reissued Australian HQR P1907 - production date and Cypher are not fitting

[Harzer]

Hi and a Happy New Year,

 

because I got so much support and information out of the team I have an additional P1907 question.

What I can see on the blade and scabbard are:

-  P1907 Sanderson made

- Cypher is King Edward VII

- production date of the bayonet March 1912 (not fitting to the Cypher ER because 1912 it should be GR)

- Australia 2 MD markings on crosspiece

- D/arrow mark on the pommel

- no hole in the pommel

- no repair stamp and no SoS marking 

- green coloured metall pices of scabbard with Birmingham mark and simple Broad Arrow

- quillion removed but no hole in the pommel

 

Did they used minimum 2 year old blades in 1912 without any war pressure? Is this often to find? Why is there no SoS mark if it went to Australia.

When do you think is the combination of MD marking on crosspiece and D marking on pommel. Should be later than 1915? If yes why no hole in the pommel....

 

Thanks for you help and information!

 

Thomas

 

 

 

[Andrew Upton]

19 minutes ago, Harzer said:

...

- Cypher is King Edward VII

- production date of the bayonet March 1912 (not fitting to the Cypher ER because 1912 it should be GR)...

...Did they used minimum 2 year old blades in 1912 without any war pressure? Is this often to find? ...

 

 

 

You might find the following thread of interest, albeit it seems the pictures are now mostly dead. Genuine 1907 pattern bayonets which seem to have been made under the reign of Edward VII but do not appear to have been officially accepted into service until several years into the reign of George V are fairly rare but do exist. In the thread below an original example dated January 1912 was posted, so your March 1912 example actually fits quite closely into this pattern:

 

[Mattr82]

You will never see any SoS stamps on Australian bayonets from that period. SOS stamps look nothing like the >< or D with an arrow inside it.

As from your previous post, it is “War Office Sale Mark”.

Prior to August 1912, it was 2 arrows facing each other on the pommel and occasionally on the blade. From August 1912 onwards, it became the D with an arrow inside it. It was stamped in Britain prior to shipment to Australia.

Here is an example of mine with the arrows in the pommel.

So can we please stop incorrectly referring to the arrows as a SoS stamp. A SoS stamp looks like this   >S<

About the MD marking, it would be a mid 1913 issue date. A lot of these bayonets that stayed in Australia during WW1 were not drilled with the oil hole. I have a few early examples that all use in Australia and they don’t have the oil hole.

 

 

 

Edited 3 January by Mattr82

[Mattr82]

Here is the reference for marking of equipment gained through the High Commissioner  for purchasing of equipment for the Australian military.

I have rifles and bayonets with the two arrows and I have rifles and bayonets with the D and arrow inside it.

[Mattr82]

Here's 3 examples of mine with the "War Office Sale Mark". 

[shippingsteel]

Harzer, there is no problem with the markings on your Australian issued bayonet, it is quite normal to see later acceptance dates on Contractor manufactured examples such as this one which was made by Wilkinson.

Especially in the pre-war period far less weapons were required for Army use and contracts were issued on an ad-hoc basis. So bayonets were made and kept in store undated until they were needed to fill a contract where they were then stamped with the acceptance dates. (I actually have a Wilkinson ER cypher hookie in my collection clearly dated 12/14 so it came out for mobilisation.!)

Cheers,  SS 

[Mattr82]

Hey SS, would that HQ you with 12/14 have an MD number applied post-WW1?

As the last shipment of rifles and bayonets arrived in Australia in February/March 1914, it’s a possibility that the bayonet might have been one of the few bayonets that returned to Australia in late 1915 or early 1916 with wounded AIF which were then turned in to help bolster numbers of bayonets for troops being trained for deployment. Those bayonets were issued to Australians through ordnance system from Oct 1915 onwards.

The other possibility is that is is one of the small amount of HQs that arrived in 1919/1921 under the imperial ordnance program as part of the 101,000 rifles and bayonets. Can we see photos??
 

 

Edited 4 January by Mattr82

[shippingsteel]

Mattr82, no sorry that one was NOT an Australian issue bayonet, it was a Wilkinson that saw strictly British use. But still very interesting and a prime example of acceptance dates versus manufacture dates, especially in the pre-war period.

Cheers,  SS 

[Mattr82]

Ah I get you now! I have seen on some examples, 1910 dated HQs with a 1914/1915 acceptance dates. So some may have been in store for awhile until issued OR not marked until gained by the 'new' unit. 

[shippingsteel]

12 hours ago, Mattr82 said:

You will never see any SoS stamps on Australian bayonets from that period. SOS stamps look nothing like the >< or D with an arrow inside it.

As from your previous post, it is “War Office Sale Mark”

So can we please stop incorrectly referring to the arrows as a SoS stamp. A SoS stamp looks like this   >S<

Personally I think you are being overly pedantic on this issue of terminology. That, or you are considering it from a very narrow "Australian use only" perspective.

There is no question that the conjoined Arrows is a Sale mark and in this case it was applied under BRITISH regulations (see below my reference from "Instructions for Armourers", 1912, page 164)

The problem arises where the British Sale mark is also known as the Sold out of service mark (rightly or wrongly) amongst Collectors. This is no doubt due to a plethora of reference books on the subject by Skennerton et al, that clearly describe the conjoined Arrows as "Sale, Sold out of service Mark"

So I believe you are wrong to state that using the SoS terminology is incorrect (when describing use of mark under British regulations) I would prefer to think the terms are interchangeable at least, especially when used as an abbreviated descriptor on a general discussion forum.

Cheers,  SS

[Mattr82]

.

 

Edited 4 January by Mattr82

[Mattr82]

I actually agree SS, I might be indeed. It does irk me when incorrect terminology is constantly applied despite corrections being given.
 

I had a chat with Ian a few weeks ago (lives nearby) and he had never seen the official documents stating the “War Office Sale Mark”. Ian agreed that the terminology for these markings on Australian issued items would need to be referred differently than the British terminology. There also is the other point about whether the equipment was pulled from stores or ‘pre-ordered’ and sent from there.

There’s always new information coming to light. I do get frustrated sometimes when I have put forward information about the Australian use of equipment and a few people continue to use the old information that is incorrect. Examples of this for Me include the so-called giving to Britain every rifle except for 10,000 before WW1. That information is incorrect. Also the sending of rifles after Dunkirk from Australia, that also is incorrect. I have been sharing a lot of this information with Ian lately and it’s good to have a two-way discussion from what he has found and what others have found. 

 

Edited 4 January by Mattr82

[shippingsteel]

Funnily enough I have spoken to Ian once before about this exact subject. It was at a Militaria market day of course, and the front cover of his book on B&CB provided the perfect illustration for the conversation about the Sale (SoS) mark on Australian bayonets. Lets just say we didn't reach agreement on the topic. 

Cheers,  SS 

[5thBatt]

On 04/01/2024 at 15:59, shippingsteel said:

Personally I think you are being overly pedantic on this issue of terminology. That, or you are considering it from a very narrow "Australian use only" perspective.

There is no question that the conjoined Arrows is a Sale mark and in this case it was applied under BRITISH regulations (see below my reference from "Instructions for Armourers", 1912, page 164)

The problem arises where the British Sale mark is also known as the Sold out of service mark (rightly or wrongly) amongst Collectors. This is no doubt due to a plethora of reference books on the subject by Skennerton et al, that clearly describe the conjoined Arrows as "Sale, Sold out of service Mark"

So I believe you are wrong to state that using the SoS terminology is incorrect (when describing use of mark under British regulations) I would prefer to think the terms are interchangeable at least, especially when used as an abbreviated descriptor on a general discussion forum.

Cheers,  SS

I don't think it's "pedantic" at all, when people refer to the Sale mark as a sold out of service mark the immediate assumption made is that it was sold to the public & this leads to misinformation, a classic example of this can be found on this video from Forgotten Weapons

 

[Mattr82]

1 hour ago, 5thBatt said:

I don't think it's "pedantic" at all, when people refer to the Sale mark as a sold out of service mark the immediate assumption made is that it was sold to the public & this leads to misinformation, a classic example of this can be found on this video from Forgotten Weapons

 

There was a lot of inaccuracies in that episode.

The part where he points to the issue date of the rifle (9/12 I think?) and incorrectly refers to it as the date it was sold out of service to the owner…. I believe the whole story about that particular rifle is incorrect. I believe this rifle would have been sold out of service in the 1920s and not pre-WW1 as described by Ian.

[5thBatt]

18 hours ago, Mattr82 said:

There was a lot of inaccuracies in that episode.

The part where he points to the issue date of the rifle (9/12 I think?) and incorrectly refers to it as the date it was sold out of service to the owner…. I believe the whole story about that particular rifle is incorrect. I believe this rifle would have been sold out of service in the 1920s and not pre-WW1 as described by Ian.

Exactly my point, the sale mark on the butt has been misinterpreted as a sold out of service marking