Gew88/05 Posted 19 January , 2015 Share Posted 19 January , 2015 Gew88/05, do these German and Turkish bayonets bear the scars of 'country of origin' branding on them? Other than AUSTRALIA, what other examples of bayonet 'country of origin' markings are out there in the US for us to compare? Can anyone provide images? Dan Dan, no, the bayonets imported from Turkey do not have any markings indicating import or country of origin, none. The rifles imported from Turkey at the time (and always!) do have the country of origin, caliber and importer's name as required by law. The same is true of bayonets imported from other countries since the massive imports that started in the late 1980s, no import markings whatsoever, they are not required. It appears that Mr. Jovino or his attorneys possibly misunderstood the legal requirements and may have marked some of the Australian bayonets and grips but it is not a requirement of law in the US. Bayonets imported in large ( even huge) numbers from Russia, China, South and Central American nations or Europe (Finland and Belgium come to mind) do not have the alleged "country of origin" markings either. There are occasionally such marks on British bayonets imported before the '68 GCA - I have a No.4 MkII* bayonet made by Baird Engineering so marked "England" (actually of course made in Ireland) - but none that have been imported in the last 25 or so years, I personally have never owned or even seen a P07 so marked but I have heard of some. Though no one wants to hear me say it again, I do find it odd that some of the Australian bayonets do have well worn "Australia" markings that show the same degree of wear as the rest of the bayonet. And, I am sorry, if you are familiar with the stamping of wooden objects, unless done very carefully, the wood fibers are broken and do protrude above the surface slightly, something you have to actually feel rather than see in photographs. Also, keep in mind that gun stocks do not require marking under US law, such marking mean nothing. Where or why those markings were applied if not in Australia is a mystery to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 19 January , 2015 Share Posted 19 January , 2015 Dan, no, the bayonets imported from Turkey do not have any markings indicating import or country of origin, none. The rifles imported from Turkey at the time (and always!) do have the country of origin, caliber and importer's name as required by law. The same is true of bayonets imported from other countries since the massive imports that started in the late 1980s, no import markings whatsoever, they are not required. It appears that Mr. Jovino or his attorneys possibly misunderstood the legal requirements and may have marked some of the Australian bayonets and grips but it is not a requirement of law in the US. Bayonets imported in large ( even huge) numbers from Russia, China, South and Central American nations or Europe (Finland and Belgium come to mind) do not have the alleged "country of origin" markings either. There are occasionally such marks on British bayonets imported before the '68 GCA - I have a No.4 MkII* bayonet made by Baird Engineering so marked "England" (actually of course made in Ireland) - but none that have been imported in the last 25 or so years, I personally have never owned or even seen a P07 so marked but I have heard of some. Though no one wants to hear me say it again, I do find it odd that some of the Australian bayonets do have well worn "Australia" markings that show the same degree of wear as the rest of the bayonet. And, I am sorry, if you are familiar with the stamping of wooden objects, unless done very carefully, the wood fibers are broken and do protrude above the surface slightly, something you have to actually feel rather than see in photographs. Also, keep in mind that gun stocks do not require marking under US law, such marking mean nothing. Where or why those markings were applied if not in Australia is a mystery to me. There are ENGLAND marks on some No5 MkI Knife bayonets for the No5 rifle and also on a number of rifles (inc Sht LE and No4 and No5). I have examples of these but they are not accessible to me at the moment. I have not seen an England marked P1907 We have probably done this to death (and it was discussed ages ago on the Enfield gunboards forum too) but I actually don't think most parties are that far apart. I haven't been very clear perhaps but I think that, as an alternative to the importer marking theory the markings may have been applied in Australia but not as an official Australian marking but in preparation for export. ...whether this was legally required by US law or not (here I am largely in agreement with you) There is an alternative which allows for a possible explanation as to the worn markings - although I have no "proof" for this (although there may be circumstantial support) - that is to say, the markings were applied for export to/ import into another (third) country (who did perhaps require the marking, or perhaps they were supplied as military assistance/aid) prior to being surplussed out to the US. So, for example, Australian weapons were marked Australia for import into INDIA (for example) where they were then used for a considerable period of time before being surplussed out to the US civilian market. I have looked at quite a lot of Enfields that have come into the US from India in the last decade and they include a number of Lithgow produced rifles, I did not keep records if any were marked Australia but I think some of the recent imports of Indian DP rifles were sold as Australian rifles - suggesting they may have been marked ... (as I say I am simply thinking out loud here) Likewise the No5 rifles (which used to be quite scarce on the US market) seem to have been imported from several locations (poss Thailand and Cyprus/Greece) which may explain the ENGLAND stamping .This would I think explain the mark and the wear, but I do not know if any of the countries mentioned above may have required the marking or if marking the source was required for military assistance (although sometimes it is). The same logic might apply to your No4 MkII* bayonet made in Belfast in NORTHERN Ireland (part of the UK not "Ireland" )... but as you say - not England either! For the purposes of discussion here (and to keep it on track as a WWI discussion on what is not a specialist weapons collector site) I think we can probably agree (maybe?) The AUSTRALIA marks are not 1914-1918 vintage markings and would not have appeared on the weapons during that period. (This is the crucial one for this discussion board) Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5thBatt Posted 19 January , 2015 Share Posted 19 January , 2015 (edited) I agree with SS this is not really a topic for this forum & this is why i made the invite to the other thread. As for providing proof that a factory or defense force did not do something, where am i supposed to find that? i can only go by my own experience &/or the experience of other collectors, on the GBs thread we already have input from at least 2 Australian Armourers, 1 ex, the other current, plus input from some big Lee Enfield collectors (some based in Australia) including one who up until recently had a Lithgow from every year of manufacture bar 1 or 2 & in some cases had more than 1 or 2 of any year, all in all this adds up to decades of experience that would cover probably thousands of viewed rifles & bayonets, now this adds up to a consensus & not mere speculation. As for the wear, these were stamped decades ago. Edited 19 January , 2015 by 5thBatt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 10 February , 2015 Share Posted 10 February , 2015 Oh, this thread has been re-opened! I had been wondering where to put this one - in a double post for better detail... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 10 February , 2015 Share Posted 10 February , 2015 And here is a detail (sorry about the photographs - will try to post some more later) - It's a 1909 Sanderson with that funny font for the last number they used on some of their pre WW1 products, like this 1909 example at: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=166648&page=16 post 391... The subject here has a serial number '1877' and NO prefix, but it does have a SOS pommel mark. For what it is worth (possibly not very much?) the EFD-marked chape and locket has '6MD 3433' on the top of the locket and, something I have not seen before, an impressed 'D' mark on the leather (like an Australian 'Arrowed D' but no central arrow) , and then a series of markings (WD arrow, crown, etc, culminating in a (19)'10. Well, the scabbard is certainly Aussie! And despite the lack of a prefix, that serial-marked crossguard and the SOS mark on the pommel make me think that the bayonet saw antipodean service... Anyway, what does the team think? Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 10 February , 2015 Share Posted 10 February , 2015 Hey Trajan S>S is probably your man for this one, but I tend to agree with you. I can't see the markings very clearly, but if it has the SOS pommel marking then I think this may be another sub-category of these early Australian used bayonets which lacks the state prefix. It would be interesting to know if anyone else has seen a similar set of markings. A nice find whether it is Australian used or not, thanks for sharing. Is this another Turkey find? Cheers, J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 10 February , 2015 Share Posted 10 February , 2015 PS. Thrilled to see this topic reopened! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 11 February , 2015 Share Posted 11 February , 2015 A nice find whether it is Australian used or not, thanks for sharing. Is this another Turkey find? Thanks! Yes, I knew of this one at the same time as I heard of the NSW one I posted at 119... Believe you me, a Turkish university salary in Turkish lira is not that wonderful and getting just one HQ makes a serious impact on the monthly salary... And so in view of the poor condition but nice marking on the NSW one and the much better condition and enigmatic marking on this, I decided to take a risk, let the NSW go and hold out for this one, hoping to convince the owner to part with it, which he finally did! PS. Thrilled to see this topic reopened! Me too - I was wondering where to put this new one! And looking forward to SS's comments on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 12 February , 2015 Share Posted 12 February , 2015 I was hoping that our matey down under would share his thoughts on that one I posted above in 154 and 155 before posting any more here - that is to say, Is the bayonet Aussie or not? The EFD-made scabbard certainly is... Off-hand, '6 MD' is Tasmania, isn't it? So this is a rarity by itself, whether or not SS accepts the bayonet as one... But those are Enfield inspector marks on the locket (EFD 35 or 65) and chape (EFD 64), and although the photograph of the leather is not good, there is that large 'D' - Australian Department of Defence? - over others, with a " '10' " at the end. This is, incidentally, the first example of an unaltered in any way 'brown' scabbard that I have come across, so very much a sleeper? Well, if SS will comment on the scabbard that would be nice - and if he accepts the possibility of the serial on the SOS bayonet as being from down under (New Zealand if not Australian, as it lacks a letter prefix?), then I'll post those markings here also. Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 12 February , 2015 Share Posted 12 February , 2015 Here's the SOS mark - wouldn't fit on that last post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 12 February , 2015 Share Posted 12 February , 2015 the possibility of the serial on the SOS bayonet as being from down under (New Zealand if not Australian, as it lacks a letter prefix?) Trajan I am not sure I understand the intricacies of Australian bayonet marking, but prior to 1918 Lithgow produced rifles did not have an alpha prefix (they started to use A in 1918) so if the bayonet were matched with/numbered to a Lithgow rifle produced prior to then it may not have had a prefix. (unless the bayonet numbering is unrelated to rifle serial numbers and is simply an inventory number) Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawdoc34 Posted 12 February , 2015 Share Posted 12 February , 2015 Nice bayonet Julian, judging on some of your antic fair finds, it looks too good to have come from turkey Has your contact got anymore? Seriously, that is bloody lovely mate, nice find, cant wait to see what S/S says about the numbering tho as I am with Chris, totally lost with their marking system. C'mon S/S we need your expertise here bud Aleck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 12 February , 2015 Share Posted 12 February , 2015 Aleck, as I indicated earlier, it was rather like London buses...You see nowt for a while and then three (well, in this case, two) come along at once. Like the S.71 that suddenly came up over here... I still wish I had snagged that NSW one but... ('er indoors syndrome...) But I will admit that this is nicer... Tough choice there... BUT, come on out the shell cobber SS, and give an input on this one! Aussie or not? Trajan BTW, Aleck, I KNOW I will never get the same breadth of collection as you have... You are a very knowledgeable collector with an incredibly good insight into what is what, which makes you a star in finding things for the rest of us to slavver over ! You spot the nice and odd ones so well while travelling (no internet or agents ) - you have a real collectors' eye, and I am more than you know jealous of what you have! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 13 February , 2015 Author Share Posted 13 February , 2015 I am waiting to see a photo of the LH ricasso which shows the date (month/year) of manufacture and maker. I need to be able to cross reference with my database ... Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 13 February , 2015 Share Posted 13 February , 2015 I am waiting to see a photo of the LH ricasso which shows the date (month/year) of manufacture and maker. I need to be able to cross reference with my database ... I go straight from work to home then to the airport today and will be away all weekend so I may not be able to post mine today - I was waiting for a hint or a wink to confirm that it is or might be Australian! It is a 12/09, SANDERSON, and from memory the ricasso marks are exactly like the one Smokey showed at: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=166648&page=16post 391, with the LHS side marks being exactly like the de-hooked one you showed on the same page, post 394, and so I'll reproduce those photographs here for ease of reference (smokey's on top, as both ricasso's are shown, SS's below): So, it seems that mine is a virtual twin in all respects, except that (working on memory) mine might have a slightly different '0' in the '09' and it might be a different inspector from smokey's - X5/E not X6/E. What is certain is that mine has an SOS mark on the pommel, and a serial number on the crossguard - does yours have an SOS mark? I have to admit it seems a little bit more than coincidence that the two of these that you and smokey have posted are Tasmanian and that mine came with a Tasmanian scabbard - what do you think? Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 13 February , 2015 Share Posted 13 February , 2015 OK, here goes, but no time to do any editing:- This is mine: So, different top inspector (X5) unless smokeys is also an X5 - which on reviewing its seems to be? And the bottom two are V8 like his - so this is a twin! What are the inspection marks on yours SS? From an archaeological viewpoint(!), putative evidence of Tasmania ordering a block of bayonets from Sanderson in November-December 1909? How did the states do this??? Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 14 February , 2015 Share Posted 14 February , 2015 No comment yet ss? What you reckon. Australian?. Edit: original posting replicated the above! Now removed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5thBatt Posted 14 February , 2015 Share Posted 14 February , 2015 No comment yet ss? What you reckon. Australian?. No comment yet ss? What you reckon. Australian?. Being straight to the point but asking as nicely as i can. Are you asking him for a opinion or do you have an alternate agenda? i have not been long here but i have noticed an apparent trend. My apologies to you Trajan if i'm way off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawdoc34 Posted 14 February , 2015 Share Posted 14 February , 2015 5th batt, I personally think that trajan is wanting to his bayonet appraised/authentiated by S/S as S/S is the most knowledgeable member of aussie (if not most bayonets) on this forum. I respect both of them & very much doubt if there is any alterior motive. It is a very nice example of a HQ 1907 that needs an expert aussie collectors opinion, that is all & sure our mate in turkey will take any comments/criticism of the bayonet as he has already aknowledged S/Ss greater familarity & database on aussie bayonets/markings. Aleck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 15 February , 2015 Author Share Posted 15 February , 2015 The date and manufacturer markings, together with that serial number (sans MD prefix) indicate that this bayonet was most likely Tasmanian (Australian) issued. It is identical in many respects to other Tasmanian used bayonets that I have seen, the only issue being the lack of ownership marks making identification difficult. However the serial number, and style & placement would support it being a 6MD/Tasmania bayonet. Of course being in a 6MD scabbard also tends to add weight.! Shown below is my 12/09 Sanderson HQR that is marked to Tasmania. Note the 4 digit serial on the guard. The 6MD marking appears to have been added later on. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 15 February , 2015 Share Posted 15 February , 2015 Being straight to the point but asking as nicely as i can.Are you asking him for a opinion or do you have an alternate agenda? i have not been long here but i have noticed an apparent trend.My apologies to you Trajan if i'm way off. It's ok 5th! SS and I and I have our spats, as many do, but when somebody writes requesting data and I send it as fast as I can even at risk of being late for a flight, and then I hear nothing more for over 24 hours, well, I get anxious! 5th batt, I personally think that trajan is wanting to his bayonet appraised/authentiated by S/S as S/S is the most knowledgeable member of aussie (if not most bayonets) on this forum. I respect both of them & very much doubt if there is any alterior motive. It is a very nice example of a HQ 1907 that needs an expert aussie collectors opinion, that is all & sure our mate in turkey will take any comments/criticism of the bayonet as he has already aknowledged S/Ss greater familarity & database on aussie bayonets/markings. Aleck Cheers aleck you are spot on the ball! Most bayoneters on GWF know that I don't have much experience with p.1907's, and even less with Aussie ones... This is the third HQ one to turn up here in 6 months, and so it is right and natural that I should seek help and/or confirmation from the GWF member with the greatest experience and most data on them. As SS was slow in replying I was getting concerned... The date and manufacturer markings, together with that serial number (sans MD prefix) indicate that this bayonet was most likely Tasmanian (Australian) issued. It is identical in many respects to other Tasmanian used bayonets that I have seen, the only issue being the lack of ownership marks making identification difficult. However the serial number, and style & placement would support it being a 6MD/Tasmania bayonet. Of course being in a 6MD scabbard also tends to add weight.! Shown below is my 12/09 Sanderson HQR that is marked to Tasmania. Note the 4 digit serial on the guard. The 6MD marking appears to have been added later on. Cheers, S>S Many thanks SS for that information! I am as you might imagine pretty chuffed now, not just in having the thing but also in helping add to the data on these. Mind you, it does raise some questions, if we accept it as a Tasmanian... Most obvious one to me being - what is that SOS mark doing there? I can think of others, but I am using an iPad to write this and so finding it slow and cumbersome... Trajan PS: Aleck, I'd go for that EB... Will e-mail later... The 500.JPG Edit: Well, as you see inexperience with this new-tangled technology meant my reply to SS got trapped in the copy of his post... I'm sure that you can work it out though! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 15 February , 2015 Share Posted 15 February , 2015 Good news Trajan, what a fantastic bayonet to have in your collection. A really good find, and nice to have S>S give his input on the markings as well. S>S - thats a really nice 6MD HQR too. I really like the roughly chopped quillon - consistent with some lengthy WW1 service. Are you still planning to post some further Aussie bayonets in this or your other thread? Cheers, Jonathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawdoc34 Posted 15 February , 2015 Share Posted 15 February , 2015 S/S, I am with Jonathan on your last bayonet, that is a real nice example & the rough chopped quillion gives it even more character, nice find mate I only have 1 aussie bayonet in my collection & it is WW2 made with SA union marking & SA leather frog, must find a WW1 lithgow Trajan, can imagine how chuffed you must be already having that lovely HQ & now it seems that it is a rare tasmanian issued example, you must be over the moon mate Aleck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 16 February , 2015 Author Share Posted 16 February , 2015 Thanks for the comments. Yes, despite its well used appearance this old Sanderson HQR is a pretty special bayonet, it got me started on researching this particular type. From an archaeological perspective, this example provides evidence of the different ways in which the States/MD's marked their weaponry. It shows the 3 different styles. You can see in the photo it is marked on the pommel with the letter T over a 3 digit serial, then that 4 digit serial on the guard, and with 6MD added on as an afterthought. This simply shows the changes in methods of administration as the States transitioned into the new Federation. (The serial on the pommel has been properly marked out) Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 16 February , 2015 Share Posted 16 February , 2015 ... From an archaeological perspective, this example provides evidence of the different ways in which the States/MD's marked their weaponry. It shows the 3 different styles. You can see in the photo it is marked on the pommel with the letter T over a 3 digit serial, then that 4 digit serial on the guard, and with 6MD added on as an afterthought. This simply shows the changes in methods of administration as the States transitioned into the new Federation. (The serial on the pommel has been properly marked out) This is, of course, where you will always have one over on us - your experience in the type and specimens thereof and of your country's history allowing you to make your own deductions and present these on things of interest to us all! As you might imagine, my lack of knowledge and of handling these things had me rather concerned as to its correct identification, even after spotting the parallels posted by you and Smokey. And to add to my uncertainty was the appearance of three Australian HQ's in Turkey in a matter of 6 months! So, again, many thanks on your comments on this one which will, I assure you, take a place of honour in a collection of what is mainly Ottoman and German material! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts