Waggoner Posted 11 July , 2012 Share Posted 11 July , 2012 For those of us who are intereted in bayonets, this eBay offering will be of interest - http://www.ebay.ca/itm/390438496510?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649 . I have no financial interest in this auction. It will be interesting to see what it sells for. All the best, Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 11 July , 2012 Share Posted 11 July , 2012 I don't know much about hooked 1907's but this one looks a bit off to me. A blow up of the crossguard and quillion indicates a rather unnatural curve there; those ricasso stamps need to be a bit clearer - could be a '1910', could be a '1919'; the grips are the wrong wood; the blueing, at an angle to the ricasso, seems strange. And the price is low for a real hookie! I would - if interested, which I am not - certainly demand better photo's of the quillion and ricassoes before going any further with this one, I have no doubt that LF, S>S, 4thG, JScott, and others, will add comments, and look forward to those. Always happy to be corrected! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 11 July , 2012 Share Posted 11 July , 2012 It was the run in to the ricasso that made me question the one posted by SS, I'm no expert either and it might cost us a bargain but my gut feeling is no. I look forward to their responses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HLI Posted 11 July , 2012 Share Posted 11 July , 2012 Hello, The Martini Metford bayonet was being discussed on the VWF forum, and I noticed the quillon for auction by the same vendor and Gary directed me here to your discussion. I was impressed that it was marked QP for Queensland Police but didn't look deeper as its not a field that appeals to me, other than to note I know it would generate some interest here. I take your points, the hook is rather odd and exactly he point at which it would be attached to a later issue bayonet. It could well be an attempt at 'restoration' at a bayonet that had its hook removed perhaps. Be very interested in comments. Robert Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smleenfield Posted 12 July , 2012 Share Posted 12 July , 2012 Here is where the quillion is attached. The metal does look like it is from two different sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 12 July , 2012 Share Posted 12 July , 2012 Enfield made hook quillions frequently show the hilt blueing shading down from the ricasso as illustrated, so that is okay. (Have a look at the dust cover of British & Commonwealth Bayonets by Skennerton for another example). I don't see anything wrong with the wood of the grips nor the shape of the quillion. The inspection date appears to be November 1912, correct viewers stamps on the ricasso. Unusual double strike of the bending mark. The scabbard is blackened and shows late war style of rivetting, so is clearly not the original. If I was going to put a bid in I would ask for more and sharper focussed pictures, however. - SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waggoner Posted 12 July , 2012 Author Share Posted 12 July , 2012 I have been following this discussion with interest as I do like WWI period bayonets. Apparently others are not troubled by the quirks that have been mentioned here as the bidding is over $1000 (USD) with two day left to go. i would suggest that it is well on its way to making the usual price for one of these. All the best, Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 12 July , 2012 Share Posted 12 July , 2012 I really don't know - not without better piccies. BUT look back at the blow up in post no.2 and note post no. 4 comment - 'the hook is rather odd and exactly [at t]he point at which it would be attached to a later issue bayonet.' All I can say is that if anyone buys it w/o having seen better photo's beforehand, then, well, don't complain if it is not what it seems... On which note, I see that vendor is still using the original photo's, and if any knowledgeable collector was bidding for this item then I would have expected to see better photo's to have appeared by now.... Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 12 July , 2012 Share Posted 12 July , 2012 For those of us who are intereted in bayonets, this eBay offering will be of interest - http://www.ebay.ca/i...984.m1423.l2649 . I have no financial interest in this auction. It will be interesting to see what it sells for. All the best, Gary Gary, For comparision, here are 4 examples of Hooked Quillion bayonets from my Collection, 2 Enfields, a Chapman and a Wilkinson. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 12 July , 2012 Share Posted 12 July , 2012 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Waggoner Posted 12 July , 2012 Author Share Posted 12 July , 2012 LF, Thank you for the two images. I should dig mine out of deep storage to see how it compares. All the best, Gary Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon127 Posted 12 July , 2012 Share Posted 12 July , 2012 I hope nobody will object too strongly to my hijacking this interesting thread with a semi- related question (didn't seem worth starting a new one) : does anyone know when the EFD mark ceased to be used? I don't recall seeing in on too many WW2 era SMLE bayonets but that's probably due to the fact that I'm not too keen on WW2 stuff and haven't been looking hard enough! thanks, Simon PS: LF - those are some fine looking hookies you have there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 12 July , 2012 Share Posted 12 July , 2012 I hope nobody will object too strongly to my hijacking this interesting thread with a semi- related question (didn't seem worth starting a new one) : does anyone know when the EFD mark ceased to be used? I don't recall seeing in on too many WW2 era SMLE bayonets but that's probably due to the fact that I'm not too keen on WW2 stuff and haven't been looking hard enough! thanks, Simon PS: LF - those are some fine looking hookies you have there. Simon, I am pleased you liked my bayonets. Enfield were still producing bayonets, including the No.9 Socket Bayonet, between 1949 - 1962, during which time they made 376,902 No.9's. Those No.9 bayonets, carried a ' ED ' mark for Enfield, plus the last 2 numbers of the year date i.e ED - 51. After that, Enfield produced L1A1, L1A3 and L3A1 bayonets, probably into the 1970's/80's. It is likely that the last time the ' EFD ' code was used, was on re-issued 1907 bayonets used during WW2. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon127 Posted 12 July , 2012 Share Posted 12 July , 2012 Ah thanks for that bit of info LF. When you refer to re-issued 1907 bayonets, those would presumably be ones made during or in the years soon after WW1? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 12 July , 2012 Share Posted 12 July , 2012 Ah thanks for that bit of info LF. When you refer to re-issued 1907 bayonets, those would presumably be ones made during or in the years soon after WW1? Simon, In the 1920's various announced List of Changes were made relating to the Pattern 1907 bayonet, its blade and its scabbard. Including in 1926 the dropping of the word ' Sword ' from ' Sword Bayonet ', after which time the official nomenclature was just ' Bayonet '. In late October 1924, a report was submitted on the then current Pattern 1907 Bayonet along with recommendations for a " shorter, stiffer and consequently stronger bayonet " which resulted in trials of the spiked bayonet, and the Enfield No.4 Mk.I in the early 1930's. The Bayonet No.4 Mk.I was officially approved on 15th November 1939, and was announced in the List of Changes of June 1941, with the Scottish firm of Singer getting the initial contract of 75,000 No.4 Mk.I bayonets. Between September 1941 and December 1944, Singer of Clydebank produced 75,000 No.4 Mk.I and 1,141,782 No.4 Mk.II spiked bayonets. WW1 Pattern 1907 bayonets were also refurbished, re-dated and re-issued during WW2. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 12 July , 2012 Share Posted 12 July , 2012 By WWII (actually in 1926) what had been the Pattern 1907 became the Bayonet No 1 (the Pattern 13 became the Bayonet No3 and the spike the No4) as LF says. Just to add to LF's post; New No1 Bayonets were produced during WWII but the only manufacturer of the Bayonet No1 at this time was Wilkinson, although as LF points out others were refurbished. Between 1936 and the end of the war Wilkinson had received contracts for 129, 507 new bayonets (Skennerton, British Small Arms of WW2) a good number of these bayonets went to the Admiralty for the Lanchester SMG Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon127 Posted 12 July , 2012 Share Posted 12 July , 2012 Thank you gent for your detailed info. The reason I am so keen to find out about the EFD stamping date range is that I am trying get a rough idea of the period of a 1868 Pattern Lance head that bears a broad arrow (with curved outer 'legs' as typically found with the EFD mark), EFD stamp and Enfield inspection stamp. As these were made long after WW1 (for ceremonial purposes) it's difficult to know for certain whether it's WW1 era. Although I'd very much like to think so! S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 12 July , 2012 Share Posted 12 July , 2012 Simon, I am not sure of the last issue date or re-issue date that appeared on a Pattern 1907 Bayonet, perhaps other members have examples of late dated examples. I did however find a reference to a War Office memo dated 25th June 1919, requiring Pattern 1907 Bayonet blades to again be polished. The memo states " please arrange for the sandblasting of repaired and new bayonets, if any, to cease as early as possible, and for the blades in future to be polished ". The reference to new bayonets as being " if any ", possibly indicates production of new Pattern 1907 Bayonets had all but ceased by mid-1919? Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 12 July , 2012 Share Posted 12 July , 2012 Following on from Chris' important reminder regarding the Admiralty Contract for the Lanchester SMG No.I Mk.I Bayonet, which is critical, in that the No.I Mk.I was identical to the Pattern 1907 except for its often blackend finish, and although the blade ricasso is stamped with the Pattern date of ' 1907 ' those made during WW2 also carry the Wilkinson Maker's wartime code of S294, and the Wilkinson initials ' WSC '. Between 15 July, 1941 and 15 October 1943, Wilkinson produced some 122,307 No.I Mk.I bayonets. 34,707 in 1941 and 87,600 in 1943. Based on Chris' post, we now know that technically, the last manufacture dates on a bayonet carrying the 1907 Pattern date on the blade is actually 1941-1945. Although in reality, they were officially two completely different bayonets, the Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet, and the No.I Mk.1 Bayonet, Admiralty Contract. LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 12 July , 2012 Share Posted 12 July , 2012 Ricasso marking on the No.I Mk.I Bayonet - Admiralty Contract - Lanchester SMG. Wilkinson ( S294 ) WSC - manufactured 2 44 ( February 1944 ) with ' Pattern 1907 ' blackened blade. LF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 12 July , 2012 Share Posted 12 July , 2012 Based on Chris' post, we now know that technically, the last manufacture date on a bayonet carrying the 1907 Pattern date on the blade is actually 1943. Hmmmm well perhaps .. I know we are talking about the UK really -- but they continued to produce P1907 (renamed No1MkI post 1926 there too) in Australia throughout WWII. In India too (although production gradually switched to the shorter variants) P.1907s carrying the pattern date continued to be produced at least as late as in the UK and probably later (although there appear to be few available records on Indian small arms production post 1947) Chris Edit: LF - looking at Skennerton (Small Arms WW2) p65 where he lists the contracts the 1941 Admiralty contract (1/9/- per!) it specifies sandblasted blades but both it and the 1943 contract list the bayonet only as Bayonet No1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 12 July , 2012 Share Posted 12 July , 2012 Edit: LF - looking at Skennerton (Small Arms WW2) p65 where he lists the contracts the 1941 Admiralty contract (1/9/- per!) it specifies sandblasted blades but both it and the 1943 contract list the bayonet only as Bayonet No1. Chris, I do not have that book, I only have Skennerton and Richardson. Page 231 lists the bayonet as No.I Mk.I Bayonet, Admiralty Contract. The price per bayonet is also quoted as 1 pound 9 shillings each! ( love those prices ) Today, they are 225 pounds each! and very scarce. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 12 July , 2012 Share Posted 12 July , 2012 Chris, I do not have that book, I only have Skennerton and Richardson. Page 231 lists the bayonet as No.I Mk.I Bayonet, Admiralty Contract. The price per bayonet is also quoted as 1 pound 9 shillings each! ( love those prices ) Today, they are 225 pounds each! and very scarce. Regards, LF Gotcha - but it is actually No1 MkI (Arabic numeral for model, Roman numeral for mark as usual practice) but on the previous page (p230) the contract is listed as "Bayonet No1, Blackened finish!" EDIT: really they go for that much? ouch. Seems bizarre if 87,000 were made. I just picked up a Siamese 1907 for less than 75 pounds and far fewer of those were made! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 12 July , 2012 Share Posted 12 July , 2012 Gotcha - but it is actually No1 MkI (Arabic numeral for model, Roman numeral for mark as usual practice) but on the previous page (p230) the contract is listed as "Bayonet No1, Blackened finish!" EDIT: really they go for that much? ouch. Seems bizarre if 87,000 were made. I just picked up a Siamese 1907 for less than 75 pounds and far fewer of those were made! I shall have to remember the Arabic/Roman usages. Pricing is always difficult, I looked up 2 No.1 Mk.I's and both were 225 pounds, and in excellent condition, and condition is everything. An excellent condition No.5 bayonet ( Jungle Carbine ) sells for 250/300 pounds, and a No.7 around 250/275 pounds, so 225 pounds for what is a scarce bayonet with only 87,000 blackened blade types made, sounds reasonable by comparison. The problem today, is that quality blades in excellent condition, are getting harder and harder to find. I shall keep looking. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 13 July , 2012 Share Posted 13 July , 2012 The reason I am so keen to find out about the EFD stamping date range is that I am trying get a rough idea of the period of a 1868 Pattern Lance head that bears a broad arrow (with curved outer 'legs' as typically found with the EFD mark), EFD stamp and Enfield inspection stamp. As these were made long after WW1 (for ceremonial purposes) it's difficult to know for certain whether it's WW1 era. Although I'd very much like to think so! Simon, why not just post up a photo of the markings in a separate thread and let us work from there. They changed to the shortened EFD in about 1897 so probably GW era. By showing the style of the Broad Arrow and especially the attached inspection markings, it will be possible to narrow down the date range substantially, by direct comparison. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now