Gunner Bailey Posted 27 May , 2012 Author Share Posted 27 May , 2012 Have you taken the grips off John and had a look at it naked (the bayonet not you). Hi Mick. No the bolts will have to be drilled out. The reverse to the head side looks to have been hammered over the retaining nut. I will try to keep my clothes on whilst I do it! John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 27 May , 2012 Author Share Posted 27 May , 2012 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 Thanks S>S> The history of Newall certainly spans the life of the bayonet. As you can see they have certainly been attached to the bayonet a long time. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 27 May , 2012 Share Posted 27 May , 2012 Well, it was nice to get the experts in and to see all those other stampings! Have to admit I couldn't quite reconcile the apparent excellent period patina with what seemed to be dodgy markings. It was not so much the WSC and the lack of other marks that made me wonder but that '9' - but the first of that set of photo's of 4thGordon's in post no.22 is close enough to suggest what happened - a part-broken die. So, what with all the extra information that you gave in post 23, Gunner, it seems that 'Alls well that ends well'! And congratulations on acquiring a very strange piece. Thataside, following this thread has been a great learning experience so thanks to you all! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 27 May , 2012 Author Share Posted 27 May , 2012 Hi Trajan As a militaria dealer I learn something every day. Either researching stuff I've bought, customer enquiries or even first hand history from veterans in my shop. I think it's a case that the more you learn, you realise how much more you have to learn and that nobody can be an expert on everything. This forum is a fantastic learning tool. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawdoc34 Posted 27 May , 2012 Share Posted 27 May , 2012 Nice looking bayonet, looks to have real age, so suppose it could be original despite the lack of markings Browser is playing up down here, wont let me search for anything other than bookmarked sites, does anyone know when Wilkinson 1st started to use the WSC abbreviation? Cant remember it being used this early or do we just think it was randomly done by some lightfingered employee? Gotta love bayonets like this 1 as they really start great discussions, with loads of different theories being thrown into the mix (might have a french? rifle for you lot to identify on my return home this time) but looks like this 1 will more than likely divide a few collectors on their opinions & end up with the question marks still hanging over it (but saying that I wouldnt mind it myself tho), Nice find anyway Gunner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 27 May , 2012 Share Posted 27 May , 2012 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) Cheers, S>S As you regularly post photographs, would you be so kind as to post a clear photograph of your 1914 Wilkinson's blade ricasso clearly showing that exact same very unusual ' 1907 ' stamping with the misformed ' 9 ' which matches exactly the stamping on John's blade. It would be very helpful. Much obliged. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 27 May , 2012 Author Share Posted 27 May , 2012 Nice looking bayonet, looks to have real age, so suppose it could be original despite the lack of markings Browser is playing up down here, wont let me search for anything other than bookmarked sites, does anyone know when Wilkinson 1st started to use the WSC abbreviation? Cant remember it being used this early or do we just think it was randomly done by some lightfingered employee? Gotta love bayonets like this 1 as they really start great discussions, with loads of different theories being thrown into the mix (might have a french? rifle for you lot to identify on my return home this time) but looks like this 1 will more than likely divide a few collectors on their opinions & end up with the question marks still hanging over it (but saying that I wouldnt mind it myself tho), Nice find anyway Gunner I don't suppose there will be many like this one. It is a strange mix of marks but as S>S showed you can get bayonets with ER stamps dated 1914, varieties of fonts, dodgy dies with bits missing and these bayonets can still be right. This year I handled two Savage made Thompson SMGs. The serial numbers indicated they were made in the same factory probably within a week of each other in 1942. One had a full set of beautiful really clear inspection marks and numbers. The second was almost free of the same marks and those that were there were lightly applied and hard to read. So even in the same factory within a very short period anomalies in production can occur.Nothing surprises me now! John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 27 May , 2012 Share Posted 27 May , 2012 Would you be so kind as to post a clear photograph of your 1914 Wilkinson's blade ricasso clearly showing that exact same very unusual ' 1907 ' stamping with the misformed ' 9 ' which matches exactly the stamping on John's blade ... Alrighty then - seeing as though you asked so very nicely - here is my supporting evidence (and rest assured there is ALWAYS supporting evidence) Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 27 May , 2012 Share Posted 27 May , 2012 And another shot with more light which brings out the strike of the 9 in clearer relief - definitely misformed. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 28 May , 2012 Share Posted 28 May , 2012 And another shot with more light which brings out the strike of the 9 in clearer relief - definitely misformed. Cheers, S>S Many thanks for the follow up photographs, and as I suspected, the date stamp on your Wilkinson bayonet and the maker's name stamp are the typical Wilkinson marks I was expecting to see, and they are completely different to the marks on John's bayonet. The ' 9 ' on your bayonet's stamping is only misformed as it is a light impression, in all other respects it is a normal ' 9 '. If you follow the curvature of the loop at the top of the ' 9 ' on your bayonet, which is still visible despite it being a light stamping, it joins to the tail of the ' 9 ' about half way up the tail in the conventional way, whereas the ' 9 ' on John's bayonet does not. John's is a completely differently formed ' 9 ' with the loop at the top of his ' 9 ' joining onto the tail almost above the very end of the tail on the ' 9 '. These obvious differences are perfectly clear from both of your photographs, and particularly clear from your first photograph when compared to John's photograph of his blade's ricasso. Also, the ' Wilkinson ' stamp on John's bayonet is completely different to that on your's. To say your bayonet's ricasso stampings and John's are exactly the same, is totally incorrect, and anyone with good eyesight and a basic knowledge of bayonets will easily see that. Based on your photographs, I think it is back to the drawing board! No disrepect to John or his purchase, but the stampings on his bayonet are definitely not " right ", and your photographs have certainly confirmed that fact. There is also the addition of the ' WSC ' mark to consider and explain ? Again, many thanks for posting the photographs they were a great help. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 28 May , 2012 Share Posted 28 May , 2012 Here are the 2 ricassos side by side for comparison - day/night - black/white - right/wrong. LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 28 May , 2012 Share Posted 28 May , 2012 This is like "de ja vu" all over again, where you enter an unwinnable argument and then gradually start to get more personal and disrespectful by the minute. Personally I don't care if you think there is something wrong with the bayonet - you may please yourself with your opinion, and others are free to do likewise. I was asked to comment which I have done, and then you asked for a photo which I have supplied. If you can see things that others can't than good for you. There is always slight variation in the imprint of these marks depending on the certain weight that was applied with each strike, with some lighter than others. I never said that the markings were exactly the same - I said that the font of the pattern number was exactly the same. There is a big difference right there.! Upon close inspection of all the markings shown I am happy that they were stamped with the same equipment and round about the same time, give or take. This was what I based my original decision on and I'm happy to stick with it, and I would buy the bayonet no problems at all. Your welcome to your own views. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David B Posted 28 May , 2012 Share Posted 28 May , 2012 SS, How were bayonets originally stamped. Was it a hand held die or a machine stamping ? As far as I am concerned the two fonts are exactly the same with the exception that one stamping is not impressed into the medal as far which can give the feeling that the die used is different. I feel that the 9 for example, on the right hand pic would be exactly the same if the impression was deeper. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 28 May , 2012 Share Posted 28 May , 2012 RGA, I originally thought they were stamped using single digit stamps but looking at the examples I have and the examples shown here I believe they were a double digits so a '10' rather than a 1 and 0 and '14' rather than a 1 and a 4. I haven't tried it with a bayonet blade but I would think it would be quite difficult to hand stamp but the inconsistencies in the impression to seem to indicate a hand stamping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David B Posted 28 May , 2012 Share Posted 28 May , 2012 Mick, I reckon you wouldn't be far wrong. Presume the Wilkinson would have been done in one hit, also the crown is stamped more heavily on the inboard side, probably indicating an off centre hit of the stamp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 28 May , 2012 Share Posted 28 May , 2012 I am busy, busy this a.m, (final exams to mark) and also in the office - otherwise I'd go and check this myself. Doesn't the P1907 have an ever so slightly convex ricasso? The point being that the two WILKINSON stamps that S>S kindly showed have a deeper mark in the centre, i.e., around the -KINS- part, than the rest of the stamp, suggesting a convexity there? Compare with Gunner's example, the one that started this thread, in which the WILK part on the left is more deeply impressed than the rest of the stamp suggesting no convexity. Might not be significant, might be. Also note that - IIRC - Gunner's ricasso has no blueing... It might just be worth a very fine examination under high magnification to see if anything has been removed and the visible stamps have been added. Mind you, I can't really see why a forger would want to produce a copy of a higly desireable bayonet that lacked the otherwise regular marks - inspection, bend-mark, date of issue - while it does seem to have a good pedigree and provenance. Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 28 May , 2012 Author Share Posted 28 May , 2012 LF I think you are wrong. Wilkinsons stampings are notoriously different almost every time. The word WILKINSON always varies in depth, quality and evenness. In this case the crown and 1907 are as identical as you can get with S>S's 1914 bayonet taking into account, same or different die, different inspector and any other variable you can think of. The stamps are clearly Wilkinson and I would not have bought it if I suspected otherwise. I never thought this a fake just a strangely marked example. I'm not sure of the life of a die but with the volumes of bayonets made in WW1 they clearly would have had to be replaced quite regularly. RGA - you are right about uneven hits. This seems to be a Wilkinson speciality with other makers seemingly doing it better. I've attached another photo, slightly angled for the light. LF - can you fake that age on the blade? John Mind you, I can't really see why a forger would want to produce a copy of a higly desireable bayonet that lacked the otherwise regular marks - inspection, bend-mark, date of issue - while it does seem to have a good pedigree and provenance. Trajan Totally agree - spot on. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ogilwy Posted 28 May , 2012 Share Posted 28 May , 2012 Gent's, I have a Good Wilkinson and also a WWII (much converted) 07 Pattern, but would love a Hooked Quillion. I'm so glad you are all here because I'm starting to learn the detail I should have know before I purchased the other two! S>S, I'm glad you think this is Ok, I would have bought it, but now know I have to be far more cautious. could one of you learned Gentlemen advise me as to what sort of price I should be looking at paying. I have a nice two sword or bayonette stand on my desk at home and I would like to replace the WWII one with a better WWI example. I toyed with getting a Gewehr 98 one (as I'm purchasing an SMLE and 98 to shoot soon). Advice is appreciated. Regards, Rod P.S. When I get home at the weeks end I shall put a couple of Pic's up of my two for comment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 28 May , 2012 Share Posted 28 May , 2012 LF I think you are wrong. John John, I am pleased that you are pleased with your purchase, and that is all that really matters as it was your money that paid for it. Hopefully, you did not pay too much for it. Your common sense and knowledge of militaria, will tell you that this bayonet cannot be described as " right ", the very questionable ricasso markings, the lack of a Bend Test Mark, and or Inspector's Marks, the inclusion of the " WSC " stamp in addition to Wilkinson Maker's Mark stamp, the grip bolts, etc. etc. At best, it could possibly be some kind of unknown factory sample, at worst a fake, and yes, fakers can very successfully artificially age blades. In Skennerton & Richardson's book British and Commonwealth Bayonets there is a whole section on faked bayonets. I was hoping that shipping steel's claim that his bayonet had the same markings was correct, and that may have opened the door to your bayonet being a factory sample, unfortunately, his bayonet ricasso stampings are completely different to yours, and that is plain to see. Personally, I will stick with my assessment that the markings on your bayonet are not " right " and are highly suspect. As always " Caveat Emptor ". LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 28 May , 2012 Share Posted 28 May , 2012 This is like "de ja vu" all over again, Cheers, S>S Yes, very much " de ja vu ". With you having appointed yourself the Forum's all knowing expert on all things bayonet, it is now extremely hard for you to ever admit you are wrong. When shipping steel pontificates his infallible opinion, then nobody should dare challenge that opinion. Sorry to burst your bubble, but on this one you are wrong, wrong, wrong. As far as your opinion is concerned, either you do not know anywhere near as much about bayonets as you pretend to know, or you have been spending too much time alone in the outback, or both. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 28 May , 2012 Share Posted 28 May , 2012 Come on now gents! I don't think anyone has appointed themselves the expert on these things and there is always room for discussion and - more importantly - dissention. I can see what S>S is getting it but yes, its not an exact match, which is what LF is getting at. BUT the photo's we have on this thread do show the range of variation in stamps - Wilkinson and dates (and I know also from experience that because of the manufacturing process no two Roman coins are exactly identical because of slight differences in dies, or wrong die alignment, etc., so I can see something similar being the case with the Wilkinson and the 1907 stamp here). I freely admit to being pretty ignorant on bayonets, and only have one Wilkinson (and that's an 1888!), so I don't have a lot to say on this - but the photo's being put up here are greatly improving my learning! And make it possible for us all to come to some opinion... That aside, I admit,there are things that trouble me about this one (the lack of certain markings, the WSC) and things that don't bother me (the patina, the lack of an oil hole). I would have bought it but never been quite sure about it - until I had a chance to do an X-ray of the quillion to be certain is not an addition. Even then I would wonder what the heck it represents! But when all is said and done, even w/out the X-ray, I would be be more in favour of it being the real thing (no matter how odd it seems) precisely because those marks are 'not right'. As I said before, why go to the (relative) expense of making a pretty good looking fake only to screw up but not putting appropriate markings on it? So, let's all calm down a bit, accept that it is an odd one - but for what its worth, IMHO, on balance,,it is more likley to be authentic than not. Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 28 May , 2012 Author Share Posted 28 May , 2012 LF You have every right to your opinion and every right to be wrong as well. In this case I think you have been impolite to S>S without justification. I greatly respect his knowledge in this subject area. To stop this becoming a needless slanging match I'll ask a mod to close the thread. Thanks to all who contributed. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts