shippingsteel Posted 26 March , 2015 Author Share Posted 26 March , 2015 Nice bayonets J, thanks for posting the photos. It appears that 2MD stamp on the crossguard has been 'double tapped' which is common enough to see. No problem there.! And those serials are correct for a late 1916 issue. Having both the rifle serial on the pommel and the MD inventory on the crossguard really make for a fairly precise dating. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 19 April , 2015 Share Posted 19 April , 2015 Thanks S>S, thats good to know. You must have quite the comprehensive database to be able to date these bayonets to such a specific period. In other news I just visited the Australian War Memorial today (the new WW1 galleries are superb) and saw this relic bayonet, which was found at Gaba Tepe at Gallipoli, on display. https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/RELAWM00327/ Its not clear in the photo but in person I could easily make out the SOS mark on the pommel. I would like to have been able to check the markings on the other side (to see state and serial number) but unfortunately the case was only one sided. Still, it was interesting to see first hand evidence that this style of SOS P1907 British bayonet was definitely used by the Australians at Gallipoli. PS. I have no idea what happened to the quillon... seems odd that it would be removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 20 April , 2015 Share Posted 20 April , 2015 Thanks S>S, thats good to know. You must have quite the comprehensive database to be able to date these bayonets to such a specific period. ... this relic bayonet, which was found at Gaba Tepe at Gallipoli, on display. https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/RELAWM00327/ ... I could easily make out the SOS mark on the pommel. I would like to have been able to check the markings on the other side (to see state and serial number) but unfortunately the case was only one sided. Still, it was interesting to see first hand evidence that this style of SOS P1907 British bayonet was definitely used by the Australians at Gallipoli. PS. I have no idea what happened to the quillon... seems odd that it would be removed. Interesting piece that one. I see that the AWM has it catalogued as 'Maker: unknown', but 'Place made: Australia'! The missing crossguard set is indeed odd. In my very limited experience those things don't just fall off - it looks like it has been deliberately removed, which makes me think that this might well have been altered after capture... This is not to say that I dispute the provenance, but a common style of 19th - 20th century Turkish short sword was made without a bolster or crossguard as here: That aside, I recently bought an Ersatz which is also missing its crossguard and bolster, and with its clearance hole deliberately plugged, and so I think that one is certainly a case of 'adaptation' - removing the bolster and crossguard to give a hilt that matches the familiar Turkish short-sword style. There is a photograph of the hilt area on that Ersatz at: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=222435#entry2251963post 20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 20 April , 2015 Share Posted 20 April , 2015 Another point which comes to mind in support of this, is the issue of the early British hookies to the Queensland Police. These are usually found in "mint" condition. These were sourced around the same time as the other military used bayonets, but were never actually IN Australian military service. They too have the SOS mark. Cheers, S>S QldPoliceHooker.jpg This QP and SOS marked one came to my attention while looking for something entirely different and so I thought I'd post it for reference: http://www.lawranceordnance.com/information/bayonets/australian/enfield_12_10.php Perhaps SS or somebody will enlighten those of us who don't know on how and why these went into police service? With SMLE's? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 21 April , 2015 Share Posted 21 April , 2015 ... PS. I have no idea what happened to the quillon... seems odd that it would be removed. ... The missing crossguard set is indeed odd. In my very limited experience those things don't just fall off - it looks like it has been deliberately removed, which makes me think that this might well have been altered after capture... This is not to say that I dispute the provenance, but a common style of 19th - 20th century Turkish short sword was made without a bolster or crossguard ... I recently bought an Ersatz which is also missing its crossguard and bolster, and with its clearance hole deliberately plugged, and so I think that one is certainly a case of 'adaptation' - removing the bolster and crossguard to give a hilt that matches the familiar Turkish short-sword style. ... This is my 'adapted' Ersatz - with bolster and crossguard removed and the clearance hole plugged to allow it to serve as a Turkish-style 'short sword'. As with P.1907 crossguards, these parts on an well-made Ersatz of the E03-18 series don't just fall off (although those on some of the earliest Ersatz apparently did!). They are riveted through the metal hilt and tang (you can see how the remaining part of the rivet has been ground flat), and the whole assembly has to be deliberately removed. And I suspect that this may have happened to the Gaba Tepe example... Best, Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 21 April , 2015 Share Posted 21 April , 2015 Interesting bayonet Trajan. I can understand why the crossguard on your ersatz might be missing (they seem to be most tampered with bayonets) but odd that someone would remove the crossguard from a bayonet found at a remote location in Gallipoli and then dump the rest of the bayonet where they found it... Guess we will never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts