markankers Posted 13 September , 2014 Share Posted 13 September , 2014 Hello can anyone tell me, if this bayonet is ww1 british? Many thanks Another photo of the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 13 September , 2014 Share Posted 13 September , 2014 Hello can anyone tell me, if this bayonet is ww1 british? Many thanks Another photo of the other side. Yes, you have a British Pattern 1907 Sword Bayonet made by Sanderson. The markings in the top photograph show the ' WD ' Broad Arrow mark, the ' X ' Bend blade test mark, and 3 inspection marks. The markings on the other side show the Royal Crown and Royal Cypher, the bayonet's ' Pattern Date ' of 1907, the maker's name ' SANDERSON ', and below the ' 1907 ' date, is stamped the bayonet's original issue date, which is hard to read, but could be ' 9 10 ' for September 1910 ? Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdt Posted 13 September , 2014 Share Posted 13 September , 2014 Hi Markanks, Yes, it is the standard British bayonet of WW1 for the SMLE rifle. The bayonet is the 1907 pattern, I cannot quite read the manufacturing date, I can see 9 for September, and is that '18 for the year? Would need to see a cleearer shot as there is a 5 visible as well. It is made by Sanderson. Cheers, Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdt Posted 13 September , 2014 Share Posted 13 September , 2014 Synchronised answers!!! Yes, the date is not clear. Cheers, Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markankers Posted 13 September , 2014 Author Share Posted 13 September , 2014 (edited) Just been looking, looks like part of the, 8 of 18 is warn away, does that mean it was made sep 1918? If so does that mean it didn't go to france, because as we know it all finished nov 11. Edited 13 September , 2014 by markanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radlad Posted 13 September , 2014 Share Posted 13 September , 2014 If so does that mean it didn't go to france, because as we know it all finished nov 11. What finished on November 11th? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt-maj Posted 13 September , 2014 Share Posted 13 September , 2014 Hello chaps... From what I can make out... 'LF' is more or less on the mark. But the manufacture year is 1918. 'markanks'... could you possibly provide us with a clearer pic of the relevant ricasso = blades flat? That half complete / partially stamped '5?' would be interesting to see, and can provide valuable evidence of the blade history. 'Radlad'... I think that 'markanks' was referring reference to the armistice: November 11th 1918, and making the connection as to whether or not this '07' would have made it to France due to its apparent late manufacture date. Seph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markankers Posted 13 September , 2014 Author Share Posted 13 September , 2014 Sorry yes I ment, the war finished 1918. I have taken some more pictures, many thanks to all Regards mark Blade Another photo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markankers Posted 13 September , 2014 Author Share Posted 13 September , 2014 Just trying to get a good shot of the stamp, best I can do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 13 September , 2014 Share Posted 13 September , 2014 Just trying to get a good shot of the stamp, best I can do. Your bayonet looks to be dated 3 18 ? for March 1918 Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markankers Posted 13 September , 2014 Author Share Posted 13 September , 2014 Yes LF I think your spot on, it may have got to france, for the last few months of the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markankers Posted 13 September , 2014 Author Share Posted 13 September , 2014 Anyone know how much it's worth?I picked it up for 40 pounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt-maj Posted 13 September , 2014 Share Posted 13 September , 2014 What looked like a '5', is actually a -2- on its side. The stamping is:- '20 = 1920 = the bayonet had some form of refurbishment carried out at that time. Seph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyH Posted 13 September , 2014 Share Posted 13 September , 2014 RE VALUE. Is it complete with its scabbard? A typical price for a 1907 pattern with scabbard would be £60-£90 depending on condition. I picked up a unit marked 1907 without scabbard a couple of months ago for £20, admittedly that was cheap, the vendor was not aware of the markings. Sometimes you can get lucky, the average dealer at an antiques fair knows little about militaria. Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markankers Posted 13 September , 2014 Author Share Posted 13 September , 2014 Seph , would it have been stamped again in 1920, for sharpening and maybe new handle, however handle looks like it's the original Mike I have the leather scabbard, and it's black in colour. Thanks mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 13 September , 2014 Share Posted 13 September , 2014 What looked like a '5', is actually a -2- on its side. The stamping is:- '20 = 1920 = the bayonet had some form of refurbishment carried out at that time. Seph. Seph, My eyes are not as good as they used to be, and I agree with you that there is a ' 20 ' sideways on, making it very difficult to make out the year date numerals. All that is clear, is the month date ' 3 ' for March, and the first numeral of the year date ' 1 '. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markankers Posted 13 September , 2014 Author Share Posted 13 September , 2014 Does this mean it was made in 1920,? Many thanks mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markankers Posted 13 September , 2014 Author Share Posted 13 September , 2014 (edited) Managed to take a better photo Edited 13 September , 2014 by markanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 13 September , 2014 Share Posted 13 September , 2014 This clearer photo does help a lot ... so obviously made in September 1918, showing the typical sloppy stampings of the late-war period. Then later overstamped with the '20 "reissue" mark, which shows that some kind of inspection, rework or refurbishment was undertaken. Meaning this later work was done in 1920, and the unclear markings shown above the '20 are most likely the matching inspection stamp. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
markankers Posted 13 September , 2014 Author Share Posted 13 September , 2014 Cheers s>s Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt-maj Posted 14 September , 2014 Share Posted 14 September , 2014 I would agree with S>S on faint markings to the right of the '20, and at the '10-o-clock' position. Both supporting inspectors stampings. Seph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 14 September , 2014 Share Posted 14 September , 2014 (edited) ...showing the typical sloppy stampings of the late-war period. Come on, mate, justify that 'typical'! I can find and show you some nice clear markings from the late-war period! And some equally clearly 'sloppy' ones from before and after! Mind you, the ones in question hers are rather sloppy... Edited 17 September , 2014 by Keith Roberts forum rules- personal comment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 16 September , 2014 Share Posted 16 September , 2014 (edited) Now, it may be and presumably is the case that all of SS's late war P.1907's are "sloppily marked".. But we will never know because he doesn't provide any evidence for making this statement. Yes, some such markings are 'sloppy', but many from the early war years are also sloppy (how do we define 'sloppy', by the way?). And the quality of markings varies within companies... Take a look at my two Sanderson 1917 P.1907's: one could be termed 'sloppy', the other is 'crisp'. And look at this selection of some others taken at random from the web (sources can be supplied if required)... Ignoring any of those 're-issue' marks - sloppiness is in the eye of the beholder So, back to my main point. Far too often I have seen comments by SS on bayonet and other matters that project the image that he is infallible . If only he would be more professional in his approach to GWF and bayonet studies then we could all learn so much more. But, if he does not or cannot provide firm evidence on something he wishes to spout on then he should honestly state that such-and-such is such-and-such in his opinion. No more and no less. Otherwise sarcasm is justified to warn those others less aware that many of his "statements of fact" are, in truth, opinions only - unless he backs them with hard data! Trajan PS: I do, in fact, actually agree with him to an extent - in the sense that most late war P.1907's I have seen (I don't especially collect them) do have rather untidy and often unclear markings. But that observation is based on what I have seen, not on any form of systematically collected data. PPS: hope I don't get MODed out! Edited 17 September , 2014 by Keith Roberts Some phrased removed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt-maj Posted 16 September , 2014 Share Posted 16 September , 2014 Come on gentlemen.... please leave the ball bating to private PM's. This is a public domain after all! Seph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 16 September , 2014 Share Posted 16 September , 2014 Seph, couldn't agree more - but if you were to check you would see I have received a fair amount of insults, blathering, and balderdash from our Antipodean friend which I have generally ignored! And as MODS are wont to moderate PM's very carefully and sometimes withhold them, so, better out in the open in replying to what is justified criticism! But to the point. Opinions on material are opinions, and nothing more, and should be stated as such: and hard data is priceless. I am a collector who believes in sharing and supplying data and sources for us all to benefit from, distinguishing fact from opinion very clearly - and I would simply wish that others would do so as well - as you and several more GWF Forum members do, with your quotes from LOC's etc.! Now off on new travels - and let's see what else turns up. TTFN, Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now