Unknown 1907 Bayonet Marking?

[brummie76]

Hello

I have recently been given a 1907 pattern bayonet. It has a marking on it which i do not recognise. It is inside the groove where the boyonet attatches to the rifle and is a "&" mark. You can see it clearly on the photo attached.

Can anyone help with what this mark could be please?

I believe the bayonet was introduced into service in 1910, was re-issued in 1923 and again in 1925. It is a Sanderson blade with Enifeld inspectors marks on it. I can also just about see the GR crown cipher too. There are a couple of other marks which look like inspection marks but are too faint to make out.

Finally i can see a 2 with a small gap and a "K" with 286 stamped underneath. bothe these marks are on the pommel just underneath the button that protrudes when attatching. Is this a regimental mark of some sort and an individuals number?

Can anyone shed any more light on this please? Am i correct with what i believe the bayonet to be?

Thanks in advance

Paul

[Lancashire Fusilier]

I have recently been given a 1907 pattern bayonet.

Paul

Paul,

As you say, you have a Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet made by Sanderson, originally issued on what looks likes 10 10 ( October 1910 ), with the bayonet subsequently re-issued in 1923 and 1925, all this is shown in the middle photo of the bayonet's ricasso.

The bottom photo shows, the Inspector's marks, the WD ' Broad Arrow ' and the ' X ' Bend Blade Test mark.

The top photo with the ' & ' could be part of a Maker's Mark, as Sanderson were also known as Sanderson & Newbould, and perhaps that was originally an ' S ' for Sanderson, in the middle was the ' & ' and below that an ' N ' for Newbould, with the ' S ' and ' N ' marks no longer being clear.

With regard to the pommel markings, they would typically be ' Regimental ' ownership marks. There would have been some other letters with the ' K ', and the 286 below the letters would have been the bayonet issue number.

If you can take a close look at the pommel to try and make out the missing letters to go with the ' K ', that will help to identify the Regimental mark.

Regards,

LF

[shippingsteel]

This bayonet looks to have been made in October of either 1915, 1916 or 1918 (mark is very faint). It simply can't have been made in 1910 with the GR cypher shown.

As stated it has reissue markings for '23 and '25. The 'ampersand' symbol will be a manufacturing inspection mark. It's not uncommon to see randomly stamped letters.

Cheers, S>S

[Lancashire Fusilier]

It simply can't have been made in 1910 with the GR cypher shown.

From my old distant past history lessons, I seem to remember that when a British Monarch dies, new Royal Seals, Royal Cyphers etc., are issued for the new Monarch, as these would have been required for all kinds of official Royal documents etc. So upon the death of his Father KEVII, King George V became King effective as of May 6, 1910. The new Monarch is proclaimed immediately upon the death of the old Monarch, as was KGV ( although his Coronation ceremony was not until June 1911 ), so by October 1910, it is highly likely that the new ' KGV ' Royal Cypher was in use, and these would have been ready and in the works for sometime even before King Edward VII died.

It is therefore possible for a bayonet to have a ' KGV ' Royal Cypher, and also be dated October 1910, as KGV became King on May 6, 1910.

Regards,

LF

[shippingsteel]

Some experience with looking at bayonets says otherwise, but feel free to provide another example made by Sanderson in 1910 with that same GR cypher.

Such a P1907 made in 1910 by Sanderson (aside from having the hooked quillon) will also have been marked in a fashion unique to that maker at that time.

Cheers, S>S

[Michael Haselgrove]

Hello LF and SS,

Although it may be a bit late to say so, a very happy New Year to you both and many thanks for all your learned posts.

I'm not sure if this helps but I have a P 1907 hooked quillon made at Enfield. I only acquired it recently and will post a photo when time permits as I have a question about it. In the meantime, it is clearly marked ER and has the date 7 '11. Although I have seen reference to the date being the date of manufacture my understanding, probably wrong, is that the date is rather the date of acceptance.

Regards,

Michael H.

[shippingsteel]

I'm not sure if this helps but I have a P 1907 hooked quillon made at Enfield. I only acquired it recently and will post a photo when time permits as I have a question about it. In the meantime, it is clearly marked ER and has the date 7 '11.

Although I have seen reference to the date being the date of manufacture my understanding, probably wrong, is that the date is rather the date of acceptance.

Yes Michael it is generally understood that the changeover to the new cypher was very slow. Even the Royal Small Arms Factory (Enfield) did not start using the new cypher till well into 1911.

Now this 'dating' business is complicated by the fact that prior to the war, orders were contracted out to suppliers and numbers were much smaller. Contracts were offered for specific numbers.

Hence the contractors would carry stocks of undated (ie.unaccepted) bayonets awaiting the next contract, and there would always be carry-over of finished articles which were surplus to orders.

I also understand that the dates stamped on the ricasso are 'acceptance dates' but this was different again during the war, when the contractors had 'open-ended' orders to supply vast numbers.

So during the latter half of the war I believe the manufacture and acceptance dates would virtually have been the same, and I wouldn't be surprised if they were all stamped immediately in factory.

Before the war when things were far more relaxed, the ricasso markings look more like a 'boutique' operation with neatness and attention to detail. The later wartime examples look very scrambled.

Cheers, S>S

[4thGordons]

Sometimes very slow indeed.....

[auchonvillerssomme]

_{This might be a silly question considering I have been collecting militaria 'stuff; for some considerable time, isn't the date stamp the date it was accepted into service, I can't imagine them chucking away stocks because they were within a year or 3 of a different cypher.}

[shippingsteel]

No they wouldn't have chucked away anything. They used up what they had at hand and nobody would have really cared what the Royal cypher was.

Before the war the date was when the article was accepted into service, but when things really ramped-up during the war, manufacture = acceptance.

A good example of this is a Wilkinson hookie that I have, it bears the earlier ER cypher as you would expect but was only accepted (ie.dated) in Dec 1914.

It would have been old stock that had been left sitting in storage somewhere (probably surplus to contract) but was dragged out in the rush to mobilisation.

Interestingly it's regimentally marked to a 1st Battalion line Infantry, and came with the early Mk.I scabbard, from Germany so possibly a battlefield souvenir.

Cheers, S>S

[Michael Haselgrove]

SS,

Thanks very much for your reply. What you write is very helpful. In particular, it explains why my albeit limited reading on

the subject of dating has failed to produce a definite answer as to whether the date stamps are date of manufacture or

acceptance.

Attached are a couple of photos of my latest acquisition. It has what I take to be an inspection stamp of a broad arrow over EFDover 36. I can't find reference to that stamp in The Broad Arrow by Skennerton, or elsewhere, and wonder if you have seen it

before?

4thGordons,

Thanks very much for your photo which illustrates the position perfectly!

Regards,

Michael H.

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Attached are a couple of photos of my latest acquisition. It has what I take to be an inspection stamp of a broad arrow over EFDover 36. I can't find reference to that stamp in The Broad Arrow by Skennerton, or elsewhere, and wonder if you have seen it

before

Michael H.

Michael,

Here are the ricasso markings on 4 Hooked Quillion bayonets in my Collection for comparison.

Regards,

LF

[brummie76]

Thanks Guys for the replys!

An interesting read!

Unfortunatly cant see any other markings on the pommel other than the 2 and the K. Ideas anyone as to which regt?

Regarding the '10 marking..... i am just guessing here but would the ' mark not mean 19 as the same mark appears next to the '25 and '23? Why would you use this mark if you were trying to record 10 as being October if you understand what i mean surely if you were stamping October then it would just be stamped 10 rather than '10?

[shippingsteel]

They were just using the old year stamps that they had on hand, so using the '10 stamp rather than a 10 because it was available. I have noticed this being done by a few makers.

Sanderson was doing it during the early war period, late 1914 / early 1915, which leads me to think your bayonet might be from the 1915 vintage, but the stamping is too faint to be sure.

Cheers, S>S

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Unfortunatly cant see any other markings on the pommel other than the 2 and the K. Ideas anyone as to which regt?

Any chance of a close up of that ' K ' marking, as there were only 2 British Regular Forces using a ' K ' in their regimental mark, and both of those were from then British Hong Kong, so I doubt they are a match.

With the British Infantry Regiments, there are 11 that used a ' K ' in their regimental mark, so to try and narrow it down, we would need some other letters.

Regards,

LF

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Regarding the '10 marking..... i am just guessing here but would the ' mark not mean 19 as the same mark appears next to the '25 and '23? Why would you use this mark if you were trying to record 10 as being October if you understand what i mean surely if you were stamping October then it would just be stamped 10 rather than '10?

You make a very valid point, however, I would agree with S>S, that whilst it is extremely unusual to see the ' mark before the month code, it is stamped too far to the left to be the year code, and if you look very carefully, to the right of the sideways ' 25 ' you will be able to make out a very feint ' 15 ', and if you trace over the ' 5 ' in the ' 25 ' it matches that other 5 perfectly, giving your bayonet a date code of '10 15.

You were correct to ' red flag ' that marking, but nothing about marking/stamping seems to be uniform or straightforward, and unusual markings crop up, with the bayonet factory workers using the date stamps on hand or it was just a mistake, would seem to be the answer.

You therefore, have a basic P1907 Sword Bayonet with a very scarce month code marking.

Regards,

LF

[brummie76]

You make a very valid point, however, I would agree with S>S, that whilst it is extremely unusual to see the ' mark before the month code, it is stamped too far to the left to be the year code, and if you look very carefully, to the right of the sideways ' 25 ' you will be able to make out a very feint ' 15 ', and if you trace over the ' 5 ' in the ' 25 ' it matches that other 5 perfectly, giving your bayonet a date code of '10 15.

Blimey!! I agree 100% with you on the 15 mark......i never spotted it....now you point it out i can clearly see the '15! The ' mark is visible at the bottof of the 2 marking and the 1 (of the '15) is clearly visible underneath the top of the 2 marking!!.....well i never! Well chuffed with that!

Still would like to find out what the & marking means?

Here attached is the photo of the pommel with the "2" and "K" clearly visible along with the 683.

Thanks for the responses!

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Here attached is the photo of the pommel with the "2" and "K" clearly visible along with the 683.

I think you are in luck, as looking at the spacing of the letters which ends in ' K ', the marking is made up of 3 letters, with the last letter being a ' K ', and of the 11 British Regiments using the letter ' K ' there was in fact only one British Regiment which used 3 letters, the last of which was a ' K ', that was Princess Charlotte of Wales' ( Royal Berkshire Regiment ) which used ' BRK ', and by substantially enlarging your photo, it is possible to just make out the ' BRK ' mark.

So you have a Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet issued '10 ( October ) 15 ( 1915 ) with the Pommel Regimental Mark of ' 2 BRK ' The Princess Charlotte of Wales'

( Royal Berkshire Regiment, 2nd Battalion ) bayonet issue No. 683.

Edit - I checked Skennerton's reference book ' The Broad Arrow ', page 94 and it lists BRK as being The Princess Charlotte of Wales' ( Royal Berkshire Regiment, 2nd Battalion ).

Regards,

LF

[brummie76]

Thanks! So i think this one is going to take its place in my scabbard replacing the modern copy 1907 bayonet i have! Roll on the frist living history day!

Would you think this bayonet is worth anything?

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Thanks! So i think this one is going to take its place in my scabbard replacing the modern copy 1907 bayonet i have! Roll on the frist living history day!

Would you think this bayonet is worth anything?

Yes, it certainly has a value which will depend on its overall condition, more importantly, if you also have a modern copy, your 1907 original is the one to hang onto and use at the LH day.

Also, your's has two nice features, the unusual date stamping of '10 for October, and it has a Regimental marked pommel, being that of The Princess Charlotte of Wales' ( Royal Berkshire Regiment, 2nd Battalion ). Plus, if you look at the Regiment's Battle History, your bayonet could have been involved in some notable actions, including the Battle of the Somme.

Here is a note of The Princess Charlotte of Wales' ( Royal Berkshire Regiment, 2nd Battalion ) WW1 service -

" At the outbreak of war in August 1914 the 2nd Battalion, Royal Berkshire Regiment were in Jhansi, India. They returned home, arriving in England on the 22nd of October and joined the 25th Brigade in Winchester for a short period of training before proceeding to France to reinforce the BEF, landing at Le Havre on the 5th of November 1914. They served on the Western Front throughout the conflict. In 1915 they were in action at The Battle of Neuve Chapelle, The Battle of Aubers and The action of Bois Grenier. In 1916 They were in action at the Battle of The Somme. In 1917 they fought in The German retreat to the Hindenburg Line and then moved to Flanders and were in action in The Battle of Pilkem and The Battle of Langemarck. In 1918 they saw action during The Battle of St Quentin, The actions at the Somme crossings, The Battle of Rosieres, The actions of Villers-Bretonneux, The Battle of the Aisne, The Battle of the Scarpe and The Final Advance in Artois including the capture of Douai. "

Also attached their Cap Badge, and an Officer's botton.

Enjoy owning the bayonet, it has a nice WW1 history.

Regards,

LF

[Michael Haselgrove]

LF,

Thanks very much for the photos of the bayonets in your excellent collection. The stamp I was referring to is shown in your second and third photos and is, in each case, the stamp on the right. Although I can't seem to find a reference to that stamp I am satisfied it is an Enfield Inspector's stamp.

Again, thanks for your help.

Regards,

Michael.

[Lancashire Fusilier]

LF,

Thanks very much for the photos of the bayonets in your excellent collection. The stamp I was referring to is shown in your second and third photos and is, in each case, the stamp on the right. Although I can't seem to find a reference to that stamp I am satisfied it is an Enfield Inspector's stamp.

Again, thanks for your help.

Regards,

Michael.

Michael,

I am pleased they were helpful to you, and of the two Enfield Hooked Quillions, one was issued to the Seaforth Highlanders Regiment ( pommel marked ), and the other was issued to the Australian Military ( pommel marked ) and saw service at Gallipoli.

For your interest, here are the reverse ricassos of both bayonets.

Regards,

LF

[mutley]

Hi,

Bayonets are not my area of expertise and I came in to possession of one today it has the following marks on it:

1903

4 17

Which are above a Remington mark in a circle.

On the other side of the blade there are the following marks:

a broad arrow above what looks like a open book or perhaps a crown which is above the following:

A 6

A

a faint crown

X

Can anyone tell me anything about this? I'll try and post a picture later in the week.

Thanks

Mutley

[wulfrik-the-wanderer]

a 1903 pattern bayonet, made april 1917, made by remington? broad arrow is government acceptance and the X is a bend test mark showing it past quality control tests.

[Lancashire Fusilier]

1903

4 17

Which are above a Remington mark in a circle.

mutley,

You need to check those marks again, and also see if you can post some photos.

Remington did not make a British Pattern 1903 bayonet, they did however make a Pattern 1907 for the British, and also a Pattern 1913, so check that ' 1903 ' ? it should be either 1907 or 1913.

Attached are two Remington bayonets from my Collection, a Remington Pattern 1907, which is much scarcer as only some 100,000 were made, and the Remington Pattern 1913. If you have the Remington Pattern 1913, it will be easy to identify, as there will be 2 vertical grooves across the wooden grips to deliberately distinguish the P1913 from the P1907.

Regards,

LF