Wanted - opinion on a P07 HQ

[trajan]

Well, m'learned friends, this has popped up here. Not in the best of conditions and the scabbard locket has been painted but it does have a naval stamp. Looks overall genuine to me, except the cipher is ER and the date seems to read '2 '19. "Not possible" I hear!. Well, yes, but is that a scar that has mangled a '0' to make it look like a '9'? Then it would fit as a '2 '10.

 

Honest (and polite!) observations gratefully received... I do have more than enough of the blessed things and don'' need another one - but just wondering what the Forum thinks...

 

   

Edited 25 February , 2020 by trajan
multiple errors as teenage boys fighting while trying to write this

[JMB1943]

Trajan,

 

1) We have had a discussion here previously regarding serif vs sans serif for the "N", so both are seen & are correct.

2) General heavy corrosion of cross-piece and upper ricasso is consistent with sea-service.

3) Painted locket possibly also consistent.

4) Scabbard is brown (early) colour consistent with 1910; pear-shape or round frog-button ???

5) Ricasso markings look OK.

 

All things considered, FROM PHOTO VIEWS, it looks certainly like a real P.'07.

You have to decide about the '10 or '19 date.

The other issue is, of course, the HQ; is that original/ any welds/ shape and rounding etc.?????

 

Regards,

JMB

 

 

 

Edited 25 February , 2020 by JMB1943

[trajan]

Thanks JMB!

I have been promisd better photographs - this is the first of of the date mark so I hope it works!

 

I agree that this is a 'well-used-and suffered' piece. And it would be difficult to fake those corrosion and 'charcoal-leaching' spots on that HQ if it was added.

 

Julian 

 

[shippingsteel]

Well from what I can see from the photos it appears to be a perfectly genuine RSAF Enfield production P1907 bayonet. However that apparent date stamping (of '19??) is VERY problematic. Both the ER cypher and the HQ are inconsistent with a 1919 date on ANY P1907.

 

To muddy the waters even further, RSAF Enfield was reported to have ceased bayonet production in late 1915, and I don't recall seeing any dated much later than very early 1916. Perhaps we could do a SNAP survey of GWF members to see who has the latest issue date on an EFD P1907 bayonet.! 

 

With this example, my best explanation would be a slightly damaged date stamp was used, and the date is a mis-struck '10. Note the 1 digit is also badly struck which indicates to me a worn out stamp.

 

Cheers, SS

[trajan]

My thinking too, basically... Something odd here, unless it was a RSAF product not issued until 1910? Don't you, SS, have an ER one date-marked after King Edward died? Is that one RSAF or what? 

 

I am also a tad confused as to how this grotty looking HQ came to be with a nice 'London brown' scabbard, with a black-painted locket, characteristic for WW2 if I recall correctly...

[Michael Haselgrove]

Julian,

Surely the year stamp here is a poorly struck '09 caused by the date stamp being held at a slight angle?  In your most recent photo I can just see the ghost of the outline on the left side of the 0.  Interestingly, part of the 0 on the 1907 stamping is also missing.

Michael. 

[shippingsteel]

Very good Michael. Yes now that you mention it, it surely does look like an '09 date stamp, which would make perfect sense. Of course it does depend on the condition of your monitor, ambient light in the room, and possibly just possibly the correct usage of spectacles which may or may not be required to make a positive identification.!!

 

Cheers, SS

[shippingsteel]

1 hour ago, trajan said:

I am also a tad confused as to how this grotty looking HQ came to be with a nice 'London brown' scabbard, with a black-painted locket, characteristic for WW2 if I recall correctly...

 

We can't really see much from the photos posted regarding the scabbard, but I was thinking it could be a swapped out WW2 Australian manufactured MANGROVITE scabbard. They came with very darkened fittings as standard but of course large round stud. A closeup of the scabbard would assist with the ID.

 

Cheers, SS

[o j kirby]

Hello,

Using my artistic observers eye, I agree that the date is '09, with the "0" being poorly stamped. The left side of the 0 is a bit ghosted, but clear to me. It is the same size as the 9.

Cheers,

Owain.

 

[Michael Haselgrove]

4 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

Very good Michael. Yes now that you mention it, it surely does look like an '09 date stamp, which would make perfect sense. Of course it does depend on the condition of your monitor, ambient light in the room, and possibly just possibly the correct usage of spectacles which may or may not be required to make a positive identification.!!

 

Cheers, SS

SS,

I completely agree with you about lighting conditions, etc.  I like to take items out into bright sunshine as I find it very revealing, particularly as far as pencil markings or ink stamps are concerned.

We now await to hear whether or not Trajan is going to buy the bayonet in question which perhaps is a souvenir from Gallipoli?

Regards,

Michael.

[trajan]

Thanks one and all! 

 

An interesting one this - not the least because the same bayonet is being offered to me by three different dealers! Word must have got around... They are asking between USD 330-350... I noted a loverly(sic) 'twin' on sale in Australia - 'N' stamp and 02 09 issue - on offer at a lot more... I trust I am not breaking GEF regulations - but for record purposes if nothing else, i.e., to put it on record -  https://www.ebay.com.au/itm/RARE-1907-NAVAL-HOOKED-QUILLION-WW1-BRITISH-303-RIFLE-BAYONET-SCABBARD-ENFIELD/333527557139?_trkparms=aid%3D555018%26algo%3DPL.SIM%26ao%3D2%26asc%3D20160323102634%26meid%3Dcc9d501d8420468189134370b3152640%26pid%3D100623%26rk%3D1%26rkt%3D6%26sd%3D202505841888%26itm%3D333527557139%26pmt%3D1%26noa%3D0%26pg%3D2047675%26algv%3DSimplAMLv5PairwiseWeb&_trksid=p2047675.c100623.m-1 

 

I remember vaguely other 'N' marked HQ P.1907's (and HQ's were still in use by the Australian navy in WW2... I posted on these some time ago... ).So, a special delivery and manufacture by EFD just for the RN in 1909???

 

I have to think about this one (significant chunk from my salary) - I do have better examples but not a 'N' marked one... 

 

So, for SS in particular, a better view of the scabbard, and for all the pommel mark - one I have not seen before. 

 

 

Edited 29 February , 2020 by trajan

[JMB1943]

Trajan,

 

 

So, for SS in particular, a better view of the scabbard, and for all the pommel mark - one I have not seen before.

 

I read the pommel stamp as 2 over 5938.

Is it the 2 alone that bothers you; I would also wonder at a number as high as 5938. It looks like an inventory number, rather than a rack number.

 

You may remember that I have a WILK 10 '08, stamped with N (pommel/ricasso) that has a similarly high number (3 over 10,500) on the pommel.

SS had intimated, if I remember well, that it was probably due to issue to a particular battle squadron or larger unit.

 

Regards,

JMB

[EDIT:At least you know that the locking button is not frozen shut.]

Edited 2 March , 2020 by JMB1943

[trajan]

8 hours ago, JMB1943 said:

I read the pommel stamp as 2 over 5938.

Is it the 2 alone that bothers you; I would also wonder at a number as high as 5938. It looks like an inventory number, rather than a rack number.

 

Hi JMB,

 

I had clean forgotten that one of yours. If that is a 10 '08, and this is a 02 '09, and the one in the advertisment referred to above in post 11 is also 02 09, and - by the way - pommel marked 3/728, then even allowing for an incredibly limited sample it does look possible that the Navy were receiving SMLE's in 1908 and 1909, then came the Arisaka after 1914.

 

I am certain that 4G has written something on this changeover from SMLE to Arisaka - but don't have time right now to follow it up... 

 

Best wishs,

 

Julian

[JMB1943]

Trajan,

 

The RN was indeed issued with the SMLE initially.

Those were exchanged for the Arisaka rifles in 1915 (I think) when the Army desperately needed more SMLE’s.

 

Regards,

JMB

[trajan]

Thanks JMB. Methinks it will be much easier to get down to grips with these RN issues of 1908 and 1909 ones than the RAF ones! On which note, I hope to be 'back in circulation' on these by the end of March. Work, the curse of the teaching (and the drinking!) classes has intervened...

 

Julian

[JMB1943]

Yes, teaching is enough to make you take to drinking--oh, I see that it did!!

 

Egads,

JMB

[msdt]

Hi Julian,

I have a similarly marked one, 2 over 20873. However it also has RM under that - either side of the clearance hole as it is dated 12 18.

Cheers,

Tony

 

[trajan]

Nice one Tony! A PALL MALL scrubbed one as well. 

[sgt-maj]

[trajan]

On 16/05/2020 at 03:35, sgt-maj said:

 

Many thanks! That's solved that one! I had another look at it - one I didn't mean to buy but somehow came my way because of the markings - and it is indeed 09.

[trajan]

On 26/02/2020 at 16:54, Michael Haselgrove said:

SS,

I completely agree with you about lighting conditions, etc.  I like to take items out into bright sunshine as I find it very revealing, particularly as far as pencil markings or ink stamps are concerned.

We now await to hear whether or not Trajan is going to buy the bayonet in question which perhaps is a souvenir from Gallipoli?

Regards,

Michael.

 

Hi Michael, and all others who have contributed to this in my prolonged absence... And as many of you thought, and Sgt-Maj. most recently, it is indeed an 02-09.

 

It was going cheap - honestly! - and the markings attracted me so I now have eight HQ's, anomalies in a collection otherwise dedicated to German Imperials and P.1888's! Most om bayonets live in drawers, apart from a small wall-mounted rail mixed display of mainly German ones - mixed as I have had to take down the long ones to get a desk in there for at-home working for myself and the boys. I guess with this many HQ's I will have to put up a rail especially devoted to them... 

 

Anyway, it is not in the best of conditions: they rarely are over here.  E.g., the blade has been sharpened, for starters. The chape and locket have both been painted a glossy black, and the scabbard was also blackened at some point in its history, with most of that removed to reveal the brown below. The scabbard has one surviving WD arrow and a 'HGR 09' mark.

 

Many thanks, once again, to all comments.