Gunner Bailey Posted 26 May , 2012 Share Posted 26 May , 2012 I bought this bayonet today which is quite interesting. 1907 Hookie where the blade is marked by Wlikinsons but has not been through Army checks and no date. No Bend test or inspectors marks either. The wood is original but the two screws have been replaced with small bolts marked Newall HT. Obviously not correct. I'm wondering if this was destined for export or army use but 'diverted' to someone's home? Comments appreciated. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 26 May , 2012 Author Share Posted 26 May , 2012 Another photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 26 May , 2012 Share Posted 26 May , 2012 My first thought was lucky you! The real expert(s) will be along later, but GR means George V so it's after 1910, but I have not seen such a pattern stamp before, with the 9 lacking the closing of the loop, although the 7 with its tail on the top left is found on Aussie P 1907 bayonets Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 26 May , 2012 Author Share Posted 26 May , 2012 Yes it's an odd one. The other side of the bayonet adds to the mystery for me. The whole thing looks right regarding patina, no dodgy joints etc. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 26 May , 2012 Share Posted 26 May , 2012 Well that makes it even odder as that is - one would think - 'Wilkinson Sword Company'... Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 26 May , 2012 Share Posted 26 May , 2012 Apparently there is a Chinese factory producing what might be charitably called reproduction bayonets in large numbers. It seems that some have the crown and GR but are dated 1907. Is it possible that you have one of these? It would explain the bolts instead of screws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 26 May , 2012 Author Share Posted 26 May , 2012 No this is not repro. It has age and is an odd one. There is no oil hole. The join between the crossguard and the ricasso bears up under the magnifyer. There are years of minor corrosion there. The woodwork looks exactly like a WW1 bayonet should. There is minor corrosion around the pommel which looks right for a WW1 bayonet that has not been well cared for. The bolts look very old and have been in place for many years. Using incorrectly named bolts is not the mark of a forger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 26 May , 2012 Share Posted 26 May , 2012 So GR and 1907 are odd coincidences then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wainfleet Posted 26 May , 2012 Share Posted 26 May , 2012 All pattern 1907 bayonets are marked 1907. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
centurion Posted 26 May , 2012 Share Posted 26 May , 2012 All pattern 1907 bayonets are marked 1907. I thought it was the date of issue and not the model - I have heard of pattern 1907 with an ER stamp and a 1911 date Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 26 May , 2012 Author Share Posted 26 May , 2012 1907 is the model. They are normally dated thus 5 14 or the like. As I said this bayonet has no date, bend test or inspectors marks. I hope SS gets a look at this thread. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 26 May , 2012 Share Posted 26 May , 2012 (edited) Some WWII produced 1907s have a WSC mark (others have their manufacturer code) but the typface doesn't look like this. As noted: No acceptance mark (broad arrow) No bend test (X) No issue date/reissue date No inspectors' marks Is there anything on the pommel? (the picture is so dark I cannot tell but I am assuming that it does not have a clearance hole? - Edit - ok you mentioned this....sorry) I am not sure what to make of this to be honest - the patina looks good (insofar as it can be told from a picture) Perhaps a pre-production example? or as you suggested one diverted home from the line? Interesting. Chris There is something different about the crown/date stamp on there but I can't put my finger on it...not sure if it is the size, the proportions ....the design of the crown..... just something niggling. Off to examine my Wilkinsons - I do not have a hookie but I have a couple of early examples with quillons removed (one ER marked from '09) Edited 26 May , 2012 by 4thGordons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 26 May , 2012 Author Share Posted 26 May , 2012 HI Chris No, the Pommel is plain and there's no oil hole. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 26 May , 2012 Author Share Posted 26 May , 2012 Well that makes it even odder as that is - one would think - 'Wilkinson Sword Company'... Trajan I have owned bayonets marked Wilkinsons Pall Mall, which was the sword works I believe. They have not had WSC on them. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 26 May , 2012 Share Posted 26 May , 2012 I bought this bayonet today which is quite interesting. Comments appreciated. John John, I am very apprehensive as to the markings on this bayonet, with ' WSC ' ( for Wilkinson Sword Company ) being more usual on WW2 items. Also having shown the full maker's name ' Wilkinson ' on one side of the blade ricasso, why also show the maker's initials ' WSC ' on the other side of the blade ricasso Also the lack of a bend test mark, and the lack of inspector's marks is very worrying. Attached are the front and reverse of a Wilkinson Hooked Quillion Bayonet from my Collection. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 26 May , 2012 Share Posted 26 May , 2012 John, We all share the same WW1 interests, and members seem genuinely interested in providing the very best information to their fellow members. Having taken a long hard look at your bayonet and it's markings, and based on my collecting experiences both good and bad, and noting that you only bought the item today, and assuming that this bayonet was not cheap ? my very best and sincere advice would be to return the item for a full refund, and wait until another Hooked Quillion comes along that is fully and properly marked. My strong suspicion is that the marks on this bayonet are false and a forgery, which will greatly impact it's resale value down the line. If it was dirt cheap, and I mean very cheap, then you may want to keep it as a wall hanger and for future reference. Sorry I did not have a better opinion, but you need to know, just in case you paid a lot for it. Kind regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 26 May , 2012 Share Posted 26 May , 2012 John, For future reference, here are the fronts and backs of an Enfield ( EFD ) Hooked Quillion and a J. Chapman ( JAC ) Hooked Quillion from my Collection. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 26 May , 2012 Share Posted 26 May , 2012 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 27 May , 2012 Share Posted 27 May , 2012 I think LancashireF has best expressed the doubts that I and I suspect others would share about this one. I would only add to his comments that the shape of that 9 in 1907 is something that I would also consider a worrying feature. Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 27 May , 2012 Share Posted 27 May , 2012 I think LancashireF has best expressed the doubts that I and I suspect others would share about this one. I would only add to his comments that the shape of that 9 in 1907 is something that I would also consider a worrying feature. Trajan Agreed, another major red flag, which unfortunately clearly points to a forged and spurious mark. LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 27 May , 2012 Share Posted 27 May , 2012 Well that is a VERY strange one indeed.! And like most of the comment so far, my first impressions were immediately that those markings had been "fudged".? But then visually from the first overall photo there was nothing that really jumped out and said WRONG, so off I went to locate all my early Wilkinson examples. I've got two of the ER cypher Wilkinsons in my drawer, a hookie and a HQR version, and both happen to be quite later marked with an early '12 and a late '14. Both of these show markings that had absolutely nothing in common with the example in the OP leading me to think that "yes thats right this ones been pimped". I was always of the mind that the bayonet 'looked right' (from the very few photos that I could see) but that the markings were dodgy, especially with that WSC.! So then just before I was about to post, I remembered I also had some early standard P1907s from Wilkinson (the GR bugged me and needed to be checked out) My database said I had both a '14 and '15 Wilkinson somewhere which could be dug out, and then lo and behold the ricasso markings on the 1914 are a match.!! The style of Crown and GR stamp were similar and that unusual Pattern number font was exactly the same.! (However the '15 dated example was different again) Just goes to show that things do change over time, and sometimes stranger things can happen ... my Wilkinson ER hookie with the 1914 date is a classic example. Anyway, so I personally believe this bayonet is RIGHT and the markings are correct for the early GR period, that just leaves the WSC marking open to speculation. I do think this example could be just a "production sample" that was never offered for inspection and testing etc. Hence lack of markings and factory 'WSC' added.? Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 27 May , 2012 Share Posted 27 May , 2012 I hope you can post pictures of that 1914 S>S. I only have a couple of Wilkinsons and none of them particularly special, but they do exhibit some variation in marking 1909 ER 1917 Wilkinson 1917 Wilkinson Pall Mall WWII Wilkinson with WSC and Manufacturer Code Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 27 May , 2012 Author Share Posted 27 May , 2012 Thanks LF for the time you took to reply. I did share your concerns, but the physical evidence of the bayonet only suggests it's old. The source of this bayonet was honest and is in fact an elderly housebound gentleman. Not your normal faker or seller of Chinese bayonets. The patina is exactly right for a 100 year old bayonet. The question marks surround the factory applied markings but they too look right. The WSC being the odd one out - timewise. The normal unevenly stamped Wilkinson name looks right as does the crown. The fact that the crossguard is a perfect fit without any sign of alteration or change to patina shows this to be original too. Thanks S>S. I value your views on any bayonet and had you had said it was fake I'd have accepted it. To me the addition of WSC and the lack of British test markings and a date indicate this was either a manufacturers sample, or perhaps was taken from the factory and went home with one of the workers. I'm now wondering whether this may have been one of the last hooked quillions made in 1914/15 and when the spec changed just stayed in the factory as a sample or even in a managers desk. Later on it someone added WSC and it then went home. I can't explain the bolts but they too are clearly very old. If only these things could speak and tell us how they have spent the last 100 years! It's clear this bayonet never saw service. It's an oddity but a nice one too. I'm even thinking of leaving the odd bolts in as they are a part of its story too. Thanks Gentlemen, for all your views - John P.S - A photo of one of the bolts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 27 May , 2012 Share Posted 27 May , 2012 Have you taken the grips off John and had a look at it naked (the bayonet not you). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 27 May , 2012 Share Posted 27 May , 2012 I can't explain the bolts but they too are clearly very old ... I would ditch the bolts as they are obviously incorrect, does make you wonder why they were needed in the first place though (ie. replacing originals.?) This link HERE might go some way to explaining the source of the 'ringer' bolts. I wonder when High Tensile steel bolts were first developed (eg. HT.?) Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts