1915 P1907 A&SH bayonet

[Nutting]

I have recently acquired a 1915 P1907 bayonet with a plethora of markings. 

 

On the face of the ricasso: Crown & GR (faint), 1907, date of 4/15, crown/3/E (the E is stamped at 90deg to the crown and 3), re-issue stamps for '30, '34 & 38.  No visible maker's name although there is something in the background beneath other stamps where I would expect to see a maker's name.

 

On the reverse of the ricasso: broad arrow, bend test with illegible inspector's marks either side, crown/?6/E, reissue stamp for '21 and something below the '21 which I am having difficulty making out.

 

On the pommel: SH (preceded by 1?)  (Update: A&SH) and a rack number of 150.  

 

Question: any idea of maker? (Update: faint EFD on ricasso).

 

There's a clearance hole despite a manufacture/acceptance date of April 1915.  Does one of the inspector's marks relate to the addition of the clearance hole perhaps?  

 

I'm new to bayonets so all assistance gratefully received.

Edited 1 May , 2019 by Nutting
Updates, corrections

[593jones]

Just a wild surmise, but re the 1 SH, I wonder if the 1 could actually be part of an A, possibly followed by &, maybe making it A & SH, Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders. 

[Nutting]

593jones - now you point it out, looking with a magnifying glass, there is an ampersand to the left of the letter S and a partial A to the left of that, making A&SH.  Well spotted!  Thanks.

[593jones]

Happy to help.  Always good to have regimental markings on a bayonet.

[Dave66]

Just now, 593jones said:

Just a wild surmise, but re the 1 SH, I wonder if the 1 could actually be part of an A, possibly followed by &, maybe making it A & SH, Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders. 

Just about to reply suggesting the same, 1st btn argyle and Sutherland highlanders....Nutting, theres a useful site here with regards bayonet markings...http://oldmilitarymarkings.com/brit_bayo.html

 

The bayonet as you say would have had the clearance hole added at some time in its working life to bring it up to spec, and looking at all those stamps it most probably saw WW2 service as well....nice piece of history.

Welcome to the forum.

 

Dave.

[Nutting]

Dave66 - I acquired a P1888 and the P1907 yesterday as my first two bayonets.  I say 'first two' because I can see it going the same way as the 1 kukri I bought, I now have 20.  Mostly interested in the Patterns 1888 (I have an interest in the 2nd Boer War), 1903 & 1907.  They all just 'look right'.  Nigel.

[Dave66]

1 hour ago, Nutting said:

Dave66 - I acquired a P1888 and the P1907 yesterday as my first two bayonets.  I say 'first two' because I can see it going the same way as the 1 kukri I bought, I now have 20.  Mostly interested in the Patterns 1888 (I have an interest in the 2nd Boer War), 1903 & 1907.  They all just 'look right'.  Nigel.

Nigel,

They are addictive, I have very similar interests and very seldom do I pass a P1888 without having the urge to buy...in my opinion the nicest of all the British bayonets...getting harder to find in good condition now though.

Is the P1888 unit marked?

 

Dave.

[trajan]

6 hours ago, 593jones said:

Just a wild surmise, but re the 1 SH, I wonder if the 1 could actually be part of an A, possibly followed by &, maybe making it A & SH, Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders. 

 

6 hours ago, Dave66 said:

Just about to reply suggesting the same, 1st btn argyle and Sutherland highlanders.

 

My thoughts exactly because of the gap between the '1' and 'AH'

 

7 hours ago, Nutting said:

... re-issue stamps for '30, '34 & 38.  

 

 

 

 

 

It looks more like a '54' than a '34' to me!

[Nutting]

2 hours ago, trajan said:

 

 

My thoughts exactly because of the gap between the '1' and 'AH'

 

 

It looks more like a '54' than a '34' to me!

 

Trajan, the comments of yourself and others made me look more carefully. What I had thought was a drunken, backward-leaning ‘1’ is actually the right arm of a capital ‘A’ and I can see part of the cross-stroke as well.  It’s A&SH.

 

I have revisited the 34/54 stamp.  Under magnification, the downstroke is angled, as in a 3, rather than vertical, as in a 5.  Date-wise, 54 would be very late?

 

Thanks for your comments.  Nigel.

[Nutting]

7 hours ago, Dave66 said:

Nigel,

They are addictive, I have very similar interests and very seldom do I pass a P1888 without having the urge to buy...in my opinion the nicest of all the British bayonets...getting harder to find in good condition now though.

Is the P1888 unit marked?

 

Dave.

 

Dave, it’s not unit marked (sadly).  I’ll post about it separately.

Nigel

[trajan]

8 hours ago, Dave66 said:

... They are addictive, I have very similar interests and very seldom do I pass a P1888 without having the urge to buy...in my opinion the nicest of all the British bayonets...getting harder to find in good condition now though.

 

Too true on P.1888's... They don't appear very often over here, but even so I have collected a fair few and, sad to say, enough to force myself now not to buy one for finance reasons unless it is unit-marked 

 

21 minutes ago, Nutting said:

 

... What I had thought was a drunken, backward-leaning ‘1’ is actually the right arm of a capital ‘A’ and I can see part of the cross-stroke as well.  It’s A&SH.

 

I have revisited the 34/54 stamp.  Under magnification, the downstroke is angled, as in a 3, rather than vertical, as in a 5.  Date-wise, 54 would be very late?

 

Solved that A & S H then!

 

On the '54' or '34', I see what you mean. But IIRC, Ishapore and Lithgow were still making SMLE's into the 1950's, so not impossible, perhaps, for a '54' re-issue / re-furbish date on a P.1907 bayonet?

[Dave66]

1 hour ago, Nutting said:

 

Dave, it’s not unit marked (sadly).  I’ll post about it separately.

Nigel

Looking forward to it Nigel.

 

1 hour ago, trajan said:

oo true on P.1888's... They don't appear very often over here, but even so I have collected a fair few and, sad to say, enough to force myself now not to buy one for finance reasons unless it is unit-marked 

Sorry to say I've seen news reports on the economy over there, you have my sympathies. I'm in the same financial boat here after breaking my foot 6months ago (self employed) and still hobbling....manage to fund the occasional purchase though.

 

Regards, 

 

Dave.

[Nutting]

1 hour ago, Dave66 said:

Looking forward to it Nigel.

 

 

Dave, posted.  Nigel.

[Nutting]

I keep finding more stamps on this bayonet!  On the tang, behind the muzzle ring, is either a letter F or a badly-stamped E.

[JMB1943]

Nigel,

 

Nicely marked ‘07 you have there.

I think we’ll settle on the Regiment as the ARGYLL & SH (isn’t the Argyle a sock pattern?)

That horizontal “E” is interesting, as I have logged them only on Chapman (2), Enfield (1) and Sanderson (13) P.07’s.

However, the earliest year of appearance before yours was 1917 (Chapman & Sanderson).

 

Regards,

JMB

 

 

 

[JMB1943]

I have looked again at the markings, and doubt that the year of manufacture can be stated definitively.

What you have read as possibly ‘15, I take as another re-inspection date of ‘twenty something.

’54 IS late, and even if Lithgow was still working on the P.07, the A&SH has not been lined out and there are no sold-out-of-service

markings to account for it being down under.

All in all, a frustrating set of markings to get to grips with!

 

Regards,

JMB

[trajan]

49 minutes ago, JMB1943 said:

... All in all, a frustrating set of markings to get to grips with!

 

Indeed JMB - but very interesting! Now you are ready for Roman military epigraphy 101! Or German unit and production markings, which by comparison with both are a doddle!

 

Yes, "54" would be very late, so perhaps it is a bad "34". I think you have some records somewhere of re-issue markings? None later than the 1930's?

 

Oh, and good observation above, post 15 on who used that horizontal inspection mark "E". It is the details like this and their sharing that make our collecting hobby so much more of an an enjoyable and informative hobby cum information source rather than a simply hoarding / boasting venture.

 

Best,

 

Julian

[Nutting]

1 hour ago, JMB1943 said:

I have looked again at the markings, and doubt that the year of manufacture can be stated definitively.

What you have read as possibly ‘15, I take as another re-inspection date of ‘twenty something.

’54 IS late, and even if Lithgow was still working on the P.07, the A&SH has not been lined out and there are no sold-out-of-service

markings to account for it being down under.

All in all, a frustrating set of markings to get to grips with!

 

Regards,

JMB

With respect, I don't see a re-inspection date of twenty something, although I can see what you mean.  The '34 re-inspection date is clearer (although not very!) when the bayonet is in front of you.  Many thanks for you input;  I'm new to bayonets and all advice gratefully received. This is one of my first two bayonets and I think I'm hooked already.  Nigel.

[Nutting]

30 minutes ago, trajan said:

 

Indeed JMB - but very interesting! Now you are ready for Roman military epigraphy 101! Or German unit and production markings, which by comparison with both are a doddle!

 

Yes, "54" would be very late, so perhaps it is a bad "34". I think you have some records somewhere of re-issue markings? None later than the 1930's?

 

Oh, and good observation above, post 15 on who used that horizontal inspection mark "E". It is the details like this and their sharing that make our collecting hobby so much more of an an enjoyable and informative hobby cum information source rather than a simply hoarding / boasting venture.

 

Best,

 

Julian

Julian,  If Lithgow or RFI were involved, there would be other markings to evidence that?  Having said that, it did arrive with a scabbard marked SA, which I believe is an Australian stamp.  History is wonderful, but very, very confusing...   Nigel

[JMB1943]

Nigel,

 

As you say, always easier when the object is to hand in front of you.

Now there is indeed an Australian issue scabbard thrown into the mix to confuse things a little more.

My feeling is still that the bayonet never went south of the equator; hang on to that scabbard until a suitable 

Lithgow bayonet does appear. Was the scabbard made in Australia?  It may have the A inside the 7-pointed star on the locket or chape, close to the staple. Any markings high on the scabbard near the seam?

Did you locate the ‘88 and ‘07 Both in Jersey?

 

Trajan,

 

Yes, most re-inspection dates are in the twenties with only a couple at ‘32, ‘35.

 

Regards,

JMB

 

 

 

[Nutting]

14 minutes ago, JMB1943 said:

Nigel,

 

As you say, always easier when the object is to hand in front of you.

Now there is indeed an Australian issue scabbard thrown into the mix to confuse things a little more.

My feeling is still that the bayonet never went south of the equator; hang on to that scabbard until a suitable 

Lithgow bayonet does appear. Was the scabbard made in Australia?  It may have the A inside the 7-pointed star on the locket or chape, close to the staple. Any markings high on the scabbard near the seam?

Did you locate the ‘88 and ‘07 Both in Jersey?

 

Trajan,

 

Yes, most re-inspection dates are in the twenties with only a couple at ‘32, ‘35.

 

Regards,

JMB

 

 

 

Agreed, I don’t think the bayonet crossed the equator!

 

The scabbard has two marks:  an inspection mark of crown/B/4 and broad arrow/C/7 stamped in the leather near the seam (see images).  Can you tell me anything about those?

 

Yes, the ‘88 and the ‘07 both came from Jersey (as did my 20 kukris!) and I’m hoping for more ‘local’ bayonets.

 

Nigel

[JMB1943]

Yes, a British-made scabbard; I wonder if  Broad Arrow/ C/ 7 is really A C ,because there was a scabbard  maker, A. Cooper of Birmingham. The crown/ B/ 4 with B for B’ham would then be consistent with this.

I’m very surprised that there are at least 20 kukris in the whole of the Channel Islands, never mind that you alone have 20 !!

 

Regards,

JMB

[Dave66]

I think the 7 is actually the top crown of a further inspection stamp under the A.C., sadly the rest of the inspection stamp is too worn to be legible.

 

Dave.

[Nutting]

4 minutes ago, JMB1943 said:

Yes, a British-made scabbard; I wonder if  Broad Arrow/ C/ 7 is really A C ,because there was a scabbard  maker, A. Cooper of Birmingham. The crown/ B/ 4 with B for B’ham would then be consistent with this.

I’m very surprised that there are at least 20 kukris in the whole of the Channel Islands, never mind that you alone have 20 !!

 

Regards,

JMB

Yes, you’re right.  The C is strongly stamped whereas the A is very faint, but visible if you turn the scabbard in the light, so we have AC.  This gets better and better!

 

For historical reasons there is a lot of militaria in Jersey (there was a large U.K. garrison from the 1700s onwards, plus the 1940-45 German occupation);  in addition, an amazing number of retired former Gurkha officers!

 

nigel.

[Nutting]

1 minute ago, Dave66 said:

I think the 7 is actually the top crown of a further inspection stamp under the A.C., sadly the rest of the inspection stamp is too worn to be legible.

 

Dave.

 

Betterer and betterer as they say! Nigel.