P1907 Lithgow hooked quillon bayonet that has been to Gallipoli

[MA57]

Hello everyone,

ive been searching for a Lithgow  P1907 hooked quillon bayonet that had been to Gallipoli. If anyone has one and are willing to sell it, please contact me. I would prefer a Lithgow but wilkson will do fine if it was used by Aussies.

 

Best regards

[4thGordons]

Just an observation: This is going to be almost impossible to verify.

There is an old collector's adage - buy the item not the story. A quick perusal of online sellers will show you that lots of things with Lithgow on them will mention Gallipoli (even if they were manufactured in 1917-1945!)

While it is in many cases possible to tell (based on indelible ownership markings made on the weapon) if a bayonet has service with the Australian armed forces, knowing anything about the service life of an individual weapon is impossible in the vast majority of cases. It simply is not possible to tell with any certainty.

There are individual attributable items of course -- but most of those are in museums and the huge majority of surviving WWI weapons are simply not attributable to a particular battle. Over a century has passed for one thing and what preoccupies collectors (for example the maker and marks on a bayonet or minor manufacturing variations etc) mattered not at all to a serving soldier

In your other thread you asked about "fakes" and I suggested not to worry about it if you were interested in regular P1907 bayonets. I'll stand by that.

However, if you are interested in a Hooked quillon P1907 bayonet with Gallipoli pedigree -- I would be on very high alert for exaggeration and even outright fakery.

Should you be lucky enough to find an early hooked quillon 1907 bayonet with Australian markings (they do exist some nice examples have been shown on here) -- I hope you have deep pockets! BTW there were several makers of British P1907s that ended up in Australian service in addition to Wilkinson.

I really would suggest picking up a copy of Skennerton and Richardson's book on British and Commonwealth bayonets - it's not cheap, but if you are contemplating looking for high end examples it is probably the best single volume to consult.

I'm not trying to put you off by any means but forewarned is forearmed!

Chris

 

 

Edited 25 June , 2021 by 4thGordons

[MA57]

2 minutes ago, 4thGordons said:

Just an observation: This is going to be almost impossible to verify.

There is an old collector's adage - buy the item not the story. A quick perusal of online sellers will show you that lots of things with Lithgow on them will mention Gallipoli (even if they were manufactured in 1917-1945!)

While it is in many cases possible to tell (based on indelible ownership markings made on the weapon) if a bayonet has service with the Australian armed forces, knowing anything about the service life of an individual weapon is impossible in the vast majority of cases. It simply is not possible to tell with any certainty.

There are individual attributable items of course -- but most of those are in museums but the huge majority of surviving WWI weapons are simply not attributable to a particular battle. Over a century has passed for one thing and what preoccupies collectors (for example the maker and marks on a bayonet or minor manufacturing variations etc) mattered not at all to a serving soldier

In your other thread you asked about "fakes" and I suggested not to worry about it if you were interested in regular P1907 bayonets. I'll stand by that.

However, if you are interested in a Hooked quillon P1907 bayonet with Gallipoli pedigree -- I would be on very high alert for exaggeration and even outright fakery.

Should you be lucky enough to find an early hooked quillon 1907 bayonet with Australian markings (they do exist some nice examples have been shown on here) -- I hope you have deep pockets! BTW there were several makers of British P1907s that ended up in Australian service in addition to Wilkinson.

I really would suggest picking up a copy of Skennerton and Richardson's book on British and Commonwealth bayonets - it's not cheap, but if you are contemplating looking for high end examples it is probably the best single volume to consult.

I'm not trying to put you off by any means but forewarned is forearmed!

Chris

 

 

Ok thanks

[NorthStaffsPOW]

Those are some very wise words Chris. Very well put.

[MA57]

On 26/06/2021 at 09:30, 4thGordons said:

Just an observation: This is going to be almost impossible to verify.

There is an old collector's adage - buy the item not the story. A quick perusal of online sellers will show you that lots of things with Lithgow on them will mention Gallipoli (even if they were manufactured in 1917-1945!)

While it is in many cases possible to tell (based on indelible ownership markings made on the weapon) if a bayonet has service with the Australian armed forces, knowing anything about the service life of an individual weapon is impossible in the vast majority of cases. It simply is not possible to tell with any certainty.

There are individual attributable items of course -- but most of those are in museums and the huge majority of surviving WWI weapons are simply not attributable to a particular battle. Over a century has passed for one thing and what preoccupies collectors (for example the maker and marks on a bayonet or minor manufacturing variations etc) mattered not at all to a serving soldier

In your other thread you asked about "fakes" and I suggested not to worry about it if you were interested in regular P1907 bayonets. I'll stand by that.

However, if you are interested in a Hooked quillon P1907 bayonet with Gallipoli pedigree -- I would be on very high alert for exaggeration and even outright fakery.

Should you be lucky enough to find an early hooked quillon 1907 bayonet with Australian markings (they do exist some nice examples have been shown on here) -- I hope you have deep pockets! BTW there were several makers of British P1907s that ended up in Australian service in addition to Wilkinson.

I really would suggest picking up a copy of Skennerton and Richardson's book on British and Commonwealth bayonets - it's not cheap, but if you are contemplating looking for high end examples it is probably the best single volume to consult.

I'm not trying to put you off by any means but forewarned is forearmed!

Chris

 

 

Hi mate,

could you hopefully answer my questions on a post I just made? You have so much knowledge in this field so I thought I’d contact you. Here is a link

 

[Mattr82]

There is the adage of " buy the item not the story" and that's very wise. I have a P1907 that I got when I was there for 2015 100th anniversary. It has a faint NSW on it. And yes....I got it legally as a gift from a Turkish person who had it cleared to give it as a gift. Whether I'd sell it.....depends what was on offer.

[MA57]

16 minutes ago, Mattr82 said:

There is the adage of " buy the item not the story" and that's very wise. I have a P1907 that I got when I was there for 2015 100th anniversary. It has a faint NSW on it. And yes....I got it legally as a gift from a Turkish person who had it cleared to give it as a gift. Whether I'd sell it.....depends what was on offer.

Could I have some photos?

[trajan]

5 hours ago, Mattr82 said:

There is the adage of " buy the item not the story" and that's very wise. I have a P1907 that I got when I was there for 2015 100th anniversary. It has a faint NSW on it. And yes....I got it legally as a gift from a Turkish person who had it cleared to give it as a gift. Whether I'd sell it.....depends what was on offer.

Sadly, even if bought / obtained in Turkey, it doesn't mean anything for sure. The Turkish antique stores sell all kinds of bayonets that were never, for example, used by the Turkish army - the Swedish M1896 is one example. they turn up every so often - a clue to dealers bringing them in for re-sale.

The first 98/05 aA I bought here was from a Turk who co-owned an antique shop with a French guy, who brought all kinds of stuff, bayonets included, for sale here in Turkey as antique collecting is a very new phenomenon here and so higher prices. The Ottoman army never used the 98/05 aA, and my dealer admitted it came from France... Similarly, most of my GB WW1 medal collection has been bought here, but I have seen no evidence of GB veterans retiring to Turkey for their families to later sell the medals on... My one 'death penny', for a Somme casualty, was also bought in Turkey, IF you find a bayonet of a type used at Gallipoli, and preferably appropriately unit marked, all you can say is that it may have been used at Gallipoli.

Julian

PS: I should add - everytime I go to the antique market or shops here I am always assured that anything military related is 'Channakale dan' - 'From Gallipoli' - even once a really rusty Saudi Arabian dagger! And I get this sometimes from dealers I have known for ages who know that I am an experienced collector!

Edited 2 July , 2021 by trajan
Add PS

[navydoc16]

On 26/06/2021 at 09:30, 4thGordons said:

Just an observation: This is going to be almost impossible to verify.

There is an old collector's adage - buy the item not the story. A quick perusal of online sellers will show you that lots of things with Lithgow on them will mention Gallipoli (even if they were manufactured in 1917-1945!)

While it is in many cases possible to tell (based on indelible ownership markings made on the weapon) if a bayonet has service with the Australian armed forces, knowing anything about the service life of an individual weapon is impossible in the vast majority of cases. It simply is not possible to tell with any certainty.

There are individual attributable items of course -- but most of those are in museums and the huge majority of surviving WWI weapons are simply not attributable to a particular battle. Over a century has passed for one thing and what preoccupies collectors (for example the maker and marks on a bayonet or minor manufacturing variations etc) mattered not at all to a serving soldier

In your other thread you asked about "fakes" and I suggested not to worry about it if you were interested in regular P1907 bayonets. I'll stand by that.

However, if you are interested in a Hooked quillon P1907 bayonet with Gallipoli pedigree -- I would be on very high alert for exaggeration and even outright fakery.

Should you be lucky enough to find an early hooked quillon 1907 bayonet with Australian markings (they do exist some nice examples have been shown on here) -- I hope you have deep pockets! BTW there were several makers of British P1907s that ended up in Australian service in addition to Wilkinson.

I really would suggest picking up a copy of Skennerton and Richardson's book on British and Commonwealth bayonets - it's not cheap, but if you are contemplating looking for high end examples it is probably the best single volume to consult.

I'm not trying to put you off by any means but forewarned is forearmed!

Chris

 

 

I was just trawling this thread searching something from a friends collection and stumbled upon this. 

100% correct in all the above, however there is a very very incredibly small handful of identifiable bayonets both British and Australian made that you can actually “prove” were at Gallipoli

The Australian expeditionary that landed at Gallipoli that were slated for the landings (and no others) have the individual soldiers serial number stamped on the cross guard. On the opposite side of the MD and rifle number 
 

I have only ever seen two, one is British and one is Australian - both are now framed and plaqued at two collectors I know with the full individual history of the owner. from memory the Lithgow owner survived the war and in the later stages of the Great War actually joined the Australian Volunteers to be a pilot/observer of the RAF.

I will attempt to get photos if interested 

 

kind regards

g

[navydoc16]

On 03/07/2021 at 00:55, trajan said:

Sadly, even if bought / obtained in Turkey, it doesn't mean anything for sure. The Turkish antique stores sell all kinds of bayonets that were never, for example, used by the Turkish army - the Swedish M1896 is one example. they turn up every so often - a clue to dealers bringing them in for re-sale.

The first 98/05 aA I bought here was from a Turk who co-owned an antique shop with a French guy, who brought all kinds of stuff, bayonets included, for sale here in Turkey as antique collecting is a very new phenomenon here and so higher prices. The Ottoman army never used the 98/05 aA, and my dealer admitted it came from France... Similarly, most of my GB WW1 medal collection has been bought here, but I have seen no evidence of GB veterans retiring to Turkey for their families to later sell the medals on... My one 'death penny', for a Somme casualty, was also bought in Turkey, IF you find a bayonet of a type used at Gallipoli, and preferably appropriately unit marked, all you can say is that it may have been used at Gallipoli.

Julian

PS: I should add - everytime I go to the antique market or shops here I am always assured that anything military related is 'Channakale dan' - 'From Gallipoli' - even once a really rusty Saudi Arabian dagger! And I get this sometimes from dealers I have known for ages who know that I am an experienced collector!

Very astute- a friend of mine recently went to Turkey and came back with pictures of a WW2 WSC redated to 1915. Australians going over are willing to pay a hell of a lot for Gallipoli items. 
 

kind regards

g

[Mattr82]

Is there a source for this

2 hours ago, navydoc16 said:

 

The Australian expeditionary that landed at Gallipoli that were slated for the landings (and no others) have the individual soldiers serial number stamped on the cross guard. On the opposite side of the MD and rifle number 
 

 

Is there a source for this? I wouldn't mind seeing examples of bayonets with this.

The mobilisation orders forbade the marking of equipment to individuals that would possibly be reissued and from @trajan many examples, I have never seen a soldiers regimental number stamped on the crossguard for use on the Dardanelles. 

But if there's some pics to show this, I wouldn't mind seeing those examples.

Edited 17 April by Mattr82

[navydoc16]

I will ask and see, they are not necessarily mine to share. Also not sure of any references, but the bayonets are certainly real and exist. 

not a regimental number- the individual soldiers service/serial number. Not quite the same thing. 

Kind regards

g

 

Edited 17 April by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

^ reference is in “A guide to Small Arms in Western Australia

im afraid I don’t own a copy so I can’t confirm 

There is also good evidence that grips were also sometimes marked with Service number and some battalions marked the grips as well as service number, according to examples in the Aust war memorial 

 

kind regards

g

Edited 17 April by navydoc16

[Mattr82]

I had never heard of that book so I just placed an order for it. Looks a good read!

I have seen AIF marked bayonets (Damien Allan has a great example to the 28th Bn) with Battalion, Coy and inventory number within that battalion but I've never seen a regimental number stamped on them but I'd love to see examples.

 

On the subject of regimental numbers, they were allocated to soldiers by the units as they were responsible for administering them. The regimental numbers were abolished in 1921. Sometimes on paperwork they are seen as 'Statement of service number' but that was for a broad aspect of administration for various services etc. 

https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/encyclopedia/numbers/regimental#:~:text=Regimental numbers were allotted to,These numbers were not unique.

 

[Fromelles]

 

9 hours ago, navydoc16 said:

 

The Australian expeditionary that landed at Gallipoli that were slated for the landings (and no others) have the individual soldiers serial number stamped on the cross guard. On the opposite side of the MD and rifle number 

I'd certainly want to see the reference to this statement, it certainly doesn't conform with any orders relating to marking of arms I've ever seen.

The fact that there is a bayonet, or two, with a Regi No. on it does not prove it was ordered prior to the landings. There were 16 (Australian) infantry battalions involved in the landings, with each issued Regimental numbers starting from # 1 upwards, so multiple men would have been issued exactly the same Regimental number, making it a pointless exercise. Until proven otherwise, I'll remain very sceptical of it being done. 

 

42 minutes ago, Mattr82 said:

IOn the subject of regimental numbers, they were allocated to soldiers by the units as they were responsible for administering them. The regimental numbers were abolished in 1921. Sometimes on paperwork they are seen as 'Statement of service number' but that was for a broad aspect of administration for various services etc. 

https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/encyclopedia/numbers/regimental#:~:text=Regimental numbers were allotted to,These numbers were not unique.

 This is the best write up of the history of the different personal/personnel numbering systems used by Australia

The Personal Numbering System of the Australian Army

Dan

Edited 17 April by Fromelles

[Mattr82]

27 minutes ago, Fromelles said:

This is the best write up of the history of the different personal/personnel numbering systems used by Australia

The Personal Numbering System of the Australian Army

Dan

This is a great reference mate. Hadn't seen this. Cheers.

Edited 17 April by Mattr82

[navydoc16]

1 hour ago, Fromelles said:

 

I'd certainly want to see the reference to this statement, it certainly doesn't conform with any orders relating to marking of arms I've ever seen.

The fact that there is a bayonet, or two, with a Regi No. on it does not prove it was ordered prior to the landings. There were 16 (Australian) infantry battalions involved in the landings, with each issued Regimental numbers starting from # 1 upwards, so multiple men would have been issued exactly the same Regimental number, making it a pointless exercise. Until proven otherwise, I'll remain very sceptical of it being done. 

 

 This is the best write up of the history of the different personal/personnel numbering systems used by Australia

The Personal Numbering System of the Australian Army

Dan

I’m really not sure about how prevalent the regimental number markings are? I’m not the one who brought it up. I’m specifically talking about the soldiers serial number as per my post. 
 

I have seen first hand the AI number on the cross guard. Like I said above, apparently it was not uncommon practice that several of the battalions adopted before the landings. Unsure of specifics and I have no orders ect to prove- however it’s not conjecture on this, gentleman who owns it is a very serious collector and researcher. 

According to the owner, when he went to conduct further studies, there is multiple bayonets for reference in the AWM with similar Soldiers Service Number marking on the cross guard. When the bayonets were researched, all soldiers which had numbers marked were part of the initial contingent sent to Gallipoli. 
 

Kind regards

g

Edited 17 April by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

Apologies if ive struck a chord with anyone as well, it was just a bit of history I thought I would share.

Ive been collecting for a very long time and this information I was only made aware of maybe 2 years ago, up until I had seen it and had it explained to me I had held a belief very similar to the above.

The owner and several others in the collecting society are still trying to do active research on the subject, I believe the WA small arms book is relatively recent as well, so its not in alot of existing references and probably out of the scope of inclusion in alot of the more common ones. 

kind regards,

g

[Fromelles]

14 minutes ago, navydoc16 said:

I’m really not sure about how prevalent the regimental number markings are? I’m not the one who brought it up. I’m specifically talking about the soldiers serial number as per my post. 

I don't know what you believe the difference between a Service number and a Regimental number are, but they are practically one in the same. The use of Regimental number commenced prior to the war, and continued in the AIF, it wasn't until the introduction of the General Service Reinforcements (late 1917 I believe) that service numbers were introduced, but would have continued to be referred to as Regi numbers.

In the late 80's we referred to our numbers as both Regi and Service, but mostly Regi number.

Dan

[Fromelles]

11 minutes ago, navydoc16 said:

Apologies if ive struck a chord with anyone as well, it was just a bit of history I thought I would share.

Ive been collecting for a very long time and this information I was only made aware of maybe 2 years ago, up until I had seen it and had it explained to me I had held a belief very similar to the above.

The owner and several others in the collecting society are still trying to do active research on the subject, I believe the WA small arms book is relatively recent as well, so its not in alot of existing references and probably out of the scope of inclusion in alot of the more common ones. 

kind regards,

g

There is no issue for new info coming to light, I for one welcome it, however it has to be more than 'someone from my collecting circle told me'. There must be a source to back this claim, and that source needs to be able to hold up, a primary source would be a good start.

Dan

Edited 17 April by Fromelles

[navydoc16]

Apologies I misunderstood the intent, I had thought you were referring to regimental numbers in terms of unit markings and such, I didn't read your post correctly sorry.

I do mean Regimental numbers in terms of serial number. And yes I understand that there is issues with the system, duplicates ect. I don't think that was the intent of marking them, I think they were marked with a pre-war mindset, just for equipment control and returning ect.

kind regards,

g

Edited 17 April by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

14 minutes ago, Fromelles said:

There is no issue for new info coming to light, I for one welcome it, however it has to be more than 'someone from my collecting circle told me'. There must be a source to back this claim, and that source needs to be able to hold up, a primary source would be a good start.

Dan

I understand mate, its all good and im not trying to be coy in any sense. I will state the owners name and/or show pictures if they are willing, as I always do.

Unfortunately in this instance it is a name you will recognise if you're big into bayonets in AUS, im sure naturally they would probably prefer I don't quote or misquote them, and they're not my toys to show. I believe it may make a feature in some more books in the near future, but there is still research being done on the topic as to how prevalent and common practice it was ect. But it does hand on my heart certainly exist 

Some of the primary sources he referenced are in the AWM, however I believe it is a bit of a process to get access to view them.  

I was just sharing for the sake of sharing  honestly thought when I mentioned it, couple more folks were going to jump in and hopefully share theirs haha 

kind regards,

g

Edited 17 April by navydoc16

[Mattr82]

With regards to regi numbers being marked on equipment. I know it was on pers equipment (Think the DOBI number for todays mob). But for equipment that could be reissued inter-unit, I've never seen a reference or example but would like to see an example.

For AIF issued examples at the AWM, I never saw any regi numbers on them. The 2nd MD issued example had an inventory number and the others with more specific details had Bn, company and inventory numbers for that unit on them on the pommel. 

As Dan said, new info is always welcome that may shape future discussion on equipment.

[Fromelles]

11 minutes ago, navydoc16 said:

Apologies I misunderstood the intent, I had thought you were referring to regimental numbers in terms of unit markings and such, I didn't read your post correctly sorry.

I do mean Regimental numbers in terms of serial number. And yes I understand that there is issues with the system, duplicates ect. I don't think that was the intent of marking them, I think they were marked with a pre-war mindset, just for equipment control and returning ect.

kind regards,

g

The pre war army was very strict when it came to marking equipment, other than equipment for man and horse, nothing was to have corps markings making them unsuitable for future issue, and units would be held liable for the replacement cost if found to have marked items. It was upon mobilization that the majority of marking of equipment was to take place 'with as little delay as possible'.

The pre war numbering of the bayonet to that of the rifle quickly would have fallen apart quite quickly and then to do the same thing, but marked to a soldier would have been even all the more impractical. Think about the impracticality of marking a bayonet with an individual's number on the cross guard. There is really only one chance to stamp a man's number on the bayonet, once he's killed/wounded or posted out of the unit it would then have a number that had nothing to do with its 'new' owner. I can believe the odd soldier may have marked their weapon with their number, but find it very unlikely it would have been officially sanctioned.

Dan

[navydoc16]

I 100% agree with you, no issue there, it is woefully impractical and would not make a hint of sense when applied non-theoretically

But im not really disputing the practicality or impracticality of the matter nor that it was likely not officially/semi-officially sanctioned.

Just that have seen two examples now of it definitely happening, and have heard there are more out there at the AWM. 

I think if I squint my eyes hard enough I can maybe think of someone else thinking it would be good idea, much in the same vein that volley sights are a good idea. 

The reality as I'm sure you are already aware, alot of good ideas lasted until the firing of the first bullet on the peninsula. Perhaps one of two battalions decided it was a fancy idea for inventory control for the landings not really truely understanding or believing the losses they were about to incur. Or even just potentially they were marked well before Gallipoli when they left Australia or a multitude of other reasons that may or may not make total sense. Only caveat being, I have been told specifically that of the ones researched so far have revealed Reg numbers of soldiers that took part in the landings. 

kind regards,

g