Jump to content
Free downloads from TNA ×
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

Remembered Today:

HQ P.1907 with 'AUSTRALIA' grips


trajan

Recommended Posts

There was a discussion on the dating and use of these 'AUSTRALIA' marked grips, and also the dating of the 'SLAZENGER' grips, at: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?/topic/189766-australian-bayonets/ as, for example, at post 191. But SS, who started the thread, has locked it for some reason (along with many others, I might add for the record!)...  And so I have opened this thread to post a link to an interesting HQ 1907, EFD, dated 04 09, by the look of it, with SOS mark on the pommel, and a 'S.A.' and weapon number pommel marking - make of that abbreviation what one will! 

 

So, for those interested / intrigued, do have a look at http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?733058-Enfield-1907-Hooked-Quillion-just-sold and follow the link...

 

Trajan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julian,

 

Lovely bayonet, in great original condition.

 

Mike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is, and a low price relatively speaking!

 

What do you make of the pommel marking? I have an idea but I make no claims to expertise in P.1907 matters, and so I'd be interested to hear what others think.

 

Julian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did the marking change from MD1, MD2 ...etc in the inter war years to e.g., SA, WA, NA for South Australia....etc for their military districts ?

SA does not seem to be a unit, and 1009 is a pretty high number even if it is.

 

Regards,

JMB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JMB1943 said:

Did the marking change from MD1, MD2 ...etc in the inter war years to e.g., SA, WA, NA for South Australia....etc for their military districts ?

SA does not seem to be a unit, and 1009 is a pretty high number even if it is.

 

That's what I was wondering about, because I always thought that 'S.A.' was a South Africa marking. The MDistricts were established quite early on, I always thought, and certainly before 1914, but honestly I freely admit very little knowledge on this... Perhaps a trawl through the locked thread might help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A disappointing price indeed! I have a smiliar one and, when I offer it for sale, would expect to get considerably more. Has someone found a secrect stash of these?

 

All the best,

 

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had previously posted my Vickers (11 '18) with AUSTRALIA on rhs grip; has one re-inspection stamp '26, and a 54 million number engraved on the tang. NO other markings.

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?/topic/237980-vickers-p1907-bayonet/#comment-2384355

The grips are in pretty good shape, and may date from 1928 or later.

Does not solve the question, just another piece of info.

Regards,

JMB

 

edit: The Mark for South Africa is broad arrow inside an upper-case U

 

Edited by JMB1943
Add info
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, JMB1943 said:

edit: The Mark for South Africa is broad arrow inside an upper-case U

 

We live and learn - which is what GWF is all about! Thanks!

 

Julian

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The SA marking is for the State of South Australia. The State prefixes were used just before the MD markings were brought in.

Whilst the overall condition of this bayonet appears very good, it is the grip marking which has detracted from the price received.

 

It does suggest "non-original" and puts a little doubt in the mind of the buyers. Meaning they could have possibly been replaced.

Also in some of the photos the blade looks to have been blued, which is another negative. But I don't think it has, just bad photos.

 

For a hookie to achieve its premium it has to have the perception of originality. In my view the Australia stamp has destroyed this perception. The Australia stamp is a much later period marking from the 1960's when this gear was surplussed out. I think this bayonet has done well to retain its hook. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/29/2017 at 01:37, shippingsteel said:

The SA marking is for the State of South Australia. The State prefixes were used just before the MD markings were brought in.

Whilst the overall condition of this bayonet appears very good, it is the grip marking which has detracted from the price received.

 

It does suggest "non-original" and puts a little doubt in the mind of the buyers. Meaning they could have possibly been replaced.

Also in some of the photos the blade looks to have been blued, which is another negative. But I don't think it has, just bad photos.

 

For a hookie to achieve its premium it has to have the perception of originality. In my view the Australia stamp has destroyed this perception. The Australia stamp is a much later period marking from the 1960's when this gear was surplussed out. I think this bayonet has done well to retain its hook. 

 

Thanks you SS! 

 

As far as I have been able to establish from archival research the Australian Military Districts were established on 29th November 1911, and so one would assume that the SA marking on this bayonet is from before that date.

 

Note that, as I understand it, bayonets made in GB under contract for Australia were all marked as 'SOS' - so they were made to GB standards, etc., but then through a sleight of hand and clever accounting were 'sold' on to Australia without entering GB service.

 

Trajan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...