P1907 Lithgow hooked quillon bayonet that has been to Gallipoli

[Fromelles]

Interesting about the regi numbers being those of the original landers, as the very same regi numbers were issued to the infantry of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th Division too. A bayonet numbered '556' would match many in the landing units, but it would also match just about every other unit in the AIF. Well I'd like to see what comes of all this research, it's going to have to be very convincing.

Dan

[Chasemuseum]

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

Skennerton and Richardson's book on British and Commonwealth bayonets

Ian is producing an updated edition with the target of publishing later this year. He is already taking advance orders for copies. There should be a link on his web site.

The new book will also cover fighting knives.

[navydoc16]

Honest I’m not disagreeing or agreeing with you on this one, it makes sense- 

however the AWM has taken a lot of donations from families and alot of their pieces have recorded history. 
 

if “556” was donated by XYZ’s family, and XYZ was a lander. Then we repeat this on several other bayonets eventually a pattern emerges that either disproves or proves it- or we run out of bayonets and the sample size is too small to draw meaningful conclusions. 
 

If the research was done and something was concluded or there was meaningful official documentation- we probably wouldent be going back and forth on the matter. 
 

Kind regards

g

[Fromelles]

9 hours ago, navydoc16 said:

if “556” was donated by XYZ’s family, and XYZ was a lander. Then we repeat this on several other bayonets eventually a pattern emerges that either disproves or proves it- or we run out of bayonets and the sample size is too small to draw meaningful conclusions. 

...and it would show the only bayonets that seemed to have survived with this unique numbering, were the ones that were used by the soldier throughout their entire service during the war, later kept by the soldier and returned to Australia with him, and then donated to the AWM so their story could be rediscovered a century later. Sorry, but to me this sounds too much like a Steven Spielberg movie.

I like the story, but this is pure supposition and certainly shouldn't be touted as being something it hasn't been proved to be.

Let's see how long it takes for these 'original lander' bayonets to start to hit the market.

Dan

Edited 18 April by Fromelles

[navydoc16]

There is nothing to rebut here mate, I said it could maybe or it could maybe not be proved. 

I’m not sure why it’s a Steven Spielberg movie that the AWM has things that you don’t know of or haven’t seen.  So I would assume you don’t have so make such a mockery of it. Many idea purported 10 years ago that where touted as silly until now and new evidence comes forth every day- that is why we keep releasing new books. 

no one is selling anything here, no one is trying to drive up the prices either. One in particular that is in a private collection; is that of the former president of one of the state arms society’s and has also provided material for a lot of the bayonets you will find in the Australian common references of the 90’s. it has been in his possession for many years, and when it does sell one day as all things do, it is likely you will never see it.

Unless it can be proved 100% it will not be published, and no statement will be made as I have said that above. 

kind regards

g

[Fromelles]

On 17/04/2024 at 11:59, navydoc16 said:

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

Well someone was sowing the seeds...

It doesn't make any difference if a former president of some arms society or former president of the US has one of these mystery bayonets, unless it can be proved it means squat. Up to four digits on a cross guard could be anything. The AWM has plenty of amazing stuff, but a collection is more than just stuff, they have a lot of the collection online that is just wrong! Which for an institute that has very deep pockets it's very disappointing. I know people that have worked there and it doesn't appears like it's a place where challenging the status quo is encouraged. 

All of this means nothing to me either way, as I don't really collect bayonets, but there is a lot of BS out there and it needs to be challenged. I know not everything that was carried out is neatly contained in orders or regulation, but a lack of documentation does not make it a free-for-all, too much guesswork becomes fact if left unchallenged. Fine to speculate, but don't put it out there as being anything more than that until it's a done deal. 

Dan

[navydoc16]

There are some people in the collecting circles that I rely on that are probably not quite what you are referring to- I believe their very word as you don’t get asked to put your bayonets on the front of various publications or get referenced multiple times in the likes of Skennerton if you tend to do dabble in BS. 
 

im not quite sure what you’re getting into with the bagging on the AWM and it’s research, as their primary job is not that. If you don’t know how requesting catalogue items works for scholarly articles then I’m guessing you’re not quite that serious about actual research.
 

Best of luck not “really collecting bayonets”  
 

kind regards

g

[Fromelles]

Blind faith, knock yourself out, it's all yours.

I'm more of a seeing is believing sort of fella.

Dan