Lee Enfield hooked quillon

[sgt-maj]

For those who are not aware, in the late 90's, there was a chap in London who advertised that he could modify a '1907' by replacing the crossguard with that of a 'Hooked Quillon'. All you need to do was send an original bayonet to him, and he would do the rest. I did see first hand several examples of his work at the time, and they were superb. An example of his work was for sale a couple of weeks ago... a Sanderson... also 1916 dated. It was being passed off as an 'Original and Genuine Hooked Quillon'. I have no doubt in my mind at all that this 'EFD' hookie-wannabie' is an example of HIS work. 

[5thBatt]

I wouldn't call the 16 EFD above a superb job of a rehook, it simply does not look right, alarm bells would be ringing before even picking it up & seeng the date

[sgt-maj]

22 hours ago, 5thBatt said:

I wouldn't call the 16 EFD above a superb job of a rehook, it simply does not look right, alarm bells would be ringing before even picking it up & seeng the date

'5th Batt'

Compared to other botched tries at 'FAKING' an '07' hookie.... this is not simply superb....it's 'OUTSTANDING'. For me, the biggest and brightest 'RED FLAG' is the 'Clearance Hole' in the pommel. Let me offer an open question to the forum in regards to 07 hookies. -Who has ever come across a genuine 07 hookie with a Clearance Hole?- During my decade's of collecting, my answer is 'ZERO' / Zilch / Nada / NONE. The manufacture date alone is a red flag.... which is the second feature I look at. 

[5thBatt]

7 hours ago, sgt-maj said:

'5th Batt'

Compared to other botched tries at 'FAKING' an '07' hookie.... this is not simply superb....it's 'OUTSTANDING'. For me, the biggest and brightest 'RED FLAG' is the 'Clearance Hole' in the pommel. Let me offer an open question to the forum in regards to 07 hookies. -Who has ever come across a genuine 07 hookie with a Clearance Hole?- During my decade's of collecting, my answer is 'ZERO' / Zilch / Nada / NONE. The manufacture date alone is a red flag.... which is the second feature I look at. 

When i opened the post the first thing i looked at was the first couple of photos & my immediate thought was the hook looked wrong, there was no date mentioned in the header so i read the post & found my first feeling was correct, it may well be a better fake than some but is not as good as some others out there so my post still stands, as for the clearence hole, while there may not be any legit hookies out there with the hole the fact you have seen none or heard of any is not proof there isn't & saying categorically there isn't is verging on being...... well lets just leave it there eh

[trajan]

I of little experience in such matters would hesitate to say that the presence of a clearance hole on a HQ would by itself denote a 'wrong-un'. As far as I am aware there was NO official order to de-hook HQ bayonets when returned to the stores for whatever reason. So, a clearance hole, which is a functional modification to a P.1907 bayonet, could be added without dispensing with a HQ, which - when all is said and done - was little more than a case of skeumorphism, adding a basically non-functional bit to something because it is on the originating model, in this case the Japanese Arisaki.

Julian

[AndyBsk]

I am certainly not expert on hookie P1907, anyway the shape of end of hook looks little flatened same as from right side looks like there was filled a little, but this could be done pre blueing, the grips with the gap near pommel looks like removed, maybe by near examination would be visible other points, that would be not period, 1916 is certainly strange for a hooked piece, when they stopped produced it in 1913, could be a repair in depot.

[shippingsteel]

On 20/05/2022 at 05:59, 5thBatt said:

I wouldn't call the 16 EFD above a superb job of a rehook, it simply does not look right, alarm bells would be ringing before even picking it up & seeng the date

I may as well throw in my 2p worth here and agree with 5thBatt. To my eye the hook and clearance hole is the least of the problems.! I would go so far as suggesting it was not even made by Enfield.

As I mentioned recently in another thread "other clues helpful in maker identification can include size and style of the 1907 font, the shape of the Crown stamp, style of the Broad Arrow, style of the blade runout (where the blade edge ends) and the shape of the fuller groove".

You can also add in particular Inspection markings and reissue stampings, and to a lesser degree blade condition and style, as well as timber grips and overall appearance. I think I have a case of "tinnitus" ... 

Cheers, SS

[trajan]

3 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

... As I mentioned recently in another thread "other clues helpful in maker identification can include size and style of the 1907 font, the shape of the Crown stamp, style of the Broad Arrow, style of the blade runout (where the blade edge ends) and the shape of the fuller groove".

You can also add in particular Inspection markings and reissue stampings, and to a lesser degree blade condition and style, as well as timber grips and overall appearance. I think I have a case of "tinnitus" ... 

Hi SS, don't forget to vote! But, which thread is that?

JMB and I touched on the differences in blade runout and fullers shapes in our joint paper on P.1907's which you may not have read. The focus was on weights which vary quite a lot from one maker to another. These factors, with fullers and blade shapes, are determined individually by the blade shapers who naturally vary in competence within each producer and from producer to producer, so yes, a familiarity with the variations is useful but not determinative.

There are also problems with variations in stamping. This is more JMB's line than mine but stamps DO wear out with repeated use... In my own very limited experience the VR is better on the early rather than the later ones. That said, some fonts are very characteristic, as with the Sanderson '09's.

Even grips don't help - I have re-gripped a grip-less WW1 period P.1907 with 1950 grips, and with a bit of juggling and sanding they fitted fine although clearly not original walnut! As for condition, well, you yourself have mentioned P.1907's of your own that seem to have come on the market straight from the stores. Such things happen: in 1985 my archaeological unit was discussing a move to Weedon where we found unopened crates of Boer War clothing (no, I don't know what happened to them!) 

Tinnitus happens, by the way, and is not a joking matter... Better to call it reflexive memory syndrome! 

More to the point, it is of course a matter of evaluation. I think you have one or two ER marked P.1907's that are dated after 1910? And you have argued for this being genuine?

Trajan

[trajan]

Forgot to add... SS (and others), JMB and I do have a copy of the original specifications for the P.1907, and I have seen and handled the original mounted certified prototype, the 'model' as it were, in the Royal Armouries Museum (not on display!). We are not at liberty to publish the original drawings but I guess we could show the hookie part... Let me think on that. IF I get to the Armouries this year I'll try to get a photograph of it

Oh, BTW SS, I see - apropos my last post - voting has ended... In the words of 'Cold Steel',  which we deal with on this thread, hope you not 'Caught between Heaven and the Highway'! 

Cheers, marrer, Trajan

[sgt-maj]

Ayup chaps... if this were an example within our own collection, we ( if we are honest with ourselves ) would all find it extremely hard to bit-the-bullet and actually admit to what this EFD 1916 Hookie wannabe really is. Conjured up, would be all manner could be's / might have been's / possibly's / would have been's... in order to make ourselves believe the impossible in favour over the actual.

So.... let's look at the issue in a comparative perspective....

 

[5thBatt]

On 22/05/2022 at 07:40, sgt-maj said:

Ayup chaps... if this were an example within our own collection, we ( if we are honest with ourselves ) would all find it extremely hard to bit-the-bullet and actually admit to what this EFD 1916 Hookie wannabe really is. Conjured up, would be all manner could be's / might have been's / possibly's / would have been's... in order to make ourselves believe the impossible in favour over the actual.

So.... let's look at the issue in a comparative perspective....

 

It wouldn't even get a bid from me never mind ending up in my collection! 

I dont really see where you are coming from or trying to imply with this post, i think we all agree its not a legit HQ

[Lammy]

Quillion removed, or never had. No oil hole either.

[Andrew Upton]

3 hours ago, Lammy said:

Quillion removed, or never had. No oil hole either.

Given the hooked quillon was ordered removed from late 1913 in British service/manufacture and that was made in early 1916 it would easily fall into the "never had" category.

[landser]

Personnellement, je les appelle des copies, je ne donnerais jamais un centime pour ce genre d’objet, les escrocs le vendront comme un original à de pauvres gars qui n’y connaissent rien, un moyen de se faire de l’argent sur le dos d’une personne malheureuse.

Il y a 4 heures, Lammy a dit:

Quillion supprimé, ou ne l’a jamais fait. Pas de trou d’huile non plus.

 

Le 21/05/2022 à 21:40, sgt-maj a dit :

Ayup les gars... s’il s’agissait d’un exemple dans notre propre collection, nous (si nous sommes honnêtes avec nous-mêmes) trouverions tous extrêmement difficile de mordre la balle et d’admettre ce qu’est vraiment cet aspirant Hookie EFD 1916. Évoqué, serait toutes sortes de choses pourrait être / aurait pu être / peut-être / aurait été... afin de nous faire croire l’impossible plutôt que l’actuel.

Ainsi.... Regardons la question dans une perspective comparative...

 

Personnellement, je les appelle des copies, je ne donnerais jamais un centime pour ce genre d’objet, les escrocs le vendront comme un original à de pauvres gars qui n’y connaissent rien, un moyen de se faire de l’argent sur le dos d’une personne malheureuse.

Edited 14 October , 2023 by landser

[Lammy]

Hope your not trying to say mine is a copy?

[landser]

Il y a 11 minutes, Lammy a dit :

J’espère que vous n’essayez pas de dire que le mien est une copie?

Je parle de la baïonnette quillon (copie)

[AndyBsk]

Andrew U. already mentioned, or some other experts here, in March 1916 the crosspieces were made wout hooks.

Edited 14 October , 2023 by AndyBsk

[Lammy]

Ok, I got it.

52 minutes ago, landser said:

Je parle de la baïonnette quillon (copie)

Ok. I understand now.