RGJDEE Posted 17 July , 2018 Share Posted 17 July , 2018 Help requested identifying, verifying, marks to this MOLE bayonet . Thanks in advance Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 17 July , 2018 Share Posted 17 July , 2018 1 hour ago, RGJDEE said: Help requested identifying, verifying, marks to this MOLE bayonet . Thanks in advance Richard Hello Richard, did a bit of digging, and found this previous thread that may be of interest, https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/185914-2-of-the-scarcer-1907-bayonets-by-vickers-and-mole/?tab=comments#comment-1810076 The ones listed all show the italic B as the inspectors Mark. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGJDEE Posted 17 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 17 July , 2018 (edited) Very interesting ,not looking good though is it ? Edited 17 July , 2018 by RGJDEE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 17 July , 2018 Share Posted 17 July , 2018 12 minutes ago, RGJDEE said: Very interesting ,not looking good though is it ? From what I've seen on there sadly no, hopefully others with some in their collections can add their opinions. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 17 July , 2018 Share Posted 17 July , 2018 (edited) The most obvious discrepancy I see here is the positioning of the date stamps. On all (?) of the Mole examples I remember examining (and a quick browse of the linked threads suggests this is the case there too) the month was stamped to the left of the name, the year to the left. right! (other left) This differs from Sanderson, Wilkinson, Lithgow etc where, because of the length of the word, the dates are stamped above the maker name. I can't remember where they are on JAC marked bayonets. The inspection stamp on the reverse looks very like the inspection stamps on some Indian used Pattern 07/13 bayonets - let me dig one out and look. Am I correct in seeing a couple of reissue marks on the front ('20 or '29 overlaid on the 19 of 1907, and '36 higher up and to the right? Chris Edited 17 July , 2018 by 4thGordons left/right! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGJDEE Posted 17 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 17 July , 2018 9 minutes ago, Dave66 said: From what I've seen on there sadly no, hopefully others with some in their collections can add their opinions. Dave. 15 minutes ago, 4thGordons said: The most obvious discrepancy I see here is the positioning of the date stamps. On all (?) of the Mole examples I remember examining (and a quick browse of the linked threads suggests this is the case there too) the month was stamped to the left of the name, the year to the left. This differs from Sanderson, Wilkinson, Lithgow etc where, because of the length of the word, the dates are stamped above the maker name. I can't remember where they are on JAC marked bayonets. The inspection stamp on the reverse looks very like the inspection stamps on some Indian used Pattern 07/13 bayonets - let me dig one out and look. Am I correct in seeing a couple of reissue marks on the front ('20 or '29 overlaid on the 19 of 1907, and '36 higher up and to the right? Chris Yes that’s right there are re issue marks there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 17 July , 2018 Share Posted 17 July , 2018 There's an early mole on this thread here, but the dates above the name on that one.https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/253728-p1907s/ Dava. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 17 July , 2018 Share Posted 17 July , 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Dave66 said: There's an early mole on this thread here, but the dates above the name on that one.https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/253728-p1907s/ Dava. That one of Sawdoc's is in the group of 4 whose view marks I have recorded in the last couple of years, and all are of the type " crown/M9/italic B." The issue of different fonts (with or w/o serif), that I mentioned at the end of the "WILKINSON BAYONET" thread started by RGJDee, is a tricky one and not necessarily reliable. However, the lettering just does not look right for a Mole-produced P.07. The lack of the 3 view stamps with the broad arrow and X-mark is evidence of a deviation from normal British production. Was it Indian-produced, as suggested by 4th Gordons, at Rifle Factory Ishapore?; no sign of RFI. Regards, JMB Edited 17 July , 2018 by JMB1943 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 18 July , 2018 Share Posted 18 July , 2018 Mr. D, If you have a dog, take it and the bayonet to your friendly vet. Ask him to X-ray the ricasso around the Mole stamp. The name of the real maker may show up, since the stamping increases the density of the metal. If you do not have a dog, take the blade with you to your friendly dentist. Repeat as above.... Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 18 July , 2018 Share Posted 18 July , 2018 14 minutes ago, JMB1943 said: Mr. D, If you have a dog, take it and the bayonet to your friendly vet. Ask him to X-ray the ricasso around the Mole stamp. The name of the real maker may show up, since the stamping increases the density of the metal. If you do not have a dog, take the blade with you to your friendly dentist. Repeat as above.... Regards, JMB Great idea. have you ever seen other "alterations"similar to this before JMB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 18 July , 2018 Share Posted 18 July , 2018 Hello Dave, I have not encountered a similar situation before, and the issue of “altered” Bayonets usually involves the creation of a false HQ by welding on a new hook. Since the Moles usually do not command a premium over the more common makers, I am surprised that somebody went to the trouble to make this false Mole. Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 18 July , 2018 Share Posted 18 July , 2018 12 minutes ago, JMB1943 said: Hello Dave, I have not encountered a similar situation before, and the issue of “altered” Bayonets usually involves the creation of a false HQ by welding on a new hook. Since the Moles usually do not command a premium over the more common makers, I am surprised that somebody went to the trouble to make this false Mole. Regards, JMB Thanks JMB, thats what I was thinking...I can understand the hooked Quilion and maybe a vickers for financial gain....certainly one of the more interesting puzzles that has been posted for a while. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGJDEE Posted 19 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 19 July , 2018 (edited) Well gents , the bogey has arrived. Poor condition , scabbard is Aussie ‘43 and both have certainly seen some use. Unit markings on pommel and fresh pics .R Edited 19 July , 2018 by RGJDEE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 19 July , 2018 Share Posted 19 July , 2018 Richard, You do have an interesting unit marking; T / 4 G HOW = 4th (Territorial) Bn. Green Howards. Also interesting is that G HOW is not an authorized abbvn in the 1912 Instrns to Armourers. Also some lettering on a grip “...YK” ? According to Wiki... Green Howards also frequently known as the Yorkshire Regt until the 1920’s.... Well worth keeping, this bayonet. Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGJDEE Posted 19 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 19 July , 2018 Just now, JMB1943 said: Richard, You do have an interesting unit marking; T / 4 G HOW = 4th (Territorial) Bn. Green Howards. Also interesting is that G HOW is not an authorized abbvn in the 1912 Instrns to Armourers. Also some lettering on a grip “...YK” ? According to Wiki... Green Howards also frequently known as the Yorkshire Regt until the 1920’s.... Well worth keeping, this bayonet. Regards, JMB Well Thankyou very much .JMB. however doesn’t explain the strange stamps and Indian ? Connection. I took the liberty of asking SS to have a look maybe he can shed some light. Glad it’s got some “history” and a “keeper”. thanks again R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 19 July , 2018 Share Posted 19 July , 2018 (edited) 3 hours ago, JMB1943 said: Richard, You do have an interesting unit marking; T / 4 G HOW = 4th (Territorial) Bn. Green Howards. Also interesting is that G HOW is not an authorized abbvn in the 1912 Instrns to Armourers. Also some lettering on a grip “...YK” ? According to Wiki... Green Howards also frequently known as the Yorkshire Regt until the 1920’s.... Well worth keeping, this bayonet. Regards, JMB Nice and interesting pommel markings, i agree it's well worth keeping..even with the mystery of the strange stamps, just adds to it. I'd Use a Bit of very fine wire wool and oil just to take the worst of the rust off the metal parts and then leave as it is. Dave. Edited 19 July , 2018 by Dave66 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGJDEE Posted 19 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 19 July , 2018 Dave , Thankyou, not a museum quality piece! But, it’s history gives it fascinating provenance does it not. Will give a good clean , lots of gunk on the blade as well. Perhaps in future I will go to local auctions in search of new additions rather than internet,would love to acquire all the makers and of course Buffs and West Kents marked examples. P1888 only a matter of time !!!!! very best regards Richard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 19 July , 2018 Share Posted 19 July , 2018 1 hour ago, RGJDEE said: Dave , Thankyou, not a museum quality piece! But, it’s history gives it fascinating provenance does it not. Will give a good clean , lots of gunk on the blade as well. Perhaps in future I will go to local auctions in search of new additions rather than internet,would love to acquire all the makers and of course Buffs and West Kents marked examples. P1888 only a matter of time !!!!! very best regards Richard Hard to find the museum quality ones nowadays sadly, but these old not so perfect ones seem to tell much more of a story. I have to admit, I only buy from shops and fairs as I always prefer to handle them and at times "negotiate", only ever purchased one on line...well photographed and described, good and bad points. Auctions are a good idea as you can view prior to bidding so go for it. looking forward to new additions...once funds become available. All the best, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGJDEE Posted 19 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 19 July , 2018 Aye you’re right there. Got to hang on for a bit , after getting 4in a week, rush of blood and all that ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 20 July , 2018 Share Posted 20 July , 2018 (edited) As the topic name suggests, this bayonet exhibits very unusual markings for a "Mole" bayonet ... and certainly not your 'regular' Mole wartime production. There are a number of discrepancies that just do not add up ... but I would like to say I do believe this is a perfectly legit P1907. (See regular Mole markings below with Birmingham inspections) And it's not just the inspection, pattern and date stampings which don't make sense for a 'regular' Mole, but also the way the blade was made. The fuller shape and blade runout, in my experience, all scream Enfield production. And the style of the Pattern number and date stampings would also support Enfield production, NOT Mole. (See regular Mole 1916 production below) Then we have that 'odd' inspection marking with the plain block letter E. Again this style stamping is very unusual but not unheard of. As Chris mentioned previously it is reminiscent of those seen on the early Remington P1913's which were inspected by the Enfield inspectors in America. The plain E inspectors mark is unusual but did exist, and importantly, AT Enfield. So to all intents and purposes this is an Enfield produced blade that has been Maker stamped by Mole. (See a Remington P1913 ricasso with E letter below) So as I suggested above, I believe this bayonet (or blade only) was only partially completed at Enfield with further work and finishing being undertaken by R.Mole in Birmingham, and hence Maker marked by Mole. Exactly why this would have happened I cannot fully explain, but I think the real story lies somewhere in the winding up of bayonet production at RSAF Enfield. The date on this example of Jan. 1916 is also very telling as it ties in perfectly with the above scenario. The background story is covered slightly in B&CB (Skennerton) pg.190 but basically Enfield ceased making bayonets to allow them to concentrate on rifles, and asked the contractors to take up the slack. I can imagine that stocks of unfinished bayonets may have been farmed out for further work and completion by the contractors (including Mole) and that is why this particular bayonet looks to all intents to be an EFD but is actually marked with an MOLE. Edited 20 July , 2018 by shippingsteel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGJDEE Posted 20 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 20 July , 2018 Thankyou very much for taking the time to help with this question SS. A thorough explanation , I stand in awe of your knowledge. have you ever seen another example like this? thanks again Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 20 July , 2018 Share Posted 20 July , 2018 No worries Richard, I am happy to help ... especially with these unusual 'mystery' ones which are of interest to all.! I haven't seen another example just like this, and also haven't seen that exact same inspection marking either, so.?? But I do know some strange and unusual things were going on with EFD bayonets towards the end of 1915 early 1916. I have one EFD example in my collection dated 8 '15 which only has a single centre inspection mark and NO bend test.! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 20 July , 2018 Share Posted 20 July , 2018 Thank you shippingsteel for sharing your thoughts...always learning 😀. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RGJDEE Posted 20 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 20 July , 2018 (edited) Thanks again Edited 20 July , 2018 by RGJDEE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 21 July , 2018 Share Posted 21 July , 2018 I see that "MOLE" is a manufacture for Enfield bayonets, are they rare, small production ? Do they comand a higher price at the Fairs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now