WILKINSON / PALL MALL P.1907 bayonets

[JMB1943]

Speaking of dull/sharp bayonets and cutting a loaf of bread, I am currently re-reading "There's a Devil in the Drum", by John F. Lucy.

He served in the Royal Irish Rifles, and whilst describing the retreat from Mons he writes (Chapter 23, p. 123),

"While we were resting our officers visited the local shops for food, and amused us by reappearing with bread transfixed on their swords--an ingenious way of carrying half a dozen bulky loaves of French bread."

So the swords had at least some usefulness!

Regards,

JMB

 

[t.ryan]

4thGordons, JMB, MikeyH.

Back to the John White and the JWB marked scabbard.

This photo shows the old John Whites delivery van clearly showing John Whites Boots painted on the side as well as a small write up about the boot and shoe industry in 1919.

Could that J.W.B. stand for John Whites Boots. as Ian Skennerton's book states.??? or is the 1917 dated scabbard to early for John Whites. ???

Cheers,

TR

 

 

[MikeyH]

10 hours ago, t.ryan said:

4thGordons, JMB, MikeyH.

Back to the John White and the JWB marked scabbard.

This photo shows the old John Whites delivery van clearly showing John Whites Boots painted on the side as well as a small write up about the boot and shoe industry in 1919.

Could that J.W.B. stand for John Whites Boots. as Ian Skennerton's book states.??? or is the 1917 dated scabbard to early for John Whites. ???

Cheers,

TR

 

 

TR,

According to an online history of the company, John White established his business in 1918 in Rushden, by the end of 1919 he employed three people.  He seems to have been a very astute businessman and by 1921 had made 100,000 pairs of shoes and boots.  By 1935, the company was the largest shoemaker in Britain.  During the Spanish Civil War, both sides wore White's footwear, 100,000 pairs being supplied to each.  

Mike.

Edited 31 March , 2023 by MikeyH

[t.ryan]

MikeyH,

I have also been doing a bit more homework on JWB  and emailed the company (still going) to see if they had any information on early history on whether other leather components were made during WW1. 

I was very surprised with the quick response from Stuart. His email enclosed; is more or less also saying that WW1 was possibly to early for John White to be involved.

I looked into the Rusden museum but it is currently closed for winter until mid May.

Cheers.

TR

[MikeyH]

15 hours ago, t.ryan said:

MikeyH,

I have also been doing a bit more homework on JWB  and emailed the company (still going) to see if they had any information on early history on whether other leather components were made during WW1. 

I was very surprised with the quick response from Stuart. His email enclosed; is more or less also saying that WW1 was possibly to early for John White to be involved.

I looked into the Rusden museum but it is currently closed for winter until mid May.

Cheers.

TR

TR,

The company supplied over eight million pairs of boots to the armed forces in WW2, 'one ninth of the footwear supplied to the troops'.

Regards,

Mike.

Edited 1 April , 2023 by MikeyH

[t.ryan]

 

MikeyH,

That is one hell of a lot of pairs of military boots, and a great effort from the John White Boot Factory.

It would appear that John White was a little late for WW1 marked components such as the scabbard mentioned above; but it will be interesting to see if they supplied component parts other than boots leading up to and during WW2 and if so what identifying stamps they may have used. I will check out the Rushden museum at a later date and see if any information is available.

It would also be interesting to find out the same thing with the J.W.B. marked scabbard and the J W Brookes firm which was mentioned earlier.

Cheers,

TR

 

[4thGordons]

There was s a boot and shoe museum in Northampton which also has archives! 
i think it is housed in the ArtGallery and Museum.
i remember walking past the John white factory as a kid - in the summer they would have the doors open and it ( and the smell of glue etc) always fascinated me.

Chris

 While the Highland Div was in Bedford in 1914/15 ( just 12 miles down the A6) IIRC the 7th RWF were in Rushden for a time in 1915.

[AMK]

Hi all, I wonder if anyone can shed any light on this mis-stamped and undated Wilkinson Pall Mall 1907 pattern bayonet? Aside from the "I" missing from the stamp, it is also completely devoid of acceptance stamps and has no crown. It has me stumped! 

[JMB1943]

Hello AMK,

Welcome to the GWF.

Certainly an unusual example of a Wilkinson.

While they often show poor stamping, with the crown being sometimes very faint, I have never seen the second “I” missing as on yours.

It makes me wonder if the blade at the ricasso has a very broad V-shape and the “I” fell just in that, so had no metal surface to impact.

As to a possible date, no earlier than 5 16 with the “PALL MALL” present.

It does at least have the X-bend test marking and one viewer’s stamp, so at least entered the inspection process.

Another jarring note is the (serial) number 656, which to my eyes is upside down and lacks a unit identifier.

All in all, a strange beast altogether.

Regards,

JMB

Edit: I think that with a bit of wishful thinking, the crown is just barely visible above 1907.

Edited 4 July , 2023 by JMB1943
Add info

[AMK]

Thank you JMB for your thoughts. The serial doesn't look particularly "British" to my eye, in that it is not typical of the typeface I would expect to see. I was wondering about the unmarked Saudi Arabian batch that I've read about, could this be one such example? 

Edited 4 July , 2023 by AMK

[JMB1943]

AWK,

What is this Saudi Arabian batch? …..The memo apparently didn’t reach me.

Regards,

JMB

[AMK]

I may have read incorrectly, bit I think when reading through this thread I saw mention of a batch found in Saudi Arabia devoid of most markings other than the Wilkinson stamp and a bend test stamp. That said, I've been trawling the entire internet trying to find information on this bayonet so I could have my wires crossed! 

[JMB1943]

AMK,

On the 2nd page of this thread a discussion of Iraqi-marked Wilkinson bayos is started by Trajan.

Was that the post ? That is the nearest I can find to Saudi.

Regards,

JMB

[shippingsteel]

This example appears to be a standard Wilkinson production bayonet that has failed to make it through the inspection process. Perhaps best termed a "commercial" bayonet it was not accepted into service due to some flaw, (possibly the vertical seam visible centre of blade both sides ricasso)

Wilkinson was a private contractor, so anything not accepted initially into British service (while still remaining fully functional) was then available to be later sold to any interested bidder. After the war much surplus was sold into foreign military forces, and likely where this ended up.

Cheers, SS 

[AMK]

Thanks SS, a "factory second" was my initial thought but I couldn't find any written evidence to back up that theory. The fact that you have suggested it to be a possibility is enough to convince me that it is indeed an example which for whatever reason didn't make it through the full round of inspections and was released to the commercial market (or pinched from the scrap bin!).

I'm glad it had provoked some discussion either way! Thanks for your input chaps.

[Dave66]

Found a new addition today, brought it because it was A….Cheap, and B….had an unscrubbed Pall Mall marking, 11 16.

Pics below,

Dave.

[JMB1943]

Dave,

It looks like a good, honest example; was it accompanied by a scabbard?

Isn’t it interesting how any given Patt. 07 (esp. a Wilkinson) will usually lack at least one, and often several, of the expected markings.

This is usually attributed to a combination of poor striking and over-zealous polishing.

Conversely, when you look at the Smiling Tiger bayonets for Siam that were produced by scrubbing out the original British markings you will regularly find that said markings have not been totally obliterated.

Regards,

JMB

 

[Dave66]

No scabbard I’m afraid JMB, but I did manage to have a move round once home, and given the 38 stamp I had a scabbard with some traces of ww2 era green paint in a 37 frog…yet another keeper!

Best wishes,

Dave.

Edited 20 September , 2023 by Dave66

[Mk VII]

On 04/07/2023 at 15:15, AMK said:

Hi all, I wonder if anyone can shed any light on this mis-stamped and undated Wilkinson Pall Mall 1907 pattern bayonet? Aside from the "I" missing from the stamp, it is also completely devoid of acceptance stamps and has no crown. It has me stumped! 

 

 

 

Some years ago a batch of well-worn commercial Sht L-E's was imported, reportedly from Bahrain. All had numerals in this typeface stamped on (I think) the marking disc.  There were also bayonets similarly marked. 

[JMB1943]

The appearance in 5 ‘16 (and thereafter) of WILKINSON / PALL MALL on the ricasso led to the suggestion by a member that it was readily explained due to Wilkinson opening a second production line for the  Patt. 1907 bayonet at their showroom for officers in Pall Mall.

I had never subscribed to this theory because Pall Mall was a fashionable place; not the sort of area in London where factories would have been built in 1916.

It occurs to me, that had that been the case, there would have been two production lines, one their major factory in Acton , W. making Bayonets marked WILKINSON, and the second making bayos with the WILKINSON / PALL MALL stamp.

However, after 5 ‘16, don’t Bayonets marked WILKINSON-only disappear? I would be interested to see photos of any WILK-only Bayonets date-stamped after 5 ‘16.

This leads me to think that there never was a second production line.

Regards,

JMB

 

[navydoc16]

On 17/03/2015 at 00:05, JMB1943 said:

Trajan,

I'm pleased to see that you are still on the lookout for this "Pall Mall" marking; cannot imagine that you let that one get away.....

I took another look at my 9/16 P.1907 bayonet today, and in contrast to your "bright" finish mine has a medium-gray dull finish.

Does this suggest that it was parkerized initially (is that sand-blasting ?) or is it just the effect of aging (although your bright one apparently aged without going gray) ?

Regards,

JMB

They were sandblasted to removed the polished finish in 1915 from memory. The practice was for all bayonets in stores and certain new made production lines but ceased after it because useless compared to war material losses. Apparently in the idealistic 1914 and pre-war, many bayonets were polished to a high shine, curtesy of the old sarg maj and were sealed to be a reflective risk in the field. I have the record of the details for the work amendment somewhere. 

[navydoc16]

On 05/07/2023 at 06:51, shippingsteel said:

This example appears to be a standard Wilkinson production bayonet that has failed to make it through the inspection process. Perhaps best termed a "commercial" bayonet it was not accepted into service due to some flaw, (possibly the vertical seam visible centre of blade both sides ricasso)

Wilkinson was a private contractor, so anything not accepted initially into British service (while still remaining fully functional) was then available to be later sold to any interested bidder. After the war much surplus was sold into foreign military forces, and likely where this ended up.

Cheers, SS 

 

On 05/07/2023 at 14:55, AMK said:

Thanks SS, a "factory second" was my initial thought but I couldn't find any written evidence to back up that theory. The fact that you have suggested it to be a possibility is enough to convince me that it is indeed an example which for whatever reason didn't make it through the full round of inspections and was released to the commercial market (or pinched from the scrap bin!).

I'm glad it had provoked some discussion either way! Thanks for your input chaps.

Actually not quite, the majority of bayonets sold were actually re-scrubbed and sold off. It is often hard to see but under a microscope I have about 20 "contract" bayonets, that were sent out in the 20's and 30's from Vickers and Wilkinson (also think about siamese contract), all you can still the various dates and markings in the deformation of the metal very faintly. Bayonets were chosen to be refurbished for their feint markings (of which there were many to choose from), they would probably have preferred the new customer not knowing how old was by scrubbing the dates and the original manufacturer, and they could certainly not be sold with the Royal Cypher.

On the production line if a blank failed muster it was scrapped, and post war there was limited need to complete new bayonets from existing blanks as production was not in as much of demand, a lot of Wilkinsons production lines were shortened like a lot of factories because of the lack of demand, and the fact that the tooling and dies were severely worn out. There was still huge stores of blanks but only those that were in the final steps of fitment were saved. I have several blades from various stages of the Wilkinson production that were saved in the 20's when they were sent to scrap, I bought 4 of them off a gentleman's mother who saved them from the factory at that time.

Wilkinson were certainly not storing bayonets with minor issues to be sold at a later date, at the end of the day, Wilkinson were world renowned to produce the finest blades for export, they would not be risking their reputation of expensive foreign contracts on dodgey blades - especially in an interwar period when they're were huge amounts of military surplus and a time in period when any number of local knife manufactures could have done a 90% job of it in their own country. Wilkinson and English was status and some countries were either money conscious to buy the refurbished surplus or too poor to buy new. 

kind regards,
G

Edited 31 December , 2023 by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

On 26/01/2015 at 17:47, trajan said:

BUT, as I commented on the original thread, it is not just another variation as it seems to be found only on Wilkinson's of the Sept. 1916 to Nov. 1918 period... This allows for the hypothesis that these were made in response to a specific contract of that period, and the hypothesis will stand until somebody produces an earlier example!

I have always been under the notion that Pall Malls were to denote blanks that were purchased by Wilkinson from another knife maker factory or possibly a conglomerate of cutlery makers. There were plenty of cutlery companies in the UK able to make blanks for the blades but unable to make the full 1907. Wilkinson Pall Mall buying those blanks and finishing the blades, as opposed to blades Wilkinson made themselves. After all they're were no men for production, and forging only takes time and steel and not much else, but many factories would not have the machinery for bayonet construction especially in a wartime economy- not to mention milling and brazing actions ect. are not normally part of knife or cutlery making.

I have always thought for inventory control and ability to count and audit issues or defects and repayment. They were to be finished, tested and accepted at the main Wilkinson factory and were still Wilkinson quality control and standards so they were happy to have their name on them. Hence from 1916-1918 there was heavy demand and a year and a bit of war to organise. After 1918 the contracts were canceled with the independents as the war was at its end. 

Kind regards,

g

[JMB1943]

15 hours ago, navydoc16 said:

I have always been under the notion that Pall Malls were to denote blanks that were purchased by Wilkinson from another knife maker factory or possibly a conglomerate of cutlery makers. There were plenty of cutlery companies in the UK able to make blanks for the blades but unable to make the full 1907. Wilkinson Pall Mall buying those blanks and finishing the blades, as opposed to blades Wilkinson made themselves. 

I have always thought for inventory control and ability to count and audit issues or defects and repayment. They were to be finished, tested and accepted at the main Wilkinson factory and were still Wilkinson quality control and standards so they were happy to have their name on them. 

Navydoc,

That is an interesting speculation, but in the absence of any documentation, I'm not sure that it is tenable.

If WILK was back-logged with steel bars that it could not process quickly enough, then it might have made sense for independent cutlers to do the initial cutting and flattening to rough length/width; however, time would then be lost transporting those rough blanks from Sheffield to London, although that delay may have been acceptable.

If this procedure did happen, then marking such blades as Pall Mall for QC purposes would be acceptable, but only if there was a SINGLE external supplier.

One would then expect to see bayos marked "WILK" & "WILK / PALL MALL" being produced. However, as we have shown previously, from May 1916 onwards NO bayonets labelled simply "WILK" have been observed. 

Regards,

JMB

PS Welcome to the Forum!!

 

 

[JMB1943]

19 hours ago, navydoc16 said:

Actually not quite, the majority of bayonets sold were actually re-scrubbed and sold off. It is often hard to see but under a microscope I have about 20 "contract" bayonets, that were sent out in the 20's and 30's from Vickers and Wilkinson (also think about siamese contract), all you can still the various dates and markings in the deformation of the metal very faintly. Bayonets were chosen to be refurbished for their feint markings (of which there were many to choose from)

There was still huge stores of blanks but only those that were in the final steps of fitment were saved. I have several blades from various stages of the Wilkinson production that were saved in the 20's when they were sent to scrap, I bought 4 of them off a gentleman's mother who saved them from the factory at that time.

Hello again Navydoc,

What power of magnification are we talking here?

I think that many of us would like to see photomicrographs of a couple of these "20 contract bayonets", if you are able to connect a camera to the microscope.

Even a good quality straight photo that we could enlarge through a magnifying glass might also serve.

"There were still huge stores of blanks"--again, what sort of numbers are "huge"?, and what is the evidence?

Best New Year wishes to all,

JMB

Edited 31 December , 2023 by JMB1943
Add info