Mons - Was this bayonet there?

[msdt]

When I bought this bayonet a few months ago I thought it was marked to something unfathomable like the Indian railways. Then I thought, but maybe this is not an I (capital i), maybe it's a 1. Then it suddenly became the 1st Battalion of the West Surrey Regiment who landed at Le Havre on the 13th of August, 1914,and were in the thick of all the early engagements.

What do you think?

It is also of interest from the re-issue mark perspective (for those still awake after reading my other post tonight!). It is a 1910 bayonet with marks for 11, 12, and (I think) 14. Following my other post, are the 11 an 12 annual inspection marks (they look to be Enfield inspectors), and is 1914 when the hooked quillion went? It is not drilled for the 'Oil Hole'.

Cheers,

Tony

anding at Le Havre on the 13th of August

[Khaki]

Interesting piece, the stamping could be what you suggest, 1st West Surrey, the only hesitation I have is with the first stamp, I cannot tell if it is a 1 or an L, the harder I look the more difficult it becomes. As you have the bayonet then your ID is probably accurate.

congratulations !

khaki

[Lancashire Fusilier]

1st Battalion of the West Surrey Regiment who landed at Le Havre on the 13th of August, 1914,and were in the thick of all the early engagements.

It is also of interest from the re-issue mark perspective (for those still awake after reading my other post tonight!). It is a 1910 bayonet with marks for 11, 12, and (I think) 14. Following my other post, are the 11 an 12 annual inspection marks (they look to be Enfield inspectors), and is 1914 when the hooked quillion went? It is not drilled for the 'Oil Hole'.

Tony,

You have a British Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet which originally had a Hooked Quillion, which was subsequently removed.

Your bayonet's ricasso has on one side the Crown and Royal ' ER ' cypher for King Edward VII - ' EFD ' being the maker's mark for Enfield - the bayonets Pattern Date of ' 1907 ' - the original issue date ' 1 10 ' for January 1910 - with some additional year re-issue dates.

The other side of the ricasso shows the WD ' Broad Arrow ' - various Enfield Inspector's marks - the ' X ' blade bend test mark.

The Royal West Surrey Regiment did use the mark ' W.SR. ', so if your bayonet's pommel mark is 1 W.SR. that could stand for 1 Battalion The Royal West Surrey Regiment.

The removal of the Hooked Quillion was approved on 29th October 1913, after which time, and as and when possible, particularly during repair, the Hooked Quillions were removed. Although in some cases that was done many years later or not at all.

Just in the last day or so, I and another Forum member posted a particular photograph showing photographic evidence of a Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet with its Hooked Quillion still attached being carried by a British Soldier in early April 1920.

The drilling of a clearance hole in the pommel of the Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet was approved in early 1916 and announced in the List of Changes, para 17692, this change applied to future production, and some bayonets already in service were also modified, although many, including your's were never altered.

Regards,

LF

[shippingsteel]

It is a 1910 bayonet with marks for 11, 12, and (I think) 14. Following my other post, are the 11 an 12 annual inspection marks ... and is 1914 when the hooked quillion went?

Nice bayonet. Those well used old HQR examples are one of my favourite bayonets to collect. They have the "hookie" history, together with the "service" to boot.!

I think what you say is a fair estimate. I can definitely see the '11, '12 and '14 reissue marks, but when the hook was lopped is guesswork (probably before 1916)

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

When I bought this bayonet a few months ago I thought it was marked to something unfathomable like the Indian railways. Then I thought, but maybe this is not an I (capital i), maybe it's a 1. Then it suddenly became the 1st Battalion of the West Surrey Regiment who landed at Le Havre on the 13th of August, 1914,and were in the thick of all the early engagements.

What do you think?

To be honest, that 'I' for a '1' bothers me. I can't think of another unit, I confess, but it just bothers me... I would be happier to see another example of the practice.

[wainfleet]

To be honest, that 'I' for a '1' bothers me. I can't think of another unit, I confess, but it just bothers me... I would be happier to see another example of the practice.

Seconded. They would have a "1" in the ordnance store, so why wouldn't they use it?

