similar terms, all common sence seems to get thrown from out of the window. All the wording means is that it was attached to the item to get your attention in order to temp you into buying it. It does not give credability to the authenticity of the item.

Welshdoc has mentioned that his item was a 'Car Boot Sale' (Swap Meet in the USA) find, and is bemused as to why it was not being flaunted as a rarety. There are many reasons that could explain this. Bayonets get pushed into boxes, drawers, attics.. all manner of places, and forgotten about for several years. They could even be left inadvertantly during a house move (which I did once! ) or stolen, and the scum who did the deed unloads the item as fast as possible. In line with selling on an item.. don't take what the sellers says as gospel truth. A favourite on 'evilbay' is: 'I don't know much about these things'... OH Really? The seller in most cases knows the item is utter junk and is trying to get as much for it as possible. As a summery to that.. never listen to the stories attached.. study the item!

What needs to be looked at here, is not where the item was purchased, or for how much the it was bought for, but is that item a genuine fake.. produced who knows when?.. or one of the very few pre-production Vickers, or one of the 1,500 Vickers P1913's produced in 1917?

These items pass hands sometimes with frightening regularity, for one reason or another. A collector buy's the item thinking it to be something else, realises his mistake, and passes it on possibly for a little profit, or cheap as a 'favour' to another collector friend. The item moves through various hands, and in time, its original becomes lost, and possibly ends up at a car-boot sale or swap-meet.

Personally, I feel there is something wrong with the bayonet in question. I arriverd at my decision after consulting my experiance gained over the years. This is only my oppinion, and as has been proved, there are others who disagree. Welshdoc is not a dedicated bayonet collect, and as such, is unsure of the informastion coming his way, which is contradictory in some parts. However, this is the right road to take, as he will, after carrying out his own in depth research, make his own decision as to the validity of the bayonet he has raised a question on.

One point should never be forgotten in the collecting world = 'Never refused anothers decision, and always keep an open mind'. I have stated this in many threads over the time I have been with the Forum... 'We are all on an upward learning curve, no matter our standard of knowledge about our chosen subject. Pass on your own knowledge freely, and be ready to accept when one is wrong'.

'Mike_H' has been superb in allowing his bayonet to be photographed, and used here in the Forum. Thank You! for that Mike, and appreciation goes to 'TonyE' for suggesting and doing the groundwork for the above mention.

This is a superb thread gents, so lets see if we can continue it till the true identity is found.

There are bargains to be found out there... I've had many this past two years. But, Lets always look at the facts, not the fiction!

Seph

[welshdoc]

I understand and agree with your comments Seph, the mention of the source was to show context of my acquisition of the bayonet, it means nothing in terms of provenance. Its condition on the other hand shows that if it was faked it was not done in the recent pass and as scientist I have and am trying to get as much evidence to prove a point one way or another. My gut feeling is also its not right but thats based on no knowlege whatsoever of the subject, but more on whats the chances of finding such a rare item period yet alone at a boot sale.

My initial post on the RAF bayonet thread was tongue in cheek in response to the pride and joys being offered by others. So I have no issues or expectations. Im happy to accept Sephs opinion, I must do so as he is an expert, kind enough to offer his advice and expertease. However as yet no one here or elsewhere has actualy seen one in the flesh so we dont know its a wrong un just it probably is on the basis there is no month date and the 1913 looks wrong. I on the other hand cannot spot any signs of tampering, but then Im no expert .

I have contacted the National army museum for advice. I must also agree its been a cracking topic and i have appreciated everyones input. If I ever sort it out I will return to the thread with the good or bad news, In the meantime everyone keep looking for a genuine 1903 Vickers, there must be one out there somewhere.. Gareth

[4thGordons]

Gareth - I think you mean P1913 Vickers?

For what it is worth, I think it is worth paying attention to provenance in some instances. Genuine as well as forged items can be lost, mislaid etc in the manner described by Seph and sometimes chains of ownership can be established.

Frankly, as I said above I am not sure we can make any further progress with this item until a known Vickers produced pattern 1913 bayonet can be found.

IF one exists, and it is entirely possible one does not. 1,500 is a very small number. Skennerton et al could not find an example of a production blade to photograph in a book which covers almost every conceivable variation. Mike H's is interesting (and many thanks for posting it) but as a preproduction example does not really resolve the problems regarding the pattern and (absent) date stamps.

It would seem that a metalurgist or someone with access to the requisite knowledge and microscopes etc would be able to tell if the crosspiece had been welded.

Microscopic analysis may also indicate if the date is engraved or stamped.

There are also techniques used by the police for recovering erased serial numbers on firearms which I suppose may be of use for examining the ricasso for signs of erased markings. I know little of these but suspect they are expensive, difficult to do and likely to be inconclusive.

If it were me I would photograph everything very very carefully and then I would remove the wooden handles and examine them and the metal underneath. I would also, very carefully and sensitively clean the bayonet. Dirt and grime (as opposed to patina) does not add anything in terms of authenticity IMHO but may conceal things. I might consult with a museum on this process although given the materials involved (steel and wood) I don't think you are likely to do much harm if you are careful.

For what it is worth (and with all the requisite caveats about not having it in my hands) I think this may be a genuine example. We can construct all sorts of complex and convoluted theories but as I mentioned in an earlier thread I think William of Occam was on to something. The simplest explanation that takes into account all the variables is best.

I also think it is worth noting that sometimes things like this cannot be resolved.

Chris