Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

Pattern 1907 Bayonet Markings Question.


Michael Haselgrove

Recommended Posts

Please can any member help identify the markings on the grips of a Pattern 1907 bayonet I purchased recently? I have, I hope, attached a couple of photos. However, my lack of photographic and computer skills make it preferable that I describe the markings generally.

On the left ricasso the bayonet is marked with a Crown, E.R., 1907, 11 '08, Wilkinson. On the other side are the broad arrow and X and three Enfield inspection marks and 16. The tang between the grips is stamped EFD. I take it, but I may be wrong, that these last two marks indicate that the bayonet was re-inspected in 1916, possibly following the removal of the quillon and drilling of the clearing hole, etc. The scabbard is marked HGR 15 and, on the other side of the seam, with a broad arrow, Enfield inspection mark and 15.

The markings I ask about are on the wooden grips, stamped in numerals/letters about 3/10's of an inch high. On the left side is stamped 254. On the other is 2 EKR 5. The markings are fairly worn. I think possibly the marking is for the East Kent Regiment, although it is clearly in the wrong form as it should be EK, as well as in the wrong place. In that respect I note that in Howard Williamson's book "The Collector and Researchers Guide to the Great War" Vol.11 at page 201 two bayonets are illustrated marked on the ricasso to the West Kent Regiment. Clearly these markings are also in the wrong place.

Can any member please shed any light as to what the markings are and when they were applied? Thanks in advance.

Michael H.

post-53132-0-23538500-1352051940_thumb.jpost-53132-0-44083200-1352051955_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Michael,

Firstly, I'm away from home for a day or two, so i'm working from memory... no reference books to hand. We should be ok though!

From what I can see of the ricasso markings, all is fine, nothing out of the ordinary. The '11-08' left ricasso stamping shows a manufacture date November 1908... the first year of manufacture for Wilkinson. Your example certainly was a 'Hooked Quillion', and would have looked as that in my attachment. Is the '16' you mention on the right ricasso, of the same size as the '11-08' stamping? If so, this will be the refurbishment date when the 'Hooked Quillion' was removed, and the Clearance Hole drilled in the Pommel.

The Scabbard stamping of 'HGR 15' = Manufacturer + Manufacture date - 1915.

As for the furnature stamping, this certainly is a first for myself, as it does refer to a regimental stamping, but is in the wrong location. Why? Only serious research will uncover. You are correct with you reference to 'EK'. However, under the circomstances (which can does happen from time to time), could the stamping actually be ESR = East Surrey Regiment? The '254' certainly does refer to either an armoury rack number, or the last three of a weapons serial number.

post-18081-0-79567800-1352064195_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's certainly an interesting and unusual example of a HQR, but the ricasso markings all match out, with a '16 reissue and inspection mark to account for adding of the clearance hole.

Those stampings on the timber grip would definitely be unusual to see in British service, and how many period hookies are found without normal regimental stamps on the pommel.?

It's a strange one but I think the very high line of bluing on the ricasso may provide a clue. I believe it may have been refurbed at some stage, and possibly seen some Indian service.

The bluing is high and 'fresh' and some of the ricasso markings are not that 'crisp', which suggests to me it has received a light buffing before having a layer or two of bluing applied.

Any surviving pommel stampings may have been buffed out at the same time, but hard to say. The appearance of the bayonet overall, with the darker grips suggests to me it's Indian.

Here is another Wilkinson hookie which shows where you would expect to see the line of bluing. Also the inspection mark stamped into the timber grips which shows they are original.

Cheers, S>S

post-52604-0-51428600-1352069105_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scabbard is marked HGR 15 and, on the other side of the seam, with a broad arrow, Enfield inspection mark and 15.

Michael,

The markings on your scabbard ' HGR 15 ' are for the London maker of Hepburn, Gale and Ross, of Grange Road, Bermondsey, London SE1, who were well known leather scabbard makers. The ' 15 ' is a date mark for 1915, the year of the scabbard's manufacture.

Regards,

LF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you 'LF'...

S-S... By your comments on the furnature stampings, you must have come across this type previously. Are they a fairly common factor in your part of the world? As I mentioned.. in al my years of collecting '07's, this really is a first for me in this configuraton.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Seph, I have no idea what the markings on the grips represent, but usually if it doesn't immediately fit into the expected British pattern ... then its most likely an Indian marking. :huh:

The current collector market is flooded with this SMLE related Indian milsurp, which is of no surprise as they were the last to use them, and only gave them up relatively recently.

I do see them a lot at shows and they are available by the box load, always with heavily blued and refurbed blades, and with really dark replacement grips, both P1903 and P1907.

I can't be certain what this example is just from a couple of pics, but can only offer some thoughts based on my own experience. As a GW collector I do steer away from the refurbs.

Cheers, S>S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One here for Shippingsteel ! It is not unusual to find P.'07s with various tidelines from the hilt blueing - Enfield especially went for blue well down the ricasso - another of my drawings which you liked shows this. Bayonet was mint condition and cost me about £90 as I recall. It had the MK 1 scabbard which is much rarer than the P.'03 scabbard. I had a couple of these.- SW

post-47661-0-50329600-1352128846_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is not unusual to find P.'07s with various tidelines from the hilt blueing - Enfield especially went for blue well down the ricasso - another of my drawings which you liked shows this.

Thanks for posting another of your excellent drawings - there is something about them that really hits the 'right note' with me - now thats the kind of art that I need on my walls.! :thumbsup:

I understand what you are saying about the bluing on the ricasso, but we always need to be careful to compare 'apples with apples'. In this case your Enfield hookie is an 'orange'.!!

The early Enfield P1907's had an unusually shaped ricasso, with the fuller and the blade 'runout' ending as if on the diagonal, they then blued the remaining high points of the ricasso.

The illustration below shows a mint condition Enfield hookie that was sent out to Australia (SOS marked pommel) and issued to the Queensland Police, where it was hardly ever used.

These sat around in 'outback' town Police armouries for decades, and are possibly the best condition (mint) P1907 bayonets that you will find available on the collector's market today.

Cheers, S>S

post-52604-0-08033800-1352156602_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have examined M. Haselgrove's bayonet. Everything is as it should be for a an early bayonet which was refurbished in 1916 when the quillion was removed and a clearing hole added. The bayonet would have been regripped and the hilt re-blued at that time, using the hot salt bath blueing usual at the time. The old blue would have been removed by a light burnishing in the polishing shop before being placed in the bath. The position of the blueing line would simply depend on the depth of the bath and would not necessarily be the same as the manufacturer. The stamping on the hilt is unusual but not unique. I had a British Arisaka which was marked to the Royal Wiltshire Yeomanry on the pommel (R.W.Y. over 330) and then stamped in larger letters 107 PP on the left grip. None of these markings were made with the official size stamps. Michael's bayonet has no indication of any service marks later than 1916 and it doesn't have any of the usual signs found in bayonets that have long service in India. The scabbard is also correct for a period re-issue. One possible solution is that the armourer who stamped the grips simply did not have the 3/64 inch stamps available and used what he had which were too large for the pommel. It could be East Kent Regiment as during the War various interpretations of official marks appear and most were not marked at all. Incidentally note the Inspection date on my scale drawing of my long gone bayonet - October 1913 which means this must have been one of the last hook quillions produced. SW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I must say I liked the look of that Australian HQ when I first saw it on line, but..... here's another - I said I had two: I just haven't got around to drawing it yet SW

post-47661-0-77520900-1352201831_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks to the members who have replied to my question. Bootnecks - it is definately EKR. I think the marking on my bayonet is a regimental marking, albeit in the wrong form and place. In that respect, Howard Williamson in his book I mentioned above writes at p.200 that departure from the regulations for regimental markings is quite common.

