Hookie P1907 - help with identifying - may be early Australian marks - may be fake...

[Harzer]

Hi,

by accident I came around a HQ P1907.  I'm not an expert for early P1907 therefore I have some questions.

My current view on the HQ:

- P1907 with Enfield mark on ricasso and March 1912 as production date

- Crown with GR (George) clearly fitting to the production date

- backside of the ricasso we have early Enfield proof marks and a SOS marking (yes unusal place for the SOS but some examples already seen)

- crosspiece marked with a "V" and 5 digit (may be early Australia / Victoria)

- NO "D" Arrow mark on the pommel

- WW2 scabbard with a green/brownish color but marked on leather and steel with EFD 

 

What is your opinion about the byonett? Any fake signs? The V marking with 5 digits on the crosspiece without any Defence mark on the pommel....

 

Thanks for your thoughts and information!

 

[Harzer]

[Andrew Upton]

57 minutes ago, Harzer said:

...My current view on the HQ:

- P1907 with Enfield mark on ricasso and March 1912 as production date

- Crown with GR (George) clearly fitting to the production date

- backside of the ricasso we have early Enfield proof marks and a SOS marking (yes unusal place for the SOS but some examples already seen)

- crosspiece marked with a "V" and 5 digit (may be early Australia / Victoria)

- NO "D" Arrow mark on the pommel

- WW2 scabbard with a green/brownish color but marked on leather and steel with EFD... 

 

Well it looks like a good one here. Another point to note - no clearance hole in the pommel (which would be correct for an unmodified 1912 example). 

From here the scabbard appears to be a fairly typical WW1 era production example (with possibly a later WW2 era paint job) rather than WW2 production. Some better photos of the whole scabbard would help, front and back. If it has any stamped markings surviving on the leather alongside the seam near the top these should also give the date and maker.

Incidentally - the bayonet should be in the scabbard the other way round - locking button should be towards the body when worn, with tear drop of the scabbard facing out.

[4thGordons]

There are others better qualified to comment @shippingsteel, but I think the V number on the crossguard is indeed indicative of Victoria (Australia). This is also consistent with the SoS mark (sold from the British Govt to the Govt of Victoria.)

Looks totally good to me

Chris

[Mattr82]

That looks good to me mate. Nothing is telling me no and everything is telling me yes, it’s legitimate.

I too have a HQ made in March 1912 issued to Australia but mine is to the 2nd Military District (New South Wales) with the inventory number of 1059. 
 

The two arrows pointing to each other are known as a ‘War Office Sale Mark’ and was stamped in bayonets and rifles sold on contract to other countries through the War Office (Britain).

[DisasterDog]

10 hours ago, Harzer said:

by accident I came around a HQ P1907

That’s one happy accident! 

[shippingsteel]

Yes as mentioned it is definitely an Australian issued P1907 marked to the State of Victoria. The letter V with serif is what they used to stamp with at that early stage, while the 5 digit inventory number is consistent with other observed bayonets in this batch dated late 1911, early 1912, mostly Enfield made.

Cheers,  SS 

[Chasemuseum]

13 hours ago, 4thGordons said:

SoS mark (sold from the British Govt to the Govt of Victoria.)

Looks totally good to me

Agree, looks great and the sold out of service stamp is common to a lot of equipment sold to colonial and dominion governments and frequently appears to have been applied at the time of manufacture when the initial inspection/acceptance proofs were applied.

[Harzer]

First, thanks for all of your good feedback!! Just one question. Do I understand it right, the byonet was made 1912 in Enfield but never went into real british service but was produced for Victoria because the SoS mark looks like done by the producer. 

Thanks

[Chasemuseum]

Yes. It was manufactured by Enfield in the UK and supplied to the Commonwealth of Australia (Federation 1901) who assigned it to the military district of Victoria.

History after that gets confusing. At the outbreak of WW1 (1914) Australia sent a lot of rifles and bayonets to the UK as the UK had a severe shortage of small arms. Also during WW1 the AIF when travelling to the UK took a large quantity of UK made rifles and bayonets with them. (Lithgow only ever made a small proportion of the AIF weapons). Many of these rifles were cycled through the UK military stores system during WW1. 

So yes it was made in the UK and sent to Australia prior to the war, but it may have seen service with the BEF during the war. It does not have the typical Australian re-issue stamps from between the wars nor the typical Australian markings from being refurbished in the 1920s. Had it gone through refurbishment in the 1920s the hook quillion would have been removed, the quillion reground and the oil hole would have been drilled in the pommel.

[shippingsteel]

11 hours ago, Harzer said:

Just one question. Do I understand it right, the byonet was made 1912 in Enfield but never went into real british service but was produced for Victoria because the SoS mark looks like done by the producer.

No it was made initially for normal British service and accepted as such, but would have been taken from stores relatively unused to fill the contract to Australia. Sold out Service mark would have been applied at that time and NOT by the manufacturer. This can be observed from actual marked examples with the spread of acceptance dates across each batch sent.

Cheers,  SS 

[Mattr82]

Gents, some slight alterations here.

It’s not a sold out of service stamp. It’s a ‘War Office Sale Mark’. Stamped on equipment sold to countries via the British War Office.

Also, Australia never sent rifles and bayonets to Britain at the start of WW1. A minor comment by Charles Bean about sending all but 10,000 rifle to the motherland persists to this day. People believe that it meant that Australia sent all its rifles to Britain and somehow magically gained all the rifles, it needed from somewhere. He later went into more detail about this including handing in the rifles to the British in Egypt after Gallipoli. This aligns with official ordnance, unit and high commission records.

Australia sent approx 95,000 to 100,000 SMLE and bayonets with the AIF from late 1914 until Oct 1915, when Britain said they would issue reinforcements arriving at Egypt with rifles. This was due to Australia almost running out of rifles to train the troops at home. I have the documents discussing potential returning of rifles from Egypt to Australia to help out with this.

After Gallipoli, Australia handed in its rifles that were sighted for Mk.VI ammunition and received newer rifles sighted for Mk.VII upon landing in France or Britain. Australia took its bayonets however to France from Egypt. 
 

The fact the bayonet in this post maintains its Australian markings, and its HQ tells me that it would have stayed in Australia during WW1 and did not go with the Australian Imperial Force.

Edited 29 December , 2023 by Mattr82

[trajan]

On 30/12/2023 at 00:31, shippingsteel said:

No it was made initially for normal British service and accepted as such, but would have been taken from stores relatively unused to fill the contract to Australia. Sold out Service mark would have been applied at that time and NOT by the manufacturer. This can be observed from actual marked examples with the spread of acceptance dates across each batch sent.

Cheers,  SS 

Good to see you back SS! And yes, another New Year and like you I am still here! More to the point, you are quite right. Made for British service but then 'sold out of service' for issue to Australia, the majority I have seen allbeing - IIRC - 1912 issues.

Trajan 

[Harzer]

Happy New Year to all of you and again thanks so much for this good and helpfull feedback to my post. If I look to the scabbard I can see EFD marks on leather and metall.

The leather markings are covered by some colour but still visible. I'm hesitating to use aceton etc.. to remove the colour because of danger for the leather and may be no visibility of the marks if the leather sucks. What is your opinion to the markings and the scabbard. Could it be a 1912 and fitting to the blase? 

I tried my best to get some pictures of the marking.

 

 

[JMB1943]

Harzer,

Your hesitation to apply acetone (or anything else) to the leather is the correct approach.

The scabbard was stamped, but was not then covered with a colorant (paint or dye) so it is not as if you would be able to see the stamp more clearly.

Try viewing the stamps at different angles and under different lighting conditions to get a better read.

Regards,

JMB

 

 

[Andrew Upton]

5 hours ago, Harzer said:

Happy New Year to all of you and again thanks so much for this good and helpfull feedback to my post. If I look to the scabbard I can see EFD marks on leather and metall.

The leather markings are covered by some colour but still visible. I'm hesitating to use aceton etc.. to remove the colour because of danger for the leather and may be no visibility of the marks if the leather sucks. What is your opinion to the markings and the scabbard. Could it be a 1912 and fitting to the blase? 

I tried my best to get some pictures of the marking.

Thanks for the additional pictures. To me the date marking looks very much like '16 (or possibly '18), which would be for 1916 or 1918 respectively and support my earlier suggestion that it is a typical WW1 produced piece with later paint. One of the reasons I suggested this is because the rivet heads near the throat haven't been ground flush with the surrounding metal, and it is my understanding this was only introduced during the war as a way to speed up scabbard manufacture (thus the scabbard could not have been made in 1912).

[Harzer]

Hi,

based on some visible rust I'm currently conserving the HQ. Doing that, I gentle removed the grips and guess, what I found, yes some rust... (not too much) and additional markings.

The EF and EFD markings a clearly Enfield and on both sides but on side A I found additional a bigger "N" which looks like a "Navy" N and on the other side the letters "D", "F", "K".

Does anyone could explain this markings please? 

 

Thanks

 

Thomas

 

BTW: I'm taking all information and help serious so my terminus as Australia fan went from "SoS" to "War Office sales mark". Thanks to all good comments out of the community and I think as an analytical guy it is really interesting to consider all views like the British are selling things out of existing stock or the bayonet maker produces based on a contract etc... again, thanks for all your thoughts and knowledge 

[trajan]

The assumption is these are individual artisanal markings for various stages in the production process, except for the ones with 'EF', which are probably/perhaps Enfield inspectors. I doubt the 'N' is a Navy mark as these would be apllied when the bayonet was assigned to the Navy after the production process was completed - there are no real tangible differences between the manufacture of the amy issues and those given to the Navy, except for the 'ownership' mark on the surface of the bayonet blade/pommel after being issued.

Trajan