[msdt]

Maybe the armourer was into things Roman?! I am fairly sure it is a Roman 1 (capital i) and not an L, it is the corroded patch that makes a little L like. I can't think of what IW.SR could be if it is an i, but as suggested the only help will be if someone has examples of other battalion markings stamped with Roman numerals.

Perhaps the armourer had misplaced his glasses!!!

Until an explanation of what IW.SR could stand for, I'm going to stick with the West Surrey's! It's a shame a dot can't be seen after the I but again the corroded patch gets in the way. Here is a close up:

Cheers,

Tony

[msdt]

Maybe that was a bit too close!!!

[shippingsteel]

Maybe that was a bit too close!!!

Ha ha, yes I thought that was writing on the surface of the moon there for a moment ...

I would be quite comfortable with the link to the West Surrey's from what I can see. The dot is an important indicator, being sited where it is between the W and the SR (which is correct)

From memory I have seen the battalion numbers before, having been stamped with the Roman I as opposed to the numeral 1. I think this was not that uncommon in the pre-war period.?

EDIT. And I don't believe it was usual practice to place a dot between the Battalion number and the letters. From the vintage of the bayonet I am happy to go with the "provenance".

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Maybe the armourer was into things Roman?! ...

Stranger things are known! An early reply to the question 'What have the Romans ever done for us?'

I would be quite comfortable with the link to the West Surrey's from what I can see. The dot is an important indicator, being sited where it is between the W and the SR (which is correct)

From memory I have seen the battalion numbers before, having been stamped with the Roman I as opposed to the numeral 1. I think this was not that uncommon in the pre-war period.?

Yes, of course W.SR is correct for a post 1881 marking for the West Surreys... I'd just like to see a few more examples!

[msdt]

Thanks guys. Maybe somebody will spot another bayonet from the 1st Battalion of the W SR - which might only prove that the spectacles were located!!! However when one thinks that if the battalion had stamped up the 1000 or so blades it had at the start of WW1, and then maybe no replacements were stamped, how many of the 1000 would survive by 1918 for such an active front-line regiment???

It certainly is a bayonet with the used look, even more so in the flesh as it also has a slight bend in the blade. As there is no history from the marks after 1914 one can only speculate where it's been and how it survived.

I'll continue with the re-issue stamps on my other post, as this 1907 also has a nice series: into service 1910, then '11, '12 and '14.

Cheers,

Tony

[trajan]

Tony, it is indeed a very nice bayonet, and one with a history that is a wee bit obscure, but it certainly has one! And I do like your photograph showing where Capn' Hook has been cold chiseled and then ground off! Certainly a 'I' and not an 'L', and who knows why, but there are certainly enough variations in bayonet markings to prove the rule on these, whatever our learned and experienced friends might claim!

TTFN,

Trajan

[shippingsteel]

Just a little more on this marking business ... it does help if you have an understanding of the fonts that were being used around that time (re. explanation)

When you see just how similar the two punches would appear, you could hardly blame the poor old "armourer's offsider" for making such a simple mistake.

You come across this kind of thing all the time, where the punches were stamped upside down by mistake is a common one, and not just done at unit level.

So below we have a quick comparison of photos, with Tony's marked bayonet shown on the left. And an illustration of the stamping fonts during that period.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

You come across this kind of thing all the time, where the punches were stamped upside down by mistake is a common one, and not just done at unit level.

To highlight this point, just looking at Tony's bayonet again, we see another stuff-up ... this time at RSAF Enfield (and identified to the lead inspector #35)

So as they always say .."#&it happens" ... and this only helps to remind us that these things were done by real people (who are human and make mistakes)

Cheers, S>S

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Just a little more on this marking business ... it does help if you have an understanding of the fonts that were being used around that time (re. explanation)

When you see just how similar the two punches would appear, you could hardly blame the poor old "armourer's offsider" for making such a simple mistake.

You come across this kind of thing all the time, where the punches were stamped upside down by mistake is a common one, and not just done at unit level.

So below we have a quick comparison of photos, with Tony's marked bayonet shown on the left. And an illustration of the stamping fonts during that period.

Cheers, S>S

Good point S>S, now you mention it, it does look like an upside down ' 1 '.

