WILKINSON / PALL MALL P.1907 bayonets

[navydoc16]

7 hours ago, JMB1943 said:

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

In order of questions, at about 6-8x power you can often see the original marks and dates, I will have to see if I can do the same with my iPhone. 

Not sure how to quantify "huge" however, when I bought my 4 blanks which were scrapped from Wilkinson I was told something along the lines that "the warehouses were emptied of all the blanks (I'm assuming they meant partially complete bayonets) and many wagons/trucks? came to take them to scrap" I will upload some photos later, they will show that some of the blanks were not too far away from being completed, but my speculation would be that like a lot of companies from an economical/storage and demand standpoint, there was either too much excess or it was too expensive to store large amounts of wartime production surplus when Wilkinson would likely have been back in the throws of full scale commercial production again. 

Obviously there was "new production" in the interwar years, but to what extent it was completed from scratch, what was completing existing non-dated blanks and what was refurbished has always been the question. But it appears that Brits were not actually completing new blades, rather finishing off bayonets what had already had the general shaping completed and were in storage or refurbishing existing stocks. Photos incoming, I will try to dig out some of the ones I have mentioned.  

7 hours ago, JMB1943 said:

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!!

 

 

Yes definitely nothing of substance to back anything up there, around a couple little collectors circles here, we have discussed possibilities at length and for some time, accepted that likely it meant a second production run either run by a contractor or run by Wilkinson. There is a specific reason that they were marked Wilk Pall Mall and Wilk it has to be a determining factor to differentiate completed Wilk from completed Wilk Pall Mall either at the end of production or during production or both, and I don't believe there is many possibilities as to why they have done that. - HOWEVER I concede that now I have bothered to dig out my blanks it seems as I am the incorrect, the PALL MALL and WILK were added at quite a late stage of production not early in the process like I had initially thought, however perhaps rather than the early stage of forging, it was the late stage of finishing elsewhere in Wilkinson production facility? the swordsmiths? 

kind regards,

g 

Edited 1 January by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

Here are the blanks, you can see even at a late stage they had no Wilk or Pall Mall markings. So it had to relate to production lines or finishing

kind regards
g

 

[navydoc16]

Here are a couple interwars I had within arms reach, 

zooming in with a iPhone you can clearly see the dates and markings only just visible in the normal places. 

at a glance 

Chapman has been scrubbed and re-dated 1919

Wilk 37 is the same, overstamping a scrubbed 1916 or 1918- only it also used to be a Sanderson (look closely underneath the Pall Mall 

Vickers overstamping an inspectors 35? in the date position- needs more time to look at 

RFI 1920 overstamped the month with a 0 that you can’t see the 8 but it used to be a 1917

I have some other odd dates that can also be dug out if required. 

all my interwar Lithgow production however is all brand new. 

kind regards

g

Edited 1 January by navydoc16

[Dave66]

1 hour ago, navydoc16 said:

Here are the blanks, you can see even at a late stage they had no Wilk or Pall Mall markings. So it had to relate to production lines or finishing

kind regards
g

 

Looking at these blanks, the way the broad arrow and bend test is stamped side by side and the type of stamps used, I’d say these are blanks for the WW2 S294 admiralty contract. The finish on these were of lesse quality than their ww1 counterparts.

Pic of mine below,

Dave.

[Dave66]

Adding to the above, I have had an odd one that has puzzled me for a while as only the broad arrow and bend test, and very poor quality……looking at your blanks, now I think someone has finished one off to complete a bayonet.

[navydoc16]

51 minutes ago, Dave66 said:

Looking at these blanks, the way the broad arrow and bend test is stamped side by side and the type of stamps used, I’d say these are blanks for the WW2 S294 admiralty contract. The finish on these were of lesse quality than their ww1 counterparts.

Pic of mine below,

Dave.

Very interesting thought indeed, was not was told to me but I guess the phrase “after the war” could be either, although I was specifically told WW1. 

I will do some more looking at my ww1 proof marks and see if I can find similar examples and compare against a couple of my WW2 Wilks.
 

as for the roughness these blades, they have not yet been ground or polished or linished to any degree yet hence the condition. 

On another note I suspect the blanks and finishing process was the same with the final hallmarks added at a later stages during ww2 as well

amazing to find the things folks pick up on  

kind regards

g

 

 

Edited 1 January by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

16 minutes ago, Dave66 said:

Adding to the above, I have had an odd one that has puzzled me for a while as only the broad arrow and bend test, and very poor quality……looking at your blanks, now I think someone has finished one off to complete a bayonet.

Now that is a beautiful piece, and I think you are indeed correct, it appears to be a either a blank that was to be destroyed due to failure of gauge or one that was scrapped at the end of the war 

if Wilkinson was like Lithgow, bayonets that failed gauge very late in the production process often found their way home as presents for kids to sword fight with. 

I used to live very near to the Orange Annex which produced bayonets at the end of the war and found over the years in various second hand markets, factory unfinished bayonets that had been completed to various degrees. At the end of the day the stud could not be re-used once ground to fit that particular pommel. So the whole piece bar the spring and nut was scrap metal. 

 

kind regards

g

[JMB1943]

15 hours ago, navydoc16 said:

 ……around a couple little collectors circles here, we have discussed possibilities at length and for some time, accepted that likely it meant a second production run either run by a contractor or run by Wilkinson. There is a specific reason that they were marked Wilk Pall Mall and Wilk it has to be a determining factor to differentiate completed Wilk from completed Wilk Pall Mall either at the end of production or during production or both,…..

Whichever way you slice it and dice it, you still have to account for the fact that at any given time, there was only ONE name on their bayonets—it was either WILK or WILK / PALL MALL, not both.

Occam’s Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is the best—perhaps the company merely decided to add PALL MALL for some reason (name recognition/ advertising?).

Regards,

JMB

[JMB1943]

8 hours ago, navydoc16 said:

Here are the blanks, you can see even at a late stage they had no Wilk or Pall Mall markings. So it had to relate to production lines or finishing

kind regards
g

 

Navydoc,

Your unfinished blanks, quite rightly, lack many of the familiar stampings.

Looking at the Textbook of Small Arms, 1929, p.85-6 reveals the following: 1907 & maker name close to the cross-piece. It is not explicitly stated when 1907 is applied**. Order of stamping is,

1) X ; 2) viewer's mark to LHS of X; 3) viewer's mark to RHS of X; 4) Up-arrow above the X; 5) viewer's mark under arrow, above X; **possibly here; 6) Crown ER over 1907; 7) date mark below 1907.

This certainly explains why all three blanks have the X-stamp.

Regards,

JMB

[navydoc16]

5 hours ago, JMB1943 said:

Whichever way you slice it and dice it, you still have to account for the fact that at any given time, there was only ONE name on their bayonets—it was either WILK or WILK / PALL MALL, not both.

Occam’s Razor suggests that the simplest explanation is the best—perhaps the company merely decided to add PALL MALL for some reason (name recognition/ advertising?).

Regards,

JMB

Of course you may very well be correct, but personally don’t believe it was just for brand recognition. 
 

I was racking my brain last night and wondered wether all the stampings from a particular date were supposed to be WILKINSON PALL MALL (unless we find some earlier dates) - naturally the thinner die on the PALL MALL would get damaged - maybe they were ground off to continue the economics of using the dies- who knows haha 

Might be worth looking into the inspectors stamps on a bunch of PALL MALL and see if they match the standard Wilk 

But the timeline does fit for some sort of particular production element- 6 months of war the govt realised it was going to be a long war with significant attrition, in a lot of cases it took 6-12 months to work a workaround. That is mimicked in a lot of industries.
 

may be something yet again lost to history 

 

kind regards

g

 

 

 

[trajan]

On 01/01/2024 at 14:56, navydoc16 said:

 

On 01/01/2024 at 14:56, navydoc16 said:

Chapman has been scrubbed and re-dated 1919

Wilk 37 is the same, overstamping a scrubbed 1916 or 1918- only it also used to be a Sanderson (look closely underneath the Pall Mall 

Vickers overstamping an inspectors 35? in the date position- needs more time to look at 

RFI 1920 overstamped the month with a 0 that you can’t see the 8 but it used to be a 1917

 

I'm sorry but I don't quite see what this oost is trying to achieve or its relevance to the WILKINSON versus WILKINSON/PALL MALL discussion.

You mention a CHAPMAN shich you don't show; you show a SANDERSON which has been partly scrubbed (but the 1919 date is interesting); the WILKSINSON/PALL MALL  dated 1937 is certainly an odd one, but I see no SANDERSON mark; the VICKERS 1935 is another anomalous date; and I dont quite see the "RFI 1920 overstamped the month with a 0 that you can’t see the 8 but it used to be a 1917".

Trajan

Edited 2 January by trajan

[navydoc16]

1 hour ago, trajan said:

I'm sorry but I don't quite see what this oost is trying to achieve or its relevance to the WILKINSON versus WILKINSON/PALL MALL discussion.

You mention a CHAPMAN shich you don't show; you show a SANDERSON which has been partly scrubbed (but the 1919 date is interesting); the WILKSINSON/PALL MALL  dated 1937 is certainly an odd one, but I see no SANDERSON mark; the VICKERS 1935 is another anomalous date; and I dont quite see the "RFI 1920 overstamped the month with a 0 that you can’t see the 8 but it used to be a 1917".

Trajan

Sorry I wrote my response to JMB wanting to see some close up photos of interwar bayonets after I mentioned a lot that I had seen were refurbished/remarked bayonets rather than new production. 

I meant to write Sanderson for the 1919 but I waited too long to edit it. 

On the PALL MALL, look closely between the letters and the gap between L and M and you see what remains of the original marking, also under the ON in Wilkinson you can see what remains of the original date which I think is a 1915

The RFI was marked 8-17, it is now marked 0-20 (which makes no sense-but it is marked correctly and using the correct dies) 

Vickers is random, I don't have much on it except it overstamps a 1918 with a 1935 

 

hope that clears things up, nothing to do with Pall Mall discussion- apologies for the confusion 

kind regards,

g

Edited 2 January by navydoc16

[trajan]

14 hours ago, navydoc16 said:

On the PALL MALL, look closely between the letters and the gap between L and M and you see what remains of the original marking, also under the ON in Wilkinson you can see what remains of the original date which I think is a 1915

The RFI was marked 8-17, it is now marked 0-20 (which makes no sense-but it is marked correctly and using the correct dies) 

Vickers is random, I don't have much on it except it overstamps a 1918 with a 1935 

It does, thanks, but I have to say I don't see what you see on these ones!

Trajan

[navydoc16]

No worries mate it’s a bit tricky but I can see them, I can get new phots if you have some sort of question about any of them

 

kind regards

g

 

 

 

 

 

 

[navydoc16]

On 05/07/2023 at 00:15, 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! 

These appear to be their own subset of commercial manufacture, all with the same pommel type serial number- A seller had both in his sold archives. It seems whoever bought them made their way up to nearly 1000. All have either 1 or no acceptance mark, no royal cypher or space for one.

kind regards 

g

Edited 11 April by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

On 03/01/2024 at 17:08, trajan said:

Trajan

Might it be that Wilkinson simply decided to mark bayonets from 1916 onwards as Wilkinson Pall Mall indefinitely not just from 16-18

I have just purchased a “commercial” Wilkinson part of the above contract, which should be from the post WW1 period- And it is marked Pall Mall. I also have a 1937 Wilkinson marked Pall Mall. 
 

a commercial Wilkinson from pre WW1 just came for sale recently and just says Wilkinson. 

[navydoc16]