JAC Hook Quillon Bayonet

[tocemma]

This is one for the bayonet boys!

I've had this since the late 1980s. I've never really bothered to do any checking/research on it. It is an early Chapman 07 hook quillon, with a first pattern internal chape scabbard which is still brown, although the flash has made it look darker than it is in the flesh. The date appears to be '12 '08. The crown is very lightly struck and is not much more visible on the actual bayonet although most of the detail is visible. The scabbard is marked Crown A.C. '09. The unit marking is RH (Black Watch) but no Battalion No is shown, unless the R prefix to the number possibly stands for Reserve, or it could just be Regiment of course??

The blade is really clean with all its polish. Overall it shows only light service wear and a few dings and cut marks on the leading edge of the scabbard. I wonder were it was all those years.

I'm not a bayonet collector so any further info would be appreciated. I have only ever acquired bayonets specifically for equipment sets rather than for the technicalities of the bayonets themselves. I think I paid about £30 for it in around 1986/7.

I have one or two others to post and would appreciate any info on the stamps etc.

Happy New Year to all

Tocemma

[tocemma]

[TonyE]

Very nice indeed. Not a lot more to add to what you already know, and I cannot offer anything much on the "R" either, other than to agree it could possibly mean "Reserve".

Just send it my way.

Regards

TonyE

[4thGordons]

Very nice indeed. Not a lot more to add to what you already know, and I cannot offer anything much on the "R" either, other than to agree it could possibly mean "Reserve".

Just send it my way.

Regards

TonyE

Or perhaps "Rifle" (ie this is the bayonet for Rifle 581)

I assume you know all the standard marks (inspection, bend test etc - if no I posted a link to a nice site covering them in response to a thread just below this)

I know the whereabouts of a rifle that would match this nicely

Like to hear Seph's comments.... and see your other ones.

Chris

[coppertales]

Very nice bayonet. They bring big bucks on ebay when they show up for auction. Yours is the nicest I have ever seen......chris3

[findabetterole]

Hmm... nice bayonet overall, but something isn't quite right!

Seph

[shippingsteel]

Hmm... nice bayonet overall, but something isn't quite right!

Seph

I've been waiting for someone to say something, good manners I guess, but at first glance this bayo just oozes "repro" - mind you they do a damn fine job.

It's not just the condition which is out of character, (compare the blade and crossguard with the pommel) but the stampings should be a deadset giveaway.

Especially the 3 inspection mark stamps which all appear very dodgy and even possibly overstamped. The main ricasso also has small signs that appear different to an authentic bayonet from the same period. (see attachment)

Apart from the date markings also check out the style of the fuller groove which appears to be cut far to squarish almost like a Remington fuller. The original is more rounded and smooth looking. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but in many cases what looks too good to be true normally is just that - too good to be true.!!

Sorry...

S>S

[findabetterole]

S-S....

What made me suspicious was the over deep stamping of the 'ER' in relation to the Crown. I've not got one example in my collection, or seen an authentic example with a comparison of that nature. It's a dead giveaway in that the example in queston is not what it seems to be. You're correct about the stampings on the right ricasso.... double bounced. I could go on, but we don't want to give too many pointers to the 'Fakers' do we?

Incidentally, using the shape of the fuller end is not a good indication of Fake or Genuine. Differences in this feature can be seen within examples of the same make/year.

Seph

[calibre792x57.y]

Errrr - hate to disagree with the expert opinion, but I have had three of these at various times, all virtually mint with early pattern scabbards made at Enfield in 1908 - 10. There seemed to be a few of these knocking about in late Seventies at Miltaria fairs in the UK. I was told they had come from Sandhurst but have no evidence to that effect. None of the points so far advanced seem to make the bayonet wrong to me. There is considerable variation in the stamps even from the same manufacturer, clearly there were more than one set of punches in use. It is not unusual to find that the crown mark is quite lightly stamped and then partially removed by the final polishing process, even on bayonets that are in mint condition. The punches were applied at various stages as they were inspected after each process. Without examining it I cannot say that it is right, but the points raised are far from conclusive and I would hesitate to tell the owner that it is fake. They weren't particularly expensive at the time and a class fake was virtually unknown.

[shippingsteel]

The shape of the fuller and the age and condition comparison between the blade, crossguard and pommel are the first things that I look for personally.

That pictured fuller looks surprisingly similar to those featured on all the shiny new Arisaka blades that are floating around these days.

They appear to use a genuine period aged, numbered and marked hilt and then refit with a shiny new blade.

Incidentally they also come with the much cherished and shiny hook.!!

[Pete_C]

I've been waiting for someone to say something, good manners I guess, but at first glance this bayo just oozes "repro" - mind you they do a damn fine job.

It's not just the condition which is out of character, (compare the blade and crossguard with the pommel) but the stampings should be a deadset giveaway.

Especially the 3 inspection mark stamps which all appear very dodgy and even possibly overstamped. The main ricasso also has small signs that appear different to an authentic bayonet from the same period. (see attachment)

Apart from the date markings also check out the style of the fuller groove which appears to be cut far to squarish almost like a Remington fuller. The original is more rounded and smooth looking. I hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but in many cases what looks too good to be true normally is just that - too good to be true.!!

Sorry...

S>S

Looks fine to me and oozes nothing but 'highly desirable (sleeper) example of a very rare bayonet' – they do exist. Let’s certainly not dismiss it because its “condition is out of character” – yes it’s certainly "out of character" with most of the scabby examples that turn up these days and change hands for the most outlandish prices. The shiny 1915 Sanderson below, purchased in the 1970’s, is completely unadulterated and remains in almost new, as issued condition. If you looked hard and often enough, bayonets like this were not uncommon in the 1970’s and 1980’s at UK arms fairs (including hook quillon examples) - they were not especially sought after and did not attract the almost out of reach prices they do today. I’ve posted three examples from my modest collection all with ‘dodgy’ squared off fullers , like Tocemma’s example – 1907 bayonets were mass produced and blades were quickly and largely hand ground, and I doubt any two were identical – you only have to look at the different shapes and sizes of 1907 ricassos. The inspection marks don’t appear especially 'over stamped' and if your supposition as to its origin was correct, you’d certainly have to question why a craftsman with the more than considerable skills and resources required to produce such an outstanding 'reproduction', would be incapable of applying a ‘better’ inspection mark. Another post contrasts the ‘deep stamping of the ER in relation to the crown’ – that’s clearly because the blade has been (over) polished at this point and the crown has been almost obliterated as has the very top edge of the 'E.R.'.

And I haven’t even mentioned the very authentic looking scabbard with internal chape in remarkably similar oustanding condition !

I’d be more than proud to have this bayonet in my collection - as TonyE says "just send it my way"......please!

Manxy

[SiegeGunner]

My technical knowledge of bayonets is negligeable, but I read threads like this avidly in order to learn more. Given that bayonets were produced in millions by numbers of different manufacturers and were worked and reworked at various times and by different 'agencies' (manufacturing companies, field workshops ... whatever), it seems remarkable to me that so many 'OK-looking' examples, even when someone has owned them for 30 years, can sometimes be so easily dismissed as 'fakes'. I accept that fakes do exist - although I think it's an extremely laborious way to make a few bob - but I'm concerned that 'experts' are too ready to condemn examples that don't fit their own preconceptions. These things are not worth a huge amount of money even now, and they were worth a great deal less 30 years ago. I am inclined to think that a large proportion of supposedly 'dodgy' bayonets are in fact genuine products of authorised manufacturers, with oddities that result from the vagaries of wartime production and reworking 'in the field'.

[shippingsteel]

"The respondents all make very valid points - Your Honour", you can TELL that I LOVE a good debate can't you, it shows HUH.!!

When I spoke of character of the bayonet I also meant on a deeper level in that while they may have been mass produced they were also crafted, inspected and stamped by skilled tradesmen. (Just as Manxy suggests)

Probably the only thing that you cannot replicate is the actual flaws of human character, and it is my belief that a leopard cannot change its spots, so to speak.

I believe that the Enfield inspection numbers were all individual and allocated to a certain inspector to allow quality assurance etc., please correct me if I am wrong.

When I suggested that the inspection markings looked 'dodgy' it was prompted by comparison with other Crown35E stampings from a similar period and particularly their style.

Please see attachment. It is only by putting together all these small details that you can make a judgement one way or another, in other words getting a "feel", and that is extremely difficult whilst just looking at photos.

Remember, I never actually SAID it was one way or the other, I just passed comment that perhaps it might "smell" a little that way.!!!

Once again, always happy to become more properly informed ....

S>S

[findabetterole]

Gents,

I've been collecting British Army Bayonets.. especially the '07'... since 1970, and believe you me, I've seen some fine and sloppy examples of the mark in that time. As 's-s' has made mention, one gets a feel... a hidden instinct... a gut feeling... a sixth sence [call it what you will], after so long of handling these items, that one devises ones own criteria and way of ferreting out what we as an individual consider as not all the pukka! I'm not in any way saying that either mine or anyone else's assessement of this 'Hooky' is correct or for that matter.. incorrect.

What I'm trying to get over is that with anything we collect, we should not jump at it with our eyes closed, but step back and have a second, more detailed look. It's already apparent that some of us here think this is a super item to put in one's collection at any cost. That assessement is not for me. The condition of the scabbard has been brought up, but for me, thats a different issue entirely. We sometimes swap a sticky or tattered scabbard for one of more looser fitting or up-market condition.. DON'T WE? This particular design of scabbard is extremely sought after.. even I have not managed to aquire an example, but I certainly would air on the side of caution should one be offered for sale.... as three have been this last two months! Suspicious.. I would say so!

We all get caught out from time to time, and the repro artists are getting better as the days go on. The British Museum has admitted that its been duped by certain repo's! Everything that is collectable is reproduced in one standard or another. If the totally dishonest think that they can get even a fraction of the market cost of an unusual item over the general pattern... they will make it, in order to catch the unweary and not so knowledgeable. There have been several really nice 'Hooky's' discussed on this forum over the past couple of years, with a good percentage of them being classed [by general discussion] as faked. There are known individuals in the reenactor world who will glady refit a repro hooked quillion onto a previous 'officially de-hooked' example, or any '07' you give them.

It is correct that the inspectors stamps are issued to a definate individual, and I feel that from personal experiance in this matter, that to be slap-dash with ones own quality check stamp, will not have you in any job for any length of time.

We learn as we go along gent's, and either dismiss others comments, or take them onboard and thus refine them to our own level of knowledge and experiance.

Each to their own oppinion Gentlemen.

CAVEAT EMPTOR.

Seph.

[calibre792x57.y]

I repeat, it looks okay and I have owned 5 or 6 hook quillions, three with the Mark I scabbard in my bayonet collecting days - still have one virtually mint with factory finish - no post manufacture emery cloth here! Look at the photos of the Chapman bayonet. The inspection stamps are those of a Sheffield viewer as you would expect. The colour and close fit of the grips is right. Look again at the grip screws - spot on. No trace of disturbance by the dreaded agricultural screw driver. Blueing is good. The scabbard would be extremely difficult to accurately reproduce. It looks absolutely identical to mine in quality and colour. Don't forget you must accept that the owner knows when he acquired it. None of the repros I've seen in photos would fool anyone but a tyro, and they certainly didn't make them like that in the eighties. Bodging a common or garden '07 was the usual method and easily spotted. I haven't examined it, but from the photos I would be very surprised if it was not a genuine item. Remember, they weren't that difficult to find in the seventies, quite rare in that condition but not impossible.

[welshdoc]

I love these bayonet topics, it full of interesting facts and opinions. keep it up the experts .

Gareth proud owner of a real / fake Vickers do you all remebmer the saga

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...=108045&hl=

[wainfleet]

I saw this particular bayonet a number of years ago. It's an absolute belter, and you'd only need to handle it to know at once that it is absolutely spot on. An exceptionally good example.

[findabetterole]

Welshdoc.. yes, I remember that example. It is a superb condition item, but I still have doubts of its authenticity as a bonafide Vickers Trials item. Anyway, thats not the item on scrutiny here.

Once again, the scabbard has been mentioned in connection to examining the bayonet. Forget the scabbard! It's the bayonet that is being discussed. The scabbard should always be examined as a separate item [which it is], and I have seen genuine early issue scabbards being sold married up with decent fake bayonets.. purely to reign in the unweary and get a higher price for the scabbard... sometimes x4.

As an illustration of what I mentioned earlier in connection to not using the blades fuller as an indication of manufacturer.. here are three Hooky's from my collection. The two outer examples are 'EFD' [Enfield], the center example being 'SANDERSON'.

Seph

[tocemma]

Hello all,

Many thanks to all for contributions so far. I wanted to do a bit of background work before responding. Thanks also to Wainfleet ( your ears must have been burning. I was going to cite you as one of several contributors and forum members who have seen this bayonet, which has been in my collection since the 80s)

Before addressing some assertions that have been made (seemingly as cast iron and unchallengable facts) let me tell you where I am coming from with regards to this post. I have never been a bayonet collector, although I have several friends and acquaintances who collect bayonets and edged weapons to a very high standard.

To me a bayonet is an accessory, not an end in itself. It as much a part of an equipment set as a waterbottle or a pouch. I was never concerned with the niceties of such items but rather an overview which allowed me to make reasonable decisions. I was helped in this regard by many, many collectors (Wainfleet was one of those who imparted much detail knowledge to me) as well as some of the most experienced and knowledgable collectors in the UK.

I first acquired this bayonet in 1988. I spoke last evening to the respected collector whose collection it had been in since 1978, when he bought it at an arms fair in the UK. He sold it to me when he was raising money to buy a Trafalgar period Naval sword, which is why he is certain about the 1988 date, he still has the sale catalogue. So you can be assured that this bayonet has an audit trail stretching back to at least 1978. Thanks also to Sommewalker for confirming that there were indeed several of these on the market at the time. I paid £25 pounds (we think, but certainly no more than £30)

It should be pointed out that this was about twice the value of a bog standard 1907 at the time. The price differential is obviously far greater now. WW1 uniform and equipment had yet to pick up the more universal interest which started to grow in the early 1990s.

I also spoke to several leading dealers yesterday, in an attempt to refresh my memory as to what was happening at the time. One of these is an internationally respected dealer who has a very shrewd idea of what has been produced by whom and when. He was very sceptical of a claim that anyone was bodging hook quillon bayonets in the 1970s. The simple fact is that there was neither the market for them, nor the intrinsic value to make it worth anyone's time to produce a fake, and certainly not of the quality displayed in this and other similar examples.

I have always made it my business to buy only the very best examples of whatever I have collected and I made no exception with bayonets. I never at any point had much more than a dozen, but they were all of similar condition, the best I could find. I went to collectors rather than dealers and bought or traded what I needed. I haven't really bought very much in the last 10 years so anything I have now is from around 2001 at the latest.

I have been trying to remember when I saw my first fake hook quillon. I admit that this is from the standpoint of an observer and ocassional buyer rather that an avid collector of bayonets. I cannot recall seeing one until well into the 90s, and those I did see were pretty crudely done even to my eyes. It is only comparatively recently it would seem that fakes have reached a much higher standard of competency, although I'm sure that others may dispute this. I wouldn't know, I haven't looked at one for years.

As an aside, I think that this applies to WW1 uniform and equipment in general. Until relatively recently the values simply didn't make it worth the effort. The exception to this rule was of course the usual badge engineering and addition of cloth patches etc to enhance the value of a uniform piece. Most items produced during the war were of very high quality (albeit mass produced) and therefore difficult to convincingly fake.

As to the individual points raised:

1. It is difficult to photograph a bayonet and show the subtlety of wear. Flash photography doesn't help.

2. The bayonet shown is virtually new but does show very light service use.

3. The scabbard is a very clean and clearly dated 1st pattern scabbard. The blue absolutely matches on both the bayonet and the scabbard, both in terms of wear and condition. So much for swapped out scabbard claims.

4. Shippingsteel posted a view of a ricasso with similar stampings. I'm sorry and maybe my aging eyes are deceiving me, but where are the 'repro oozing' differences. I was amused to see that even the example provided had a lightly struck or polished out crown with only the very bottom edge showing any deep stamping. Equally the 'deeply struck' 'ER' is it me or are the letters on the example provided struck even more deeply?

5. What is the methodology that produces, 'I dont have one+there are three fakes recently=This must be wrong'?

6, Inspectors marks 'obviously doublestruck' eh? They don't look any different to others I've seen on good condition bayonets.

I would like to take you back to a cold winter's evening in 1988 in a village far, far away.

After a hard day listening to Rick Astley and the Bangles, I retired for a well earned night's rest. But danger was lurking as my family and I slept. Villainy was afoot. In the dead of night an evil faker (Fakir, off! Supplementary movie quote included free of charge) crept silently into my home, slipped unnoticed up the loft ladder and despoiled my loft, the cherished repository of all I held militarily dear (and very dear some of it was too, I can tell you)

By the light of the moon, he toiled at his evil craft. Armed only with a lathe, welding gear, a grinding wheel and several small files, he whipped off my poor quality blade, crafted a glittering Sheffield steel replacment and deftly attached it to my original Regimentally marked hilt. Scornfully, he whipped out his set of Sheffield Inspectors stamps, and cynically doublestruck as the church clock chimed twelve.

I stirred briefly from my slumber, was it a muffled doublestrike that troubled me?, or the dying chords of the middle eight of Stock Aitken and Waterman's latest musical genius? With a contented sigh, I settled down again to my rest.

Things were now changed forever, like Johnny Hates Jazz, Shattered Dreams stalked my collection. His diabolical work done, the faker stood back and admired his handiwork. With a sneer playing upon his face he replaced the battered olive green painted scabbard with a rare first pattern scabbard 'and like that....he's gone', just like Keyser Soze, only seven years earlier.

The end.

Or is it????

Tocemma

[findabetterole]

Why is it that individuals cannot or refuse to separate a scabbard from the bayonet? I suppose that its the human mind set of.. 'if one part is original, the rest must be!' OH Well!

Lets get the record straight here, for I did not state that the recent items ie., scabbards, were fake, I stated that I found it rather suspicious that several had appeared recently.... THERE IS A DIFFERENCE! So please... do not twist a meaning. Also.. no, I do not own a Mk.1 Pattern 1907 internal chape scabbard, for the simple reason that I'm not prepared to fork out for one at any outlandish price which is offered!

At the end of the day, if you as an individual feel that the item is pukka and above board.. great! We all have our own opinions, thats why we have these discussion forums. In my opininion, and comnnected to my experiance with this type of bayonet, I would think twice before paying out for it. Others differ.. thats fine... it's what we are here for. But sacrastic remarks at the end of a post do nothing but wind individuals up, and look at the originators post/thread in a different light.. and that is not one of a genuine enquirey.

Happy Collecting.

Seph

[wainfleet]

I am not a bayonet collector. I too regard bayonets as simply a part of the soldier’s equipment and have just a couple of moderately decent non-quillon examples to go with sets of 08 and 14. It’s certainly true that over the years you get a feel for what’s right and what isn’t. One can nevertheless still be caught out, but the experienced collector will usually sniff out a fake once they get over the denial stage and seriously examine their item with that possibility in mind. It is my assessement that the owner of this bayonet is well-qualified to make that judgement, and I believe my own assessment of it years ago was also well-founded.

I don’t have a personal reason for defending this bayonet’s integrity, as I didn’t supply it, don’t need or expect to acquire it, and nor is the owner a particular personal friend since I haven’t seen him for probably a good ten years. I just find it annoying to see good kit dismissed out of hand in a public forum on highly speculative grounds. Finally, I thought the “sarcasm” was pretty mild, not personal, and quite entertaining.

W.

[Grovetown]

Buteshire Dragoons anyone?

[tocemma]

Besides,

Nobody has answered my question with any certainty yet.....does anyone know what the 'R' stands for as a prefix to 581? I assume it is Reserve as did TonyE, 4th Gordons thinks rifle number (quite possible pre-war, maybe a square-a#sed unit armoury system, you 'orrible little man you've got bayonet 582 on rifle 581!! etc etc) but it would be nice to know.

As to sarcasm, no, I simply wanted to lighten the mood and question some of the 'advice' being offered. These threads sometimes get a bit self important and as heated as a fakers milling machine.......

Tocemma

[Joe Sweeney]

Besides,

Nobody has answered my question with any certainty yet.....does anyone know what the 'R' stands for as a prefix to 581? I assume it is Reserve as did TonyE, 4th Gordons thinks rifle number (quite possible pre-war, maybe a square-a#sed unit armoury system, you 'orrible little man you've got bayonet 582 on rifle 581!! etc etc) but it would be nice to know.

As to sarcasm, no, I simply wanted to lighten the mood and question some of the 'advice' being offered. These threads sometimes get a bit self important and as heated as a fakers milling machine.......

Tocemma

Tocemma,

Answer to original question:

Source: Instructions for Armourers, 1912.

App. IX-para V. Arms held for Mobilization (For Infantry and A.O.C. Reservists)---Will be marked with Corps marks and consecutive numbers, the latter being preceded by the letter R.

Nice Bayo but not being a specific Bayo collector myself treat them as anyother piece of kit. In fact I would put a priority on shoe laces before a bayonet.

Take care,

Joe Sweeney

[findabetterole]

Tocemma,

Answer to original question:

Source: Instructions for Armourers, 1912.

App. IX-para V. Arms held for Mobilization (For Infantry and A.O.C. Reservists)---Will be marked with Corps marks and consecutive numbers, the latter being preceded by the letter R.

Nice Bayo but not being a specific Bayo collector myself treat them as anyother piece of kit. In fact I would put a priority on shoe laces before a bayonet.

Take care,

Joe Sweeney

Thank you for the closure Joe.. Most appreciated.

Seph