P1908 Helve Carrier and P1907 Bayonet

[Matthewsq]

Hello everyone, 

This is my first post in a few years - I took a few years off the hobby during school, but am excited to be getting back into collecting! Anyway - I'm hoping to gather some thoughts and opinions on a p1907 bayonet with webbing that I recently purchased locally. p1907's aren't my area of expertise, but the price was right and it was nearby so I went for it.

After some research, I've learned that the webbing is the late "economy" pattern p1908 frog manufactured without rivets as a cost-saving measure, and that the loops affixed to the scabbard are the (apparently quite rare) p1908 helve carrier. (Source:  http://www.karkeeweb.com/patterns/1908/carriers_frog.html)

The frog is clearly stamped H.E. Co 1918 and marked with a broad arrow and the number 5. Judging from other examples I've looked at, the stamp on the helve carrier appears to match MW&S LTD 1918, though this stamp is much more muddled than the frog stamp.

The bayonet itself is Wilkinson manufactured and dated 7/18 and has the oiling hole present. The handles have inspection stamps, as does the ricasso. The blade and pommel are all quite rusty. 

I haven't taken the webbing off of the scabbard, so I'm not sure if there are any scabbard markings that I'm not seeing. The scabbard is in overall poor condition. The stud is the teardrop type, and the leather is black painted with wear showing the brown beneath.

The entire thing is pretty dirty, rusty, and dusty; I think it was stored in a garage for most of it's life. I haven't cleaned it or anything, but I would also be curious to hear if it's common practice for collectors to oil/clean blades to avoid rust?

Thanks in advance all for opinions and thoughts. 

Quinn

 

 

 

 

More photos of the helve carrier. 

 

 

 

 

[Matthewsq]

 

 

 

 

[Matthewsq]

More photos in natural light. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Can't forget to show the bayo some love. Here are the markings on the ricasso. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[peregrinvs]

Very nice indeed. I would personally clean the metalwork with some fine wire wool lubricated with a good gun oil, but that’s just a personal preference. It shouldn’t deteriorate if you store it somewhere reasonably warm and dry.

[Chasemuseum]

Nice examples

[shippingsteel]

Those timber grips appear to have been replaced at some stage ... 

The inspection stamps visible are from a later period and the fit and overall look does not match the rest of this bayonet. Still a decent example just not in its original condition.

Cheers,  SS 

[MrEd]

On 23/07/2023 at 23:03, peregrinvs said:

Very nice indeed. I would personally clean the metalwork with some fine wire wool lubricated with a good gun oil, but that’s just a personal preference. It shouldn’t deteriorate if you store it somewhere reasonably warm and dry.

Yes this is what I would do aswell. Will remove any surface rust but won’t remove any of the actual finish.

 

nice examples, I like 

[Matthewsq]

Thanks for the input, everyone. I'll give the blade a quick do-over as suggested. 

[Matthewsq]

On 27/07/2023 at 19:43, shippingsteel said:

Those timber grips appear to have been replaced at some stage ... 

The inspection stamps visible are from a later period and the fit and overall look does not match the rest of this bayonet. Still a decent example just not in its original condition.

Cheers,  SS 

Hey SS, good to have you here - I have seen your p1907 experience prove helpful on many threads here on GWF! 

Your comment on the grip inspection stamps have sent me down a rabbit hole. I'm curious as to when, where, and why these stamps were applied. The results of my digging so far have been interesting. 

It seems that these stamps (Crown/T#/E) are an RNAF Enfield inspection mark, with each # being assigned to a specific inspector. The earliest bayonet that I have found this grip stamp on (in the case, the # is 35) is on a p1907 dated 3 '11. Of course, the grips may have been replaced at some point, so this does not lend proof to when these grip stamps were applied, but it is food for thought: 

Here is a case where Crown/T5/E is stamped on the Ricasso of a quillon bayonet: 

 

I also looked for examples of the Crown/T#/E stamps on Wilkinson examples, specifically those from 1918. I have found a few examples and have attached screenshots here:

 

 

 

 

 

Vickers bayonets seem to sometimes have similar: https://www.jcmilitaria.com/display_image.asp?ID=27425

I also found a 2 '17 dated bayonet on the IWM collections website that has the same T5/E stamps on the grips. Unfortunately, photos aren't provided: https://www.iwm.org.uk/collections/item/object/30001296

Also of note is this "smiling tiger" siamese p1907 example. These bayonets were sent to Siam shortly after WW1 from stocks left over from the 1914-1918 conflict. In this case, the grips are stamped Crown/T5/E. Again, these grips could have been replaced later down the road, but the patina and condition seem to match those seen with most Siamese bayonets. In the same post, GWF user JMB1943 suggests that the T5 stamp is often attributed to Wilkinson manufactured bayonets: 

--

--

All considered, does it does seem to stand a chance that wood grips with such inspection stamps could indeed be wartime dated? My "research" is far from academic, but it does appear that Wilkinson bayonets sometimes have grips with similar stamps in them. Of course, post-war replacement in the examples shown above is a possibility.

In the case of the example I have shown in my original post, your point remains that the condition of the grips do differ from the overall condition of the metal hardware. I know that it is common for collectors to suffer from "wishful thinking," so please do trust that I am trying to remain as unbiased as possible! 

Thanks in advance for the discussion, folks. Very pleased to be a member of this community. 

 

[JMB1943]

Matthewsq,

Your scabbard example is unusual in that it comes bearing a helve carrier.

We don’t know if the scabbard and carrier have been undisturbed since assembly in 1918, or if the assembly only happened the day/week/month/year before it came to you.

I am interested as to whether the two lower carrier loops have caused a characteristic wear pattern on the leather scabbard.

Regards,

JMB

 

 

[Matthewsq]

On 13/08/2023 at 11:06, JMB1943 said:

Matthewsq,

Your scabbard example is unusual in that it comes bearing a helve carrier.

We don’t know if the scabbard and carrier have been undisturbed since assembly in 1918, or if the assembly only happened the day/week/month/year before it came to you.

I am interested as to whether the two lower carrier loops have caused a characteristic wear pattern on the leather scabbard.

Regards,

JMB

 

 

Hey JMB,

Apologies for the late answer. I took a look today to see if the carrier loops have worn down the scabbard. There is ghosting where the straps lie, and the lower strap seems to have left an indent in the scabbards leather. 

 

I've attached photos. 

 

Cheers, 

Quinn

 

 

 

[JMB1943]

Quinn,

Better late than never......

Nice to see those appropriate wear marks in the leather!

Regards,

JMB