I think Shippingsteel and Sommewalker are both correct in their comments. The bayonet has definately been refurbished, although the ricasso markings are still relatively sharp. If you look at the photos there is a "tide line" in the blueing between ER and 1907 which, I think, indicates that the bayonet has been re-blued to a greater depth than originally.

I think my conclusion from all this is that the bayonet was refurbished in 1916. Subsequently, the regimental marking was applied as a one-off on a replacement for a damaged or lost bayonet and at a time when the correct dies were not available. Anyway, I'll settle for that explanation until someone says differently.

Regards,

Michael H.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In this case your Enfield hookie is an 'orange'.!!

And what a lovely looking 'orange' it is too, SW.! That certainly takes the cake as far as 'Mint' goes ... and that matching Mk.I 'mandarin' ... sheesh, that's in amazing condition (one word - NICE) :thumbsup:

So I think we are agreed the Wilkinson bayonet in the OP has been refurbed, regripped and reblued, and de-hooked and 'redrilled', while the markings can still only be described as 'unknown'.?

I don't buy the part about the refurbishment occurring in 1916, but supposing the grips were replaced then, markings must have been applied post that date and since worn appreciably in service.?

As noted there are NO post-war British reissue and inspection dates on the ricasso, which is very common to see on bayonets that stayed on in British service & not so much those gone to India.

The main thing that bugs me is NO pommel stampings for a 1908 vintage HQ.? That was the age when everything was marked profusely, when the war started to get serious less marking was done.

A prewar reissue would have seen those original pommel stamps lined-out/cancelled but not removed. A 1908 HQR with a clean pommel suggests to me they've been 'scrubbed' during a later refurb.

Cheers, S>S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One answer S<S would be that it was not issued in the pre-War period and the War was on when its turn came so it escaped Regimental service until the time when armourers had better things to do than stamp markings. The photographed '07 also has no regimental markings and it's condition suggests that it escaped battalion service entirely. It again is Enfield manufacture, 7 '11, and this scabbard is '09. Having looked at Michael's bayonet I do think that the stamp '16 coincides with the modifications and refurb. Cheers - SW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always good to get others viewpoints and differing opinions - I appreciate the extra input as I am continually trying to precisely date GW bayonets and their usage.

And while we seem to be on the topic of Enfield hookies ... here is another one from 1911 that actually had to earn a living.! :lol: (Being sold to Australia before the war)

This example is one of the first bayonets marked to the state of Victoria, and has the Australian Defence Department symbol stamped on the pommel (arrow inside D)

This one has seen some service but still retains the bright (albeit quite patinated) blade with the bluing on the ricasso mostly intact. Note the shape of the blade 'runout'.

Cheers, S>S

post-52604-0-16618000-1352285934_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting in that it is only 1 month away from the one I still have and vitually identical markings, except for the post-War ones. I have to disagree with you over Post-War markings or at least the frequency. I often see really nice '07 s over here with viewer's marks in the Twenties which spoils them for me. Good luck on your research - I admired the work you did on Turkish markings. - SW

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many thanks for the further photos - superb examples!

S<S I take it that your HQR has not been refurbished. That being the case, is the only work done the removal of the quillon and, presumably, the touching-up of the blueing?

Now that I have the attention of the experts I attach two photos of a bayonet I have owned for about 25 years. I hope the photos speak for themselves but, to be clear, the only marking on the left ricasso is Wilkinson and, on the right ricasso the bend test cross and an Enfield inspector's stamp. Each grip is marked with an inspector's stamp. The blade is sharpened but otherwise shows no signs of wear. The scabbard, the condition of which is identical to the bayonet, is brown with the rivet heads ground off and no marking whatsoever.

I am told this may be a bayonet sold to the volunteer forces. Any comments? Thanks in advance. By the way, S<S, are you interested in any more Turkish bayonet markings?

Regards,

Michael H.

post-53132-0-49120800-1352316604_thumb.j

post-53132-0-27029900-1352316637_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't believe my HQR shown in post #14 has been refurbed but its hard to say. Enfield did have very good (and dark) bluing on their early bayonets, as can be seen in the photos above.

The Australian bayonets were always entirely blued along the whole blade in the post-war period. The stamps seen over the metalwork are all pre-war markings, so very much 1914 spec.

As for this next Wilkinson it looks OK to me, but is obviously without any of the normal acceptance stamps and government markings. It probably was never offered for service by Wilkinson.

Wilkinson was a contractor and before the war only relatively small numbers were produced on contract. This one must have come off the production line and was put aside for some reason.

When you consider it has come with a scabbard that is also not marked with any acceptance stamps, than it would appear that this set has come out of the factory, perhaps for presentation.?

I have heard before that Wilkinson had a habit of presenting production sample bayonets to some of its employees to mark special occasions and events. It could have been some such thing.

EDIT. And yes I'd be happy to see your Turkish bayonet markings. I am still collecting some data on those but have not found anything new to report. I think we have them all covered now. :)

Cheers, S>S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

S>S - many thanks for your comments. Much appreciated.

I attach some photos of my Turkish bayonet - sorry about the quality, but hope they are good enough. As you see, it is a 1903 knife bayonet. It was given to me some 55 years ago when I was 7 years old by my grandmother.

Have a good day.

Regards,

Michael H.

post-53132-0-80901600-1352370904_thumb.j

post-53132-0-26111500-1352370919_thumb.j

post-53132-0-78855200-1352370928_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, your grandmother certainly had tremendous foresight and vision - knowing that one day you would go on to be a 'bayonet collector', well done that Lady.! :thumbsup:

Yes, your bayonet is a locally manufactured version which some collectors term the M1913. They were cobbled together in an arsenal in Istanbul in 1331 (ie. our 1913)

Cheers, S>S

post-52604-0-50223100-1352377390_thumb.j

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very interesting. I was wondering why I couldn't find the marking amongst the German-made bayonet markings. Again, thanks very much S>S.

By the way, I'm not actually a bayonet collector. I merely have a few in my general collection. Steel helmets are my real collection.

Regards,

Michael H.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the way, I'm not actually a bayonet collector. I merely have a few in my general collection. Steel helmets are my real collection.

Well Michael, stick around here for a bit longer and we'll soon have you cured from that 'minor ailment'.!! :w00t: (I'm sure that its only a passing bug ... :whistle: )

Cheers, S>S

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 years later...

Can anyone help to identify a bayonet I bought as WW1 Enfiled. Markings and dates have confused me.

It has Crown on the blade but beneath is E. R. 

Pattern date reads as 1960 (certainly 196- but other number is unclear)

below is 3 10, which I assume is date when weapon was accepted into service.

On other side is the Arrow mark

below is EFD  I believe is Enfield.

Other slight markings are not clear due to some pitting and wear.

Blade has a serrated edge. It looks as if the pommel has been shortened.

If anyone can help in identifying this I would appreciate it very much.

With thanks in advance.

 

 

 

Edited by mervyn t
to include photo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mervyn t said:

Blade has a serrated edge. It looks as if the pommel has been shortened.

 

mervyn,

 

Any chance of a photograph of this item, as no British WW1 bayonet was manufactured with a serrated edge.

The first post WW2 British bayonet with a serrated edge, was probably the L3A1 introduced in 1985.

There were much earlier British bayonets manufactured with a serrated edge, however, these would have been around in the 1860s not 1960s, so check your dates.

There is always the possibility that someone played around with the bayonet and ' added ' a serrated edge ?

A photograph of the item would be helpful, along with any markings.

 

Regards,

LF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

L.F.

Many thanks for your response.

I have tried numerous times to include photo to this forum page but with no success. I thought my previous message had contained photo but I see it did not work.

I am afraid that my tech skills in this regard are quite hopeless. Can anyone help / advise on attaching photos please.

 

Markings are not very clear due to pitting on the blade.

 

With thanks

Merv

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mervyn t said:

Can anyone help / advise on attaching photos please.

 

Merv,

 

I shall contact you via this Forum, and assist you in posting your photographs.

 

Regards,

LF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...