418 replies to this topic

[shippingsteel]

It seems that these days much of the militaria collecting action revolves around the online auction houses (for better or for worse we're stuck with it)
As time goes by the nicer examples are getting harder to source and the online sellers offer a quick and easy way to find what you're looking for - and buy it.
The antique malls and militaria fairs do still provide some opportunities to uncover that special item, but the chances are getting that much slimmer all the time.

So how do we prepare ourselves to be a skillful buyer when we don't get the opportunity to actually handle the item, before parting with our hard-earned cash.?
The best trick that I have found so far is that I have become extremely diligent at inspecting the photos, and critically check and analyse even the smallest detail.
This may not be everyones cup of tea but when you are searching for a certain type of item, ensuring that every checkbox is ticked sure helps to sort out the trash.
In some cases this extra attention to detail can pay dividends, by allowing you to identify that special item that has mostly been overlooked by the majority of buyers.

So with that in mind I thought that I would post up a few photos to see just what we can learn from them, and perhaps throw out a few small challenges to the lads ...
I'm looking for any information at all that anyone may care to offer, concerning the important details of the bayonet illustrated, such as pattern, maker, dates & users, etc.
We'll see how we get on .... and remember - its just for fun.!

Cheers, S>S
 side2grips.jpg   48.43K   4 downloads

[auchonvillerssomme]

Is it a trick of the light or is that Canada ownership mark above the oil hole?

[shippingsteel]

auchonvillerssomme, on 25 July 2011 - 10:40 AM, said:

Is it a trick of the light or is that Canada ownership mark above the oil hole?

Well spotted. Yep it's the C broad arrow marking indicating issue to Canadian forces.
Also if it helps, the inspection marking neatly stamped into the timber grip is totally unique  to a certain maker.?

Cheers, