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

Lee Enfield hooked quillon


garfyboy

Recommended Posts

H all

I managed to buy this beautifull bayonet, but just wondered about the date stamps, it has the 1907 and maker EFD but has a issue stamp of 3-16.... I thought the hook had been abolished by then?

 

I also managed to buy another two, one good one and one in poor condition, if anyone would like to see pics I can upload (this may be tomorrow though as football tonight):rolleyes:

IMG_3792.jpg

IMG_3793.jpg

IMG_3794.jpg

IMG_3795.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Careful, there are some very well executed fakes out there.  I was able to examine one last Sunday, with a 1917 date.  The hook is generally thought to have been abolished from 1907 production from 1913.

 

Mike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would echo Mike's observations.

The new pattern 1907 with Hooked quillon removed on was authorised in Oct 29th 1913. This meant any bayonets produced after that date should have been made without the quillon and also any bayonets that passed through reburbishment should have had them removed.

We know, of course, that bayonets survived this process intact but I would be very surprised indeed if hooked quillon bayonets were being produced 3 years after the change in pattern - particularly in wartime when production was being simplified, and by Enfield..

This example also appears to have a clearance hole in the pommel which was not introduced until 1916 (iirc) which is consistent with the production date but not the quillon.

I would examine the crosspiece very carefully to see if there is any sign of modification.

 

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would also be cautious...looks to be a couple of inspection stamps in the mix also.

The frogs nice...RUC, introduced I think in 1923.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Garfyboy,

 

Regardless of whether this is a fake or genuine EFD HQ, this bayonet is also interesting for the date of manufacture (6 '16).

Skennerton (Brit. & Commnwlth Bayonets, p. 190) states that "by late 1915 bayonet production at government establishments had ceased."

However, I have recorded one 3 '16 and two 4 '16 produced at EFD.

You also posted a 10? '18 EFD here earlier this year!!!

Perhaps EFD discovered some almost-finished bayonets which just required date & acceptance stamps.

 

Regards,

JMB

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks guys for your input, i have had a good look at the quillon and would be amazed if this was a fake, everything seems correct, I purchased a old collection of 18 lee Enfield bayonets that have been together for a long time, I would also imagine that if someone was going to the trouble of adding a quillon, would they not do it on bayonet with correct stamps 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is the other one, ive also attached a pic of the whole bunch including another hooked quillon which is in poor shape with no readable markings because of pitting

IMG_3797.jpg

IMG_3798.jpg

IMG_3799.jpg

IMG_3800.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, which one should I keep for my collection and which one goes on my website?

I wouldn't be happy keeping one that has questions hanging over it but looking at it I would say its totally original, the date and clearance hole now come into question, could this possibly be a parts bayonet, so all original parts and original manufacture, ie:process and correct period by EFD, but maybe rushing through a batch?

 

Thoughts would be welcome please

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if it were a parts bayonet, there is still a 26 inspection stamp and I'm sure it would have been adapted to suit the British regulations...only possible option would be commonwealth service but nothing to indicate that.

 

I like the chapman Naval issued one...id be keeping that!

 

Dave.

 

 

Edited by Dave66
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, garfyboy said:

Here is the other one, ive also attached a pic of the whole bunch including another hooked quillon which is in poor shape with no readable markings because of pitting

IMG_3797.jpg

IMG_3798.jpg

IMG_3799.jpg

IMG_3800.jpg

Looks like a particularly tasty pile of amnesty blades. 

Interesting thread.

Dave 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What does strike me as unusual in the appearance of the suspect EFD 6 '16 is the blueing which extends from the cross-guard

up the blade as far as is visible.

The JAC 6 '09 shows blueing only for about 7/8 inch below the cross-guard, which I believe is the correct extent of the blueing.

Perhaps this blueing, from tip to pommel, was done in recent times to enhance the cosmetics/value of the bayonet.

What is visible of the blueing appears to be in very good condition, apart from some scratching where the scabbard springs clutched the blade.

The apparently unmarked condition of the pommel is also somewhat surprising.

To do this blueing, the wooden grips would have had to be removed; are the securing screws/nuts readily removeable?

Could you show a couple of full-length shots of the EFD ?

I suspect that welds may be detectable via X-rays, so your friendly local dentist or vet may be the next stop.

 

Regards,

JMB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
On 29/06/2018 at 13:10, 303man said:

A Hooked Quillon 1907 pattern Bayonet should not have an oil hole in the pommel, nearly all that have are spurious.

 

 

On what basis do you say that? Remember, there are known instances of HQ bayonets continuing into service as late as WW2 with hook intact, although I cannot confirm that these had clearance (NOT oil) holes in the pommel.  If I recall correctly (perhaps JMB will comment?) not all of the hookless P.1907's had the clearance hole added when this was introduced on bayonets made after 5th Jan. / 23rd Feb.1916, as according to LOC 17692.

 

Note that while the HQ P.1907 was introduced by LOC 14170 of 30th Jan. 1908, and the decision to drop this by LOC 16755 of 29th Oct., 1913, there is as yet no evidence for an official order requiring the HQ to be removed from bayonets that had been made with them. The evidence is that unit armourers often but not always removed the HQ from bayonets in service use on an ad-hoc basis. So, there is no reason to denounce this one as fake without having the crossguard X-rayed - or a test by ear, when tapping it with a tuning fork! True, it has irregular pitting, but that and the clearance hole do not make this automatically a 'spurious' i.e. fake example.

 

As for the other examples - what a nice bunch for P.1907 fans!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 28/06/2018 at 19:26, MikeyH said:

Careful, there are some very well executed fakes out there.  I was able to examine one last Sunday, with a 1917 date.  The hook is generally thought to have been abolished from 1907 production from 1913.

 

Mike.

 

Hi Mike - you mean you examined an obvious fake? Any photographs or other details? Also bear in mind late test/issue marking on an earlier made bayonet  

 

Julian

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, trajan said:

 

Hi Mike - you mean you examined an obvious fake? Any photographs or other details? Also bear in mind late test/issue marking on an earlier made bayonet  

 

Julian

 

Hello Julian,

 

Yes, it was a fake, but well done.  The owner had acquired it via. an auction and paid 'good money'.  It had a  pommel clearance hole and the added on quillon join could just

be seen when viewed with a loupe.  The phrase 'Caveat Emptor' comes to mind.  Did not think to take a photo, but may meet up with him again later this year.

 

p.s. good to see you back.

 

Mike.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 02/08/2018 at 18:23, MikeyH said:

 

Hello Julian,

 

Yes, it was a fake, but well done.  The owner had acquired it via. an auction and paid 'good money'.  It had a  pommel clearance hole and the added on quillon join could just

be seen when viewed with a loupe.  The phrase 'Caveat Emptor' comes to mind.  Did not think to take a photo, but may meet up with him again later this year.

 

p.s. good to see you back.

 

Mike.

 

Be nice to know more about that one, and a photograph would be great. I suspect, but cannot be certain as I have no 'fake' that I know of(!), that a series of tests with a tuning fork might be of use as the metal used for the 'extension' could/should have a different resonance factor.

 

But, bearing in mind those ER marked P.107's with GR dates, i.e., ones made and stamped with the appropriate cipher before 06 May 1910 but with dates of 1911, etc., it is clear that old stock was around to undergo final testing before issue sometime after manufacture - unless, of course, they continued to use the ER as they didn't yet have a GR stamp! Permutations on permutations...

 

Julian

 

Good to be back. Time taken up with teaching, kids, and completing two articles of relevance to GWF - details to come!;)  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Julian,

 

Being kind to the creator, he maybe just wanted a hook quillon, so decided to make his own.  It was entered in a non specialist auction, catalogued just as a 'first world war bayonet'.

They probably didn't know the significance of the quillon and were no doubt surprised at the number of online bids.

 

I saw another fake earlier this year at 'Militaria 2018' near Coventry, it was being sold as a curiosity.  This was not very well done. the welded joint and filing marks were obvious upon close inspection.  Oddly enough both of these bayonets were made by  Sanderson.

 

Mike.

Edited by MikeyH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apologies but I have not been on for a while so ive missed the replies.

Trajan..... I love your knowledge on this subject and have seen you post many times, I am a collector or most things great war and have many P1907 bayonets, different makers, regimentally marked ones etc, a unquestionable hooked quillon (naval marked one at the beginning of this thread) and I like to think that I have a good eye after many years experience.

 

So when i look at this bayonet in question I see a perfectly good hooked quillon bayonet, I appreciate all the comments about the date and the clearance hole and understand the concerns and I don't claim to be a expert but this one looks so good, If anyone is near south Leicestershire and would like to take a look then please let me know, I would like someone elses eyes to have a look

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

A P1907 hook quillon is coming up for auction locally.  It is stamped Lithgow, but the stamp is upside down, stamped ER, also carries a date of July 1919.  

Something not quite right!   Auction estimate £250-£300, and described as Canadian.

 

Mike.

Edited by MikeyH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, MikeyH said:

A P1907 hook quillon is coming up for auction locally.  It is stamped Lithgow, but the stamp is upside down, stamped ER, also carries a date of July 1919.  

Something not quite right!   Auction estimate £250-£300, and described as Canadian.

 

Mike.

I saw similar, maybe the same one, pop up on eBay last week but was removed very quickly as would be expected....certainly something not right, and I hope it remains unsold.

 

Dave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Dave66 said:

I saw similar, maybe the same one, pop up on eBay last week but was removed very quickly as would be expected....certainly something not right, and I hope it remains unsold.

 

Dave.

 

Dave,

Also there are some spurious 'inspection marks' on the opposite ricasso, and a four digit number stamped on the crossguard.

Mike.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MikeyH said:

 

Dave,

Also there are some spurious 'inspection marks' on the opposite ricasso, and a four digit number stamped on the crossguard.

Mike.

 

 

That’s the one Mike, I remember the crossguard numbering.....the crown and date stamps on the one side were obviously one stamp as you could see the outline.

Should have taken a screenshot.

 

Dave.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Dave66 said:

That’s the one Mike, I remember the crossguard numbering.....the crown and date stamps on the one side were obviously one stamp as you could see the outline.

Should have taken a screenshot.

 

Dave.

 

Dave

Correct, all one stamp and the crown the wrong shape, rounded at the bottom.  What's not to like!

Mike.

Edited by MikeyH
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, MikeyH said:

Dave

Correct, all one stamp and the crown the wrong shape, rounded at the bottom.  What's not to like!

Mike.

I think it’s fairly obvious to most, but I feel very sorry for the poor chap that buys in haste...it should be illegal to sell these unless they have “Reproduction” stamped on them....shocking.

 

Dave.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

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...