shippingsteel Posted 2 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 2 January , 2012 S/S, thanks again for the info mate, here is a pic of the ricasso marking, like I said its looks the same as the communist yugoslav markings on M1948 bayonets minus the 44 Yeah I recognized the partial marking in the earlier photo once I zoomed in on the ricasso. It says "Preduzece" in the Serbian cyrillic writing and was a prominent Yugo arsenal. The finial tip on the scabbard also looks very Yugo style, while the Persian scabbards came with the frog loops attached. The Persians also used Mausers with M1924 bayonets. I still don't think its in its original condition but thats the background framework for it I believe. Maybe 'bubba' swapped out the alloy grips from his old Argie Mauser bayo (M1891).? Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 10 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 10 January , 2012 When I acquired this dirty old bayonet this morning, I thought that it might be a good candidate for this thread - showing just what can slip past without some close inspection. Anyone interested in doing the honours, and identifying this bayonet for me from the photos.? A fair bit of its history can also be determined from the markings, as we go along. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 10 January , 2012 Share Posted 10 January , 2012 Hi S/S - I'm afraid I can't see the markings properly but it appears to be a pre-1915 p1907 without clearance hole and possibly with quillon removed? Looks to have had some serious sharpening on the blade and the grips appear to have been changed (from the screw position). What does the marking on the crossguard read? It doesn't look to have enough digits to be an Australian marking... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 11 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 11 January , 2012 Good work so far - the lack of a serial on the pommel also tells us it's not an early Lithgow, while the broad arrow on the ricasso says it's most likely British made (perhaps US) Here is the next photo. It looks to be V36 stamped on the crossguard - you should also nearly be able to tell who the maker was from these inspection markings ... any ideas.? Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 11 January , 2012 Share Posted 11 January , 2012 Is that a Birmingham inspection mark? I have only ever seen Enfield one's in the flesh and it doesn't seem to be one of those (in office, so can't check!) Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 11 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 11 January , 2012 Is that a Birmingham inspection mark? I have only ever seen Enfield one's in the flesh and it doesn't seem to be one of those ... How about a closeup showing the right way up - that might help.? The giveaway here is the small font inspection stamp in the blue box - this was only done at Enfield (EFD 54) Meanwhile the V36 stamped on the crossguard is THE clincher for this bayonet. It denotes early Australian use, with the V standing for Victoria before the MD markings came in. This is extremely important from my own collecting perspective, as its the earlier pre-war equipment that the Aussie boys shipped out with and took with them into the initial battles. I have a couple of these type bayonets marked with the prefix letter and usually followed by a 4 digit serial number, but you don't get much better than a number 36 in the serial run.! Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 11 January , 2012 Share Posted 11 January , 2012 Wow - impressive find! I didn't actually know about this marking system (ie the V36 marking) - presumably the other states used similar marks? I had always just assumed that the earliest Australian bayonets were unmarked. When was the MDxxxx system introduced? Anyway a very impressive find, and a very informative post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 11 January , 2012 Share Posted 11 January , 2012 And a double WOW from me as well on that one! Thanks S>S for all these quite invaluable tipis as to what to look for! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 11 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 11 January , 2012 And here is the other ricasso which confirms it is an early Enfield made hook quillon removed version, its a bit dirty looking but those markings are just so crisp.! You can just see the evidence of the removal in the earlier photos, they did quite a tidy job of it. I have actually seen bayonets from this very batch still with the hooks on. Prior to the setting up of the Lithgow factory in Australia, the government was sourcing numbers of rifles and bayonets from Britain with which to arm the local troops. These bayonets were from the various makers, and all had been stamped with the 'sold out of service' conjoined arrows on the pommel, when leaving the British stores. For me these are like the 'holy grail' of bayonet collecting as these are the true examples that first went off to war, and the removal of the quillon proves they stuck around. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 11 January , 2012 Share Posted 11 January , 2012 Well I have definitely learned something today. Great find. I have been neglecting the Commonwealth bayonets a little lately but this has inspired me to get back into that field and boost my knowledge a little. Being Australian I agree that this is probably the ultimate find (well maybe it would be improved by having a hooked quillon and marked to NSW!), but the sheer price of most Lithgows scares me off a little. What state's markings have you seen in this format (ie with the V36 as opposed to the MDxxxx)? I really think that markings (whether the Australian MD markings or UK/ German regimental markings) make a bayonet, as it gives a lot more certainty as to where the bayonet may have been used. For example, the thought that the 1888 bayonet I posted the other day may have been used by the 4th York & Lancs (Hallamshire Bttn) at Ypres in 1915 or even as part of the follow up wave at the Somme on 1 July 1916 is fascinating (although I appreciate this may not have been the case as well...). I suspect these must have been used quite widely given the number of them Ive seen in photos, and the large pile of rusty relic1888s I saw for sale last time I visited Ieper! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 11 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 11 January , 2012 The markings on the early Australian bayonets are somewhat shrouded in mystery as to when and why they were marked, there doesn't seem to be any records surviving. All we have to go on is the evidence thats left in the articles themselves, and even then it can be confusing when you get later era markings put on the earlier bayonets. Its an area that I tend to focus on, and even so all I have to go on is what I have seen and what I have collected. (I have spoken to Skennerton on this and he has nothing) I have another V prefix example on a '09 Sanderson and it is marked V8951, so simply from that combined information you could deduce they were marked just pre-war. As for the other states, I have only ever seen the N for New South Wales together with the serial number, but that's not to say there are not other examples still out there. For me personally, these particular bayonets are especially important, more so than any later dated Lithgow (with or without hook) as to me these have a special history. Finding these original bayonets in any sort of condition is a very rare event, and I'll certainly be taking great pleasure in returning this one home for some careful restoration. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 12 January , 2012 Share Posted 12 January , 2012 If Skennerton has nothing then I think we can safely assume these a fairly rare markings, and as you say these bayonets are likely to have been used at the start of WW1 - fascinating to think these may have been used at Gallipoli, Fromelles and/ or Pozieres... I will definitely be keeping my eyes open for examples and will let you know if I find any (although I highly doubt it!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 12 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 12 January , 2012 If Skennerton has nothing then I think we can safely assume these a fairly rare markings, and as you say these bayonets are likely to have been used at the start of WW1 ... He knows about the bayonets, but apparently has no specific details as to the background of the early markings, or the exact timelines when they may have been marked. The following paragraph from his book "British & Commonwealth Bayonets", page 274. - "When the Patt. 1907 bayonet and Mk III (SMLE) rifle were (first) made in England, sizeable quantities were purchased by Australia and many of the bayonets in service with the Australians during the Great War were of British manufacture." This is why I always have a quiet laugh to myself when I see people paying the most exorbidant sums at auction, for those "historical Gallipoli bayonet" Lithgow hookies.! While the hookies are very nice and are of high monetary value to collectors, the chances are it is these very humble early HQR versions that made history with the Anzacs. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 14 January , 2012 Share Posted 14 January , 2012 S/S - further to your earlier post I thought I might put up some photos of a bayonet I was recently given by my brother (very kind of him!) Whilst the connection to WW1 is tenuous to say the least, it is an early Australian bayonet... any ideas of type/ maker and date?! No Skennerton to be used in answering this question! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garron Posted 14 January , 2012 Share Posted 14 January , 2012 I think thats a Alexander Henry bayonet, Here is some info about the rifle...the bayonet I'll leave to S>S, http://www.militaryrifles.com/Australia/AlexHen.htm Gaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawdoc34 Posted 14 January , 2012 Share Posted 14 January , 2012 Looks like a P1875 artillery bayonet & nice scabbard, looks like its the Weyersberg (kings head makers mark), Brits used them on the MH carbines but not sure what the Aussies used them on. Could be wrong as usual but real nice bayo anyway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 14 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 14 January , 2012 Thats a beauty JS, wish I had brothers like that.! This is a little outside my collecting niche but it looks like the lads are all over it anyway, this LINK may be of interest. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 15 January , 2012 Share Posted 15 January , 2012 Yes absolutely spot on guys. It has quite a hefty sawback on it too. From some research I did at the time (and which I need to dig up) I believe that it was most likely used by the NSW military prior to federation (I understand that these all had the squared off scabbard and often had AA markings). And yes I agree it was very generous of my brother, Ill have to find some way to repay him...! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 18 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 18 January , 2012 This follows on from our previous discussion regarding the early Australian markings, and the lack of any real "go to" reference concerning the dating of these marks. So in the absence of any available documentation about when they may have first started marking the Australian kit, I have decided that some research may be in order. I have some idea of how it all worked just from past experience, but have never really put any of that information down in a form that could help to develop a clearer picture. In line with what I have been doing with the Turkish bayonets, I have set out to collect some hard data not only from my collection but also from sources such as the AWM. Who better to have the marked equipment in its 'period format' than the AWM.? This effectively removes the problem of later date markings being applied to earlier examples. So just from a quick glance through the AWM's collection of Australian marked (and wartime dated) SMLE's and P1907 bayonets I have managed to find about 20 markings. The SMLE rifles usually had the markings placed on the breech or stamped into the buttstock, while the scabbards were done on the rim, and the bayonets on the crossguard. So I'm going to incorporate this info with what I've already got on my own stuff, and start to put it all down in a spreadsheet. And as we go along something useful may emerge.! Here is an example of what this sort of information can provide us, with a little research. The markings can help to 'place' an item as possibly being in use during a certain period. In this case we have a Lithgow made SMLE rifle made in 1917 and stamped with 3MD 49011 (HERE) being used in the frontline by Australian troops during 1918 at Morlancourt. This type of information can be invaluable as it gives us a guide as to when the markings were stamped. What if we found a Lithgow bayonet that's made in 1917 (as shown below).? With just the date to work with its very hard to say anything about the bayonet, like whether it saw service during the GW, or whether it was simply left in stores to emerge for WW2. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 18 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 18 January , 2012 This type of information can be invaluable as it gives us a guide as to when the markings were stamped. What if we found a Lithgow bayonet that's made in 1917 (as shown below).? With just the date to work with its very hard to say anything about the bayonet, like whether it saw service during the GW, or whether it was simply left in stores to emerge for WW2. But if we find the bayonet is marked with the Australian ownership serial numbers, than at least we have a point of reference to try and establish a little more about its service history. With this particular bayonet having Victorian marks of 3MD 47515 on the crossguard, when combined with the 1917 date and the above info, we can tentatively 'place' the item in France. This little piece of research shows that the Lithgow made equipment was being marked with the Victorian Military District stamps, before being shipped out with the replacement troops. Which makes complete sense as each individual Reinforcement for the state-based Battalions serving in France would have needed to be appropriately armed before leaving Australia. So once again, it always comes down to the markings.! And who knows, some of that dirt still in those grip-screw slots may have been acquired during a short trip to the north of France.! Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 19 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 19 January , 2012 What state's markings have you seen in this format (ie with the V36 as opposed to the MDxxxx)? Here is another example of a pre-war dated hooked quillon bayonet being marked with the early Australian district markings - this one with the Q mark for Queensland. I only just came across this one today, which reminds me that I have also seen ones marked for South Australia like this, with the SA stamped up there on the pommel. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 19 January , 2012 Share Posted 19 January , 2012 Great thread S>S, I will be very interested to see the results of your research. I've often wondered how likely it was that 1917 era Lithgows would have made it to France - and this seems like fairy persuasive evidence that they did. I will keep my eye out for any of these markings and will post photos of any I find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 19 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 19 January , 2012 Yes it's interesting to find that the AWM was very active in collecting material for the 'still to be made' War Museum towards the end of the war, and even more so soon after. A party of official historians went back to Gallipoli in 1919, and went over the battlefields picking up quite a large amount of equipment to record and preserve for the future. The information found on this material leaves absolutely no doubt as to what equipment was being used at the time, and for me it makes for some quite absorbing reading. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 22 January , 2012 Author Share Posted 22 January , 2012 What's wrong with this picture.? Anyone have any thoughts or explanations as to the markings on this.? Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 22 January , 2012 Share Posted 22 January , 2012 Ostensibly made December 1914... Well for starters, weren't hooked quillions dropped (as it were!) in late 1913? But even more intriguing is what seems to be an ER stamp under the crown: Edward VII died 1910, and George V was king in 1914... Can't help but wonder if the 12 14 date is a delayed proof/inspection/issue mark? Have to admit I have sometimes wondered if the month/year stamp might actually be the date of issue rather than date of manufacture. So this was perhaps made pre-1910, and only stamped when tested/issued? Or is it a really badly-researched fake!!! OK, what have I missed and where am I wrong???!!! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts