Bayonet with fighting quillion

[shippingsteel]

I have been in communication with this vendor for the last several days. I have asked him to show better pictures of the markings but so far have not seen any.

One of his other auctions is for a Pattern 1903 conversion from a Pattern 1888. His asking price for an opening bid for that one is $1,000. I do not believe he really knows what he is selling.

Actually his other auction is for an extremely rare P1893 bayonet made by Wilkinson, which was unique to a small order by the Canadians for the Martini-Metford rifle (only ~1000 made)

Now that is a proper bayonet.! Principally based on the concurrent P1888 model they are an attractive and stylish variant. The example offered is in tidy shape but is very much over priced.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

There has been a lot of discussion about postwar, inter-war and 2nd War P1907 bayonets - but you should keep in mind they are all essentially the same article.

The bottom line is that "In 1926 the bayonets nomenclature was changed from the P1907 to Bayonet No 1 Mk I". Thats the only difference - the spec's the same.

Dealers always try to give the impression that what they are selling is scarce or unique, and anyone paying dealer prices without some further research is foolish.

EDIT. Just FYI, attached is a later production No.1 Mk.I that was made by Wilkinson in 1945 (and which has probably been refurbished at some stage)

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

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.

Now that the auction is finished I thought I should give you some background on this bayonet - which IMHO is perfectly good - one of the most "untouched" that you will find.

This particular example comes from my own 'backyard', being marked to the Queensland Police. Around 600 rifles and matching bayonets in this batch were ordered in 1912.

The rifles were mostly BSA and LSA and the entire sets were matching numbered with the Q^P serials. The condition of these is amazing as they seldom (if ever) fired a shot.

The condition of this bayonet matches its usage and the bluing is as it left the factory - immaculate. I didn't want to comment earlier as I even considered having a bid myself.!

Cheers, S>S

[Peter Zieminski]

Following the sale othat bayonet posted at just over £700 another example has now been listed dated 1909 and manufactured by Sanderson marked to the 2nd Btn Royal Scots bids begin at just over £400

[trajan]

...which IMHO is perfectly good...I didn't want to comment earlier as I even considered having a bid myself...

Good to hear your opinion at long last - and I had wondered if you had a reason for not wanting to comment on it!

Trajan

[HLI]

Hello,

The Black Friday riots in Brisbane were an occasion for the Queensland Police to 'fix bayonets'.......Queensland had experienced some internal troubles going back to 1891 and 1894 with the Shearers Strikes resulting in the calling out of the Queensland Defence Force and being deployed to outback hotspots. The Queensland authorities were a little paranoid and tended to quell anything remotely looking like insurrection rather heavy handedly.

I did find this snippet by a concerned citizen of the time in The Worker newspaper which might be of interest, maybe a little too early for the hook in question to have seen 'action' on the streets of Brisbane though it certainly would've arrived at a time of strife in this states history...

The Worker newspaper 17^th February 1912

Black Friday's Police Riots.

What Indignant Citizens Think.

Sir, — I would like to draw attention to some absolutely disgraceful incidents which were performed by the mighty police force of Queensland, who are paid, so I thought, to protect the populi and not the patricii alone, as they seem to have done this morning. It is the populi who pay them their salaries, and even the salaries of the patricii, so I think that they (the populi) ought to have the greater protection, and not be assaulted, knocked down, and mal treated by them, as they have been in the last two days. While I was working in my business this morning I arrived at the corner of the Treasury Buildings, in George Street. I was met by a charge of mounted police, and ordered to go back (back where all the roads were likewise guarded). When the people did not go back quite fast enough lor these bullies, they helped them along with baton attacks and blows dealt quite indiscriminately right and left. I saw one man who was coming away from work, and who had not even the red badge, knocked down and out by a mighty arm of the law. Even the women were not exempt, and it seemed to me that the police made a point of attacking them rather than the men. A foot constable, on ordering a woman down from some steps of the Bank, and being told by her that she was waiting for her husband, said, ' You will find him dead down the street. I wish you were dead. .We have plenty of money to bury the lot of you.' Presumably Government money, fleeced from the people. It is a pity they do not spend the money elsewhere, say in taking the tram company over and nationalising it. It appears to me that the police are out to make the people riot instead of keeping the peace. On the advice of Mr. Bowman, the crowd outside the Trades Hall began to disperse orderly, in all good humour, until suddenly, on rounding the corner into the Market Square, they beheld the police drawn up in battle array with fixed bayonets and loaded revolvers, as if they were out against savages or a 'Yankee' mob. instead of their own fellow-citizens — nay, more, their own mothers, sisters, and brothers.

If the Government cannot keep order and settle the strike except by police charges and murder, it is time that they were ' outed ' or made to resign, and not wait for the general election.

Yours, etc., A SPECTATOR.

February 2.

[trajan]

Back OT - a query about the bayonet that started this thread (http://www.ebay.ca/itm/390438496510?ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&_trksid=p3984.m1423.l2649). One of the reasons I was a bit cadgy about it was the grips, which had a rather orangey colour and which seemed to be made of a very fine-grained wood. All the P 1907's I have personally seen have basic brown wood grips - although the hookie P 1907 on the cover of Skennerton and Richardson also has grips like the one in the link. So, is this type of orangey-grip a characteristic of the original P 1907 hookies?

Grateful for any comments!

Trajan

PS: I see that the other P 1907 hookie mentioned in post no. 30 ( http://www.ebay.co.u...45514561&_rdc=1) does not seem to have moved bidwise at all since I first learnt about it - something wrong with it?

[4thGordons]

I don't like to comment on live auctions ever so that is why I stayed away, from this thread. On some forums I frequent there is a prohibition on linking to or mentioning live acutions and I actually think this is a good idea so I apply it to myself!

I think some Australian bayonets had grips made of Queensland maple which tends to have that lighter, yellower colouration I think. Lithgow also used coachwood which is reddish.

Presumably a bayonet that was used in Australia may have had these grips fitted?

Variation in colour of wood after 100 years is incredible and dependent upon how it has been treated/used and abused. I have SMLEs stocked in walnut that vary from very light to black - with pretty much everything in between.

Chris

[trajan]

Thanks! I did notice that some of the hookies you and S>S have shown in the past have grips in what I like to think of as a more 'normal' brownish colour, but this orangey/yellowy colour did appear somewhat strange. I have never seen grips this shade on a post 1913 P1907, the type I am familiar with (but there again, I haven't seen that many of those either!) and so I did wonder if these orangey/yellow ones might be a chronological marker, i.e. original pre-1913 rather than later replacement grips. It would be interesting, though, to have a look at the rear of grips this colour to see if there any markings to indicate where they were made - UK or down under!

Trajan

[4thGordons]

No Hookies here unfortunately.

[trajan]

Sorry, must have confused you with LF re: hookies... BUT you do have a nice collection of SMLE'ies (and others) if I remember rightly!

[calibre792x57.y]

Trajan, if it is any help to you my own surviving P'07 (I don't collect them now) is seemingly identical to the one posted except my blade is somewhat better, having all the manufacturer's original polish. It has the blueing running along the ground and polished edge of the ricasso as shown in the post. The grips are also identical in colour. A medium chesnut. It too was Enfield made, with an acceptance date of July 1911. The scabbard is the only major departure which is why I mentioned it in my first post. Mine is a chesnut coloured Mk I. Internal chape. This also has Enfield viewer's stamps and is dated '09. - Cheers SW

[trajan]

Thanks SW. As I indicated, I don't see that many P1907's around here, at least not in a collectable condition (mine have come from Syria), and I have never seen a hookie outside of GWF or on the internet! The colour of those grips on the one in the OP did puzzle me, and if it hadn't been for a quick look at the cover of Skennerton and Richardson (when one post pointed out the similar blueing on that) and also contributions such as yours to this discussion, then were I to be faced with a nice-looking P1907 with grips that orangey colour, hooked or not, I would have wondered about its authenticity. Now I have a clearer idea, grips that colour are ok!

Trajan

[calibre792x57.y]

Yes. It was I that pointed out the picture on Skennerton's book - mine is virtually identical except the blue on mine is somewhat darker. That may be just colour variation in photographic film he used. However I do not intend to remove the grips on mine to see if anything is on the reverse; even in the spirit of research!. Cheers SW

[wulfrik-the-wanderer]

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.

not to bring a thread back from the dead, but just reading this, would that make my 'pattern 1907' bayonet one of these scarce admiralty contract blades?

Wilkinson (S294) WSC- manufactured 10 43 (October 1943) with 'pattern 1907' un-blackened blade.

[shippingsteel]

You have a Bayonet No.1 Mk.I (otherwise known as a P1907) which was made by Wilkinson, in it appears October 1945 ... these types are not scarce.

It is impossible to say whether this was originally made for the Admiralty contract, as they were issued to all services and many have been refurbished.

Cheers, S>S

[wulfrik-the-wanderer]

You have a Bayonet No.1 Mk.I (otherwise known as a P1907) which was made by Wilkinson, in it appears October 1945 ... these types are not scarce.

It is impossible to say whether this was originally made for the Admiralty contract, as they were issued to all services and many have been refurbished.

Cheers, S>S

definitely '43 but a bad stamping by wilkinsons,

ah, so the code S294 simple refers to wilkinsons rather than a contract?

EDIT: through the power of paint to highlight the bad stamping

[shippingsteel]

I think it could be a '45 .... not just on what we can see, but also on what others stamped in 1945 looked like, such as position, font and size etc. See post #28

Yes the S294 is the code that was used for the manufacturers Wilkinson Sword Company at that time. The Admiralty contract was just a portion of production.

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

What has always struck me as interesting about this (although a bit off topic but perhaps one could argue it was lessons learnt from the Great War)

is that as I understand it, the adoption of the manufacturer codes in this case S294 (S = southern region, M= Midlands, N= Northern) was supposed to help conceal the identity of the manufacturer of components from the enemy and to replace the name/acronym, so I have never really understood why both appear on these bayonets. Would appear to defeat the purpose. Perhaps the manufactuer code was less about concealment and more about production control?

Chris

[Lancashire Fusilier]

not to bring a thread back from the dead, but just reading this, would that make my 'pattern 1907' bayonet one of these scarce admiralty contract blades?

Wilkinson (S294) WSC- manufactured 10 43 (October 1943) with 'pattern 1907' un-blackened blade.

All the 87,600 Bayonet, No.1 made by Wilkinson specifically for the Admiralty Contract for use with the Lanchester SMG have a very distinctive factory applied dull ' blackened ' finish to all the bayonet's metal parts, the blade, pommel, and crossguard.

The ' unblackened ' Bayonet, No.1., was produced by Wilkinson during WW2 for use by other services, and like the Admiralty Contract ' blackened ' bayonets, also carried the ' WSC ' Wilkinson Sword Company initials and their S294 wartime code on the ricasso.

Take a close look at your bayonet, and see if there is any sign of the original blackened finish used for the ' Lanchester ' bayonets, if there is none, then your bayonet is probably not an Admiralty Contract bayonet but rather a Wilkinson Bayonet, No.1 produced for general service during WW2.

The factory applied ' blackened ' finish is hard to remove, and should still be clearly visible on all the bayonets metal parts.

The Wilkinson general service bayonets, No.1 used in WW2 came with a polished blade before 5.3.1939 and after that date, the blade's were sandblasted.

Regards,

LF

[wulfrik-the-wanderer]

was hard to make out in pictures, but tried taking a better picture, it is definitely '43

as for a blackened finish.

this any good? the blade, cross guard and pommel have been cleaned up though, so I'm unsure

[Lancashire Fusilier]

was hard to make out in pictures, but tried taking a better picture, it is definitely '43

as for a blackened finish.

this any good? the blade, cross guard and pommel have been cleaned up though, so I'm unsure

As with any artifact, it is all about condition, and any Collector particularly wanting an ' Admiralty Contract ' example in their collection, will generally seek out one which still has it's original ' blackened ' finish. Obviously those ' Admiralty Contract ' bayonets which saw active service, will have lost some or a lot of their original ' blackened ' finish. However, you should still be able to see some of this original blackened finish somewhere on the bayonet.

Unfortunately, Wilkinson marked all their WW2 bayonets in the same way, including those 87,600 specifically made for the ' Admiralty Contract ', and the only way to tell one of those 87,600 from all the rest is that ' blackened ' finish.

Wilkinson's Contract with the Admiralty started on 15 October 1943.

My guess, is if your bayonet is devoid of any ' blackened ' finish whatsoever, it will be considered a Wilkinson WW2 general service bayonet, and should be enjoyed as such.

Regards,

LF

[Lancashire Fusilier]

[was hard to make out in pictures, but tried taking a better picture, it is definitely '43

as for a blackened finish.

this any good? the blade, cross guard and pommel have been cleaned up though, so I'm unsure

Here is a WW2 Wilkinson WSC S294 ' Admiralty Contract ' P1907 bayonet with it's distinctive ' blackened ' finish from my Collection, shown alongside a WW1 P1907 bayonet made by Mole.

Regards,

LF

[wulfrik-the-wanderer]

thank you for the information! nice P'14 frog as well , so the blackened steel along the back and front of the tang in between the grip scales is normal for a run of the mill general service No. 1 Mk I ?

Regards,

Haydn

[Lancashire Fusilier]

thank you for the information! nice P'14 frog as well , so the blackened steel along the back and front of the tang in between the grip scales is normal for a run of the mill general service No. 1 Mk I ?

Regards,

Haydn

No, I would not expect to see blackened steel on the WW2 Wilkinson S294 general service bayonet, that is why I asked if there was any blackened metal on your bayonet ?, as if so, it could indicate it was an ' Admiralty Contract ' bayonet retaining some of it's original finish.

Also, thank you, yes it is a very nice frog.

Regards,

LF