mcb9022 Posted 17 May , 2022 Share Posted 17 May , 2022 Greetings everyone This is my first post on this forum. I was hoping that I might get some help from the very knowledgeable folk on the forum in identifying the manufacturer of this pattern 1907 bayonet that I have recently acquired. The maker's name is mostly concealed or obliterated behind something that appears to me to be brazing or soldering. I include here a picture as a comparison showing the ricasso markings of my bayonet on the left and a Vickers bayonet on the right. The picture on the right comes from the net. It would appear to me that the only makers name that could correspond with the little that is left of the stamping would be Vickers. It seems that the "V" can in fact be missing or so lightly stamped that it is almost not visible. Most of the pictures that I have seen of Vickers blades however show a clear stamp. I was confused by the lack of the "V" in a "C" that appears on a Vickers blade. It looks like mine has the remains of the "C" but as far as I can tell that is a "30" stamped sideways that may have obliterated the "V". The Crown, GR and 1907 are clearly visible. The "9" is also very heavily stamped but the year is completely hidden. Another question I have is about the brazing. Would the blade have been stamped before the cross guard was brazed in place? Would it therefore be possible that the date of manufacture be obliterated by the brazing when the bayonet was new? Or is this possibly a later repair? Is the "30" possibly a reissue date? As far as I understand the drain hole in the pommel of a Vickers bayonet is a little larger than in other bayonets from different manufacturers. I have compared this bayonet with a Sanderson and a Wilkinson that I also have in my collection and the hole is noticeably larger. Here is a picture of the bayonet and scabbard. The bayonet blade is in the white and has possibly been sand blasted at some stage but the ricasso remains blued. The blade is dull and does not appear to have been sharpened and then dulled again. The scabbard is a Remington but that may not mean anything as far as determining who made the bayonet and it may well not be the original scabbard. The scales on the handle show normal wear as far as I can tell commensurate with the age of the bayonet. Any help in identifying the maker of this 1907 bayonet would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 17 May , 2022 Share Posted 17 May , 2022 Welcome to the forum, I would be quite happy with this as a vickers, the 30 inspection stamp as you’ve said obliterates the V, but a common trait with these was a break in the c at the bottom, which is clearly visible on yours. The clearance hole looks bigger as it is chamfered, a lead in. It’s clearly had work at some stage, the post below shows a number off vickers markings for comparison. I am sure someone with more detailed knowledge will add a little more. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcb9022 Posted 17 May , 2022 Author Share Posted 17 May , 2022 Thank you very much Dave for your post and the link to the very interesting post relating to possible numbers of Vickers 1907 bayonets still in existence. Sorry, I forgot to sign my original post. Regards Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt-maj Posted 17 May , 2022 Share Posted 17 May , 2022 High 'mcb9022'. I'm 50/50 with this one at the moment. The reason being... the way the 'V' within a 'C' has been obliterated. In recent months there have been several 'supposed' original Vickers production P13's on the market.... ALL very suspect. I have a collection of seven Vickers '07's to compare your item with. Would you be able to show a close-up of the clearance hole in the pommel... both sides please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 17 May , 2022 Share Posted 17 May , 2022 (edited) mcb9022, Would you be able to supply an accurate weight for this Vickers and the two comparator bayonets? Regards, JMB Edited 17 May , 2022 by JMB1943 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt-maj Posted 17 May , 2022 Share Posted 17 May , 2022 (edited) Ayup 'JMB1943' I could certainly supply an average for the one's I have also. Edited 17 May , 2022 by sgt-maj Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 17 May , 2022 Share Posted 17 May , 2022 (edited) Sgt-maj., NOT averages, rather the individual values are much more useful! Please do send them. Regards, JMB Edit: Could you also run those 6 EFD HQ bayonets by the balance?? Edited 17 May , 2022 by JMB1943 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sgt-maj Posted 17 May , 2022 Share Posted 17 May , 2022 23 minutes ago, JMB1943 said: Sgt-maj., NOT averages, rather the individual values are much more useful! Please do send them. Regards, JMB Edit: Could you also run those 6 EFD HQ bayonets by the balance?? Righto... Will Do! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcb9022 Posted 17 May , 2022 Author Share Posted 17 May , 2022 Thank you Sgt-maj and JMB for your interest and comments. I will take some close up pictures of the hole in the pommel of the "Vickers??" bayonet and post them. I have 14 pattern 1907 bayonets in my collection so I can easily weigh them and post the results. Is it of interest to also include the date of manufacture with the weights? Regards Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcb9022 Posted 17 May , 2022 Author Share Posted 17 May , 2022 Sgt-maj Here are some closeup pictures of the hole in the pommel. JMB The weight according to some digital kitchen scales is 473g. Weights of the other bayonets in my collection to follow. Regards Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 17 May , 2022 Share Posted 17 May , 2022 (edited) mcb9022, Thanks for that weight, but no other info is necessary. Have a look at the paper in the link for details as to why I am interested in the weights. Although the initial weight survey was finished some years ago, I am still interested in the topic. Regards, JMB Edit: Looking at Tables 2 & 3, you can see that your Vickers @ 473 g is barely outside of the WILK range, and is at the lower end of the other four maker ranges. Edited 17 May , 2022 by JMB1943 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcb9022 Posted 17 May , 2022 Author Share Posted 17 May , 2022 JMB Here are the weights of 11 of my 1907 bayonets. I have 3 more but the batteries of my kitchen scales expired before I was finished. I will send the weights as soon as new batteries are procured. One of the bayonets has an unknown maker, it has been so covered with control stamps etc that the makers name has been totally obliterated. Regards Mark Weights of P1907 bayonets.csv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 17 May , 2022 Share Posted 17 May , 2022 mcb9022, Thanks for the listing. It is obvious that the two bayonets from Oz (Lithgow & OA) are noticeably heavier than those made in the UK. Drilling a clearance hole, which the Oz bayonets lacked, removes about 2.8 g, but I have been told/read that the pommel is a little longer on Oz bayonets VS UK-made examples so that probably accounts for the overweight. Identification of the maker can sometimes be made by inspection of the Crown / number / letter inspection stamps. Would you care to post a photo of each side of the ricasso of this not identified bayonet? Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcb9022 Posted 18 May , 2022 Author Share Posted 18 May , 2022 Good morning JMB Yes, the Australian bayonets do seem to be heavy weights compared to the others. Both my Australian bayonets do actually have clearance holes, possibly added after they were issued? That would make their original weights even more by 2.8g. My "Vickers" bayonet seems to be lighter than any of my other ones. I will take pictures of the mystery bayonet this evening after I get home from work and post them. I can also measure the pommels of the Australian bayonets and a few of my British bayonets and see if there is much difference. Regards Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcb9022 Posted 18 May , 2022 Author Share Posted 18 May , 2022 JMB Good evening. I am posting some pictures of the mystery bayonet. I would be very interested to hear your views about it. I have also weighed the additional 3 bayonets that I have and attatch an new list. I did a rather quick measurement of the pommels of the Australian bayonets (Lithgow and OA) and compared with one of my other bayonets but did not find any discernable differences in the lengths. I'll need to spend a bit more time with a vernier caliper to see if there are noticeable differences. Regards Mark Weights of P1907 bayonets v2.csv Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 18 May , 2022 Share Posted 18 May , 2022 Mark, This bayonet has a ricasso that is amongst the least decipherable that I have seen in ages---and the other one is not much better! I have only recorded a single Crown/F2/E inspector's stamp, and that was on an EFD-made P.'07. See, Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 18 May , 2022 Share Posted 18 May , 2022 Mark, Having referenced the post by garfyboy, I keep going back to the photo that you posted. There is no trace of an EFD stamp close to the cross-guard, but there is something barely visible quite high above the cross-guard. I’m wondering if this is in fact is a WILKINSON / PALL MALL bayonet………. Another clue MAY be the flying bumblebee appearance of the Broad Arrow stamp. My memory is a little fuzzy as to whether this is a characteristic of a certain maker(s). I need to check my small collection. Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 18 May , 2022 Share Posted 18 May , 2022 (edited) I would suggest that the Mystery bayonet is indeed a Wilkinson example of perhaps late 1917 vintage. It has been well reissued, (refurbished and sandblasted) with a plethora of dates almost into the WW2 era. The highly placed makers mark is characteristic of the late war Wilkinson Pall Mall stamping. Also I think a Crown 1W/E inspection mark would again support a Wilkinson origin. Cheers, SS PS. Other clues helpful in maker identification can include size and style of the 1907 font, the shape of the Crown stamp, style of the Broad Arrow, style of the blade runout (where the blade edge ends) and the shape of the fuller groove. Edited 18 May , 2022 by shippingsteel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcb9022 Posted 19 May , 2022 Author Share Posted 19 May , 2022 Good morning. Thank you JMB and SS for your very interesting contributions. I am including here a picture with my mystery bayonet on the left and a Wilkinson Pall Mall bayonet on the right, also produced in 1917. The picture on the right comes from the net. It does seem that there are possibly some remnants of the maker's name at the same height that the Wilkinson would be. I don't know if the font type for the "7" in the "1907" is peculiar to Wilkinson but they seem to be the same. I am guessing that the Crown has mostly disappeared as a result of sand blasting in ages past? Anyway, it most probably will remain a mystery bayonet that has obviously been well used in it's service life. Regards Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 19 May , 2022 Share Posted 19 May , 2022 On 18/05/2022 at 02:46, mcb9022 said: Good morning JMB Yes, the Australian bayonets do seem to be heavy weights compared to the others. Both my Australian bayonets do actually have clearance holes, possibly added after they were issued? That would make their original weights even more by 2.8g. My "Vickers" bayonet seems to be lighter than any of my other ones. I will take pictures of the mystery bayonet this evening after I get home from work and post them. I can also measure the pommels of the Australian bayonets and a few of my British bayonets and see if there is much difference. Regards Mark I did take a digital caliper to 4 of mine (Mole; WILK; LITH; OA), but even then, taking very accurate measurements was a little dicey; to try to minimize errors, I took 6 determinations on each bayonet. Mean values are given below in mm: MOLE 34. 52 WILK 34.72 Grand Mean 35.62 LITH 36.70 OA 36.25 Grand Mean 36.47 The Oz pommels appear to be about 2.15 mm longer than those from the UK. This corresponds to about only 6 g weight difference, and when Trajan and I had looked into the weight variations (of UK made only) we concluded that the depth of the fuller was the dominant factor. Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcb9022 Posted 23 May , 2022 Author Share Posted 23 May , 2022 Good morning JMB I've been out of town for a little while so a bit of a late reply. You have some interesting results there. I will look at my Australian bayonets again and take some pommel measurements and compare with my British bayonets. I'm a bit old fashioned and still use a vernier caliper! It is very logical to think that the depth of the fuller accounts for the noticeable weight differences between bayonets. Is there any information to be found about the actual manufacturing processes involved in producing these bayonets? Regards Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 23 May , 2022 Share Posted 23 May , 2022 Mark, I found it difficult to take the measurements because of the pommel abutting the wooden grips, which I did not care to try to remove. The manufacturing process in Oz in the 1950s is described in "The Australian Service Bayonet", by Ian Skennerton, where 82 steps are itemized, pp. 33-44. There are 82 operations listed above, while it was noted that production of the HQ model of 1913 required 146 different operations. This discrepancy would be due to more efficient procedures developed over 40 years, the omission of the HQ, the fact that the pommel and crosspiece were supplied partly finished , and the wooden grips with two securing screws were not fitted in the above list. However, the machinery is neither described nor illustrated. Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 26 May , 2022 Share Posted 26 May , 2022 Just for info/comparison, (and I know sgt-maj will find this interesting) a vickers 1913 has just popped on a website I regularly browse throug. Dave. https://www.jdrmilitaria.co.uk/product/rare-vickers-p13-bayonet-1-off-1500-produced-2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navydoc16 Posted 29 April Share Posted 29 April Dave, no chance you remember the price of this bayonet? kind regards g On 27/05/2022 at 02:47, Dave66 said: Just for info/comparison, (and I know sgt-maj will find this interesting) a vickers 1913 has just popped on a website I regularly browse throug. Dave. https://www.jdrmilitaria.co.uk/product/rare-vickers-p13-bayonet-1-off-1500-produced-2/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 29 April Share Posted 29 April 52 minutes ago, navydoc16 said: Dave, no chance you remember the price of this bayonet? kind regards g So sorry….not the foggiest after all that time😂, wouldn’t have been cheap. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now