Regards,

LF

[msdt]

Thanks for the further input S>S. Assuming that the punch sets for numbers and letters were identical in form, it would indeed be very easy to pick up the I (i) instead of the 1. Will look at the marking again under magnification to see if an upside down 1 introduces another possibility!

So assuming it is the West Surrey's, 3 possibilities now:

Intentional Roman 1

Mistaken selection of punch

Upside down 1

I had already come to accept that the acceptance date numbers are not uncommonly upside down. After struggling to read faint marks, once you see your first upside down clear stamping you realise that this must be considered with difficult to read marks.

Cheers,

Tony

[Khaki]

It's a shame a dot can't be seen after the I but again the corroded patch gets in the way.

Cheers,

Tony

The imperfection in the pommel, casting flaw or less likely corrosion appears to have existed prior to the stamping as the regimental marks appear to be over the area concerned ?

khaki

[wulfrik-the-wanderer]

Nice bayonet. Those well used old HQR examples are one of my favourite bayonets to collect. They have the "hookie" history, together with the "service" to boot.!

I think what you say is a fair estimate. I can definitely see the '11, '12 and '14 reissue marks, but when the hook was lopped is guesswork (probably before 1916)

Cheers, S>S

Just to add another long service Hooked quillion removed bayonet to the subject for those interested,

Like the original poster it was made in 1910 by Enfield, to be precise May 1910, the grips appear to have '09 stamped into the reverse.

and would appear to have inspection/reissue/re-work stamps for '12, '13, '15, '27, '30, '36, '37 so had a long life and had the quillion removed and a clearing hole drilled. Unfortunately no regimental markings.

hope you enjoy.

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Just to add another long service Hooked quillion removed bayonet to the subject for those interested,

Like the original poster it was made in 1910 by Enfield, to be precise May 1910, the grips appear to have '09 stamped into the reverse.

and would appear to have inspection/reissue/re-work stamps for '12, '13, '15, '27, '30, '36, '37 so had a long life and had the quillion removed and a clearing hole drilled. Unfortunately no regimental markings.

hope you enjoy.

Nice to see those not too often exposed tang and grip markings.

Regards,

LF

[msdt]

Thanks Wulfrik, yes, nice to see the tang marks. Re reissue date marks, I only see '12, '15 and '30 that I understand. Are the WD arrow over EFD over number dates? I had assumed that these were inspector numbers?

Cheers,

Tony

[shippingsteel]

Re reissue date marks, I only see '12, '15 and '30 that I understand. Are the WD arrow over EFD over number dates? I had assumed that these were inspector numbers?

That's correct Tony. Yes it's always good to see whats under the grips, lots of factory process and inspection markings to be seen there as well, more to learn.!

It's a long serving bayonet that survived in use throughout the war. Not surprising it has had its grips replaced, that small 'D' stamp is the later Enfield EFD mark.

Cheers, S>S

[wulfrik-the-wanderer]

on the front riccasso there is a '12 , a crown and faint '13, an EFD 10, EFD 27 on the tang, crown ?9 on the grips, reverse of ricasso has '30, '15, EFD 36, crown 37 E, Crown 3? (overstamped) E, so the numbers with the inspectors stamps do not mean dates? learn something new every day

[shippingsteel]

That's right ... the '12, '15 & '30 are the proper "reissue" marks, while all the other numbers are related to the inspection marks. Thanks for posting your photos.!

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Good point S>S, now you mention it, it does look like an upside down ' 1 '.

Regards,

LF

Quite - but for the serif... Even turned t'other way round you have what seems to be a serif behind the horizontal bar representing the one, so even an upside-down Roman 'I' is possible...

[trajan]

the grips appear to have '09 stamped into the reverse.

Thanks Wulfric! I have never dared to take the grips off any of my UK bayonets, and would be interested in how easy / difficult you found this. Interesting to see how many and varied those stamps are! Anw I would be especially interested in seen the stamp on the inside of the grips!

Trajan

PS: For that matter, nor have I tried to take the grips off from any of my other screw-bolt type bayonets except for (hush, hush, whisper it softly! For this is GWF!) my wehrmacht ones... And these have lots of inspections marks on the tangs...)