Hook Quillion Auction alert ?

[RGJDEE]

Coming up at Auction a P 1907 ‘HQ’ by Wilkinson.

Seems to be a late production !??

[shippingsteel]

These are certainly legit ... I have one from the same batch which I have posted on the forum before.

Not "late production" but "late acceptance". Wilkinson was a contractor and obviously had stockpiles left over from when the order came to cease production of the quillon on the P1907. Hence these bayonets were not accepted into service at the time, but were put into storage. When the war came and supplies of weaponry were short, these bayonets were called into service and stamped with the acceptance date. I believe mine is also dated Dec 1914, I will have to check and post a photo to confirm. 

[shippingsteel]

[RGJDEE]

Thanks S>S 

Regards Richard.

[shippingsteel]

Yep very much December 1914 acceptance ... and yep very, very much legit. Mine is regimental marked and was sourced out of Germany.!

 

[trajan]

So, a gap between the making and the acceptance - no problem there, given the P.1907's with ER stamps but GR dates! 

 

I Wonder why they never thought to lop the quillons off these to conform to the new pattern? Or does that mean that there was no official instruction to lop these things off "where the necessary machinery and tools are available" (or was there such a LOC and I have missed it???!!!) - it was left to the armourers to do so if they wished, unlike the case of adding a clearance hole -

"LOC 17692 - Sword Bayonet, Pattern 1907, Mark I. 5 Jan 1916. 23 Feb 1916, Drilling of clearance hole through pommel In future manufacture, sword-bayonets of the above mentioned pattern ( LoC 14170 ) will have a hole drilled through the pommel to facilitate the removal of mud, dirt, &c., that may accumulate in the bottom of the mortice for the sword bar of the rifle nose-cap, and so prevent the bolt of the sword-bayonet shooting and locking the sword-bayonet on the rifle.

In workshops where the necessary machinery and tools are available the hole may be drilled, as occasion offers, through the pommel to the size and in the position shown in the accompanying drawing, the position first being marked off. "

 

[JMB1943]

4 hours ago, trajan said:

So, a gap between the making and the acceptance - no problem there, given the P.1907's with ER stamps but GR dates! 

 

 

Although the S>S bayonet is ER stamped, that of Richard is stamped with GR.

A delay between manufacture and acceptance doesn’t fit Richard’s bayonet.

 

Regards,

JMB

[trajan]

Well spotted! Must leave GWFing to the weekend mornings when more time to savour, study, and enjoy!

[JMB1943]

I recommend that you take two spoonfuls of molasses and call your optician in the morning!!

 

Regards,

JMB

[trajan]

 Retirement would suit me better but another eight years to go until the little one finishes school....

[shippingsteel]

8 hours ago, JMB1943 said:

Although the S>S bayonet is ER stamped, that of Richard is stamped with GR.

A delay between manufacture and acceptance doesn’t fit Richard’s bayonet.

 

On what basis do you make this assumption.? Hooked quillon P1907 bayonets were produced with both ER and GR cyphers.!

The direction to cease production of the quillon was only given on the 29th October 1913, obviously well into the GR territory.

The LOC entry #16755 stated that "Future manufacture to be without hook on cross-piece". No mention of removal ever made.

[shippingsteel]

I found this example while looking for "evidence" to support my above post and while it certainly shows the GR cypher, it is also interesting in that it shows the lag time which was evident in the production system. Book-bashing pedants would have you believe that the LOC orders were strictly adhered to and anything other than the dates stipulated should be shunned. However collecting experience usually shows that the reality on the ground was often far removed to the writings found in the "textbook".

This example linked below was accepted December 1913 at ENFIELD shortly AFTER the LOC was issued.

https://www.bygoneblades.com/images/products/p1907-british-hooked-quillion-bayonet-ww1_4.jpg

[trajan]

7 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

 

On what basis do you make this assumption.? Hooked quillon P1907 bayonets were produced with both ER and GR cyphers.!

The direction to cease production of the quillon was only given on the 29th October 1913, obviously well into the GR territory.

The LOC entry #16755 stated that "Future manufacture to be without hook on cross-piece". No mention of removal ever made.

 

7 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

I found this example while looking for "evidence" to support my above post and while it certainly shows the GR cypher, it is also interesting in that it shows the lag time which was evident in the production system. Book-bashing pedants would have you believe that the LOC orders were strictly adhered to and anything other than the dates stipulated should be shunned. However collecting experience usually shows that the reality on the ground was often far removed to the writings found in the "textbook".

This example linked below was accepted December 1913 at ENFIELD shortly AFTER the LOC was issued.

https://www.bygoneblades.com/images/products/p1907-british-hooked-quillion-bayonet-ww1_4.jpg

 

Hi SS.

 

Gosh this has really stirred up the old dander here, eh! A good way of celebrating your 4th anniversary though! Not quite certain what you mean by "Book-bashing pedants" as that normally refers to people who reject outright documentary evidence when published in book form... But books can be useful as I demonstrated in post 13 replying to your now locked thread https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/148742-some-new-recruits-p1907-variety/ when seeking evidence for when the RSAF stopped making P.1907's. 

 

Anyway, I don't think anyone has ever seriously suggested that the LOC were implemented immediately on publication, while we know that some LOC were even issued post factum, as it were! I would also refer you back to the discussion on another of your locked threads: https://www.greatwarforum.org/topic/190101-clearance-holes/ You illustrate a Chapman made P.1907 and comment in post 4 there that: "It is dated Sept 1916 and that's why it is such an "aberration" [= in lacking a clearance hole] You see the Clearance Holes were introduced in the LOC in January and February of that year, making an example [without a clearance hole] dated in September [1916] quite an unusual one. Perhaps Chapman was slow to adopt these changes for some reason, or the manufacturers treated the LOC's as more a 'set of guidelines' rather than the 'rule'.? NB: Text in bold added for clarification

 

Hope this stimulates further discussion!

 

Trajan

 

[JMB1943]

On 24/04/2019 at 02:10, shippingsteel said:

 

Not "late production" but "late acceptance". Wilkinson was a contractor and obviously had stockpiles left over from when the order came to cease production of the quillon on the P1907. Hence these bayonets were not accepted into service at the time, but were put into storage. When the war came and supplies of weaponry were short, these bayonets were called into service and stamped with the acceptance date. 

 

S>S,

 

My understanding of the government contracts is that a certain number (X) of the item was to be delivered within a specified period (often several weeks to one month); this allowed the manufacturer to get up and running and to optimize his supply chains and processes etc. At the end of this period, deliveries were to be made at the rate of Y per month, until the contract was satisfied; usually Y was significantly greater than X.

No work could be paid for unless the individual item was inspected and accepted by the government inspectors.

I suspect that “deliveries were to be made at the rate of Y per month” means that payment was made on a monthly basis upon receipt of that number (Y) into govt. stores.

 

It seems very doubtful to me that the contractor would maintain “stockpiles” of the HQ bayonet before inspection, because

(1) they would not be paid for non-delivered work

(2) the non-delivered work could possibly put them into default of contract,

and

(3) the manufacturer had the option of removing the HQ then and there; this could not have been too difficult, since it was routinely done by unit armourers.

 

An alternative explanation for an HQ dated 12 ‘14 is that in the scramble for replacement weaponry after the losses in 1914, a worker is told to scour the factory floor and wherever for ANY spare cross-guards, pommels etc. He reports to the foreman that he has found only  a small number of the HQ cross-Guards; the foreman says things are desperate, we’ll take ‘em, and don’t bother to remove the HQ, they’ll do.

 

Regards,

JMB

[trajan]

Elegantly put JMB!

 

Oh, and having learnt that 'book-bashing' was not meant the way I understood it (), then it was a suitable message to mark SS's 4th year anniversary!Congratulations matey! 

[RGJDEE]

Sold for £320 + Commission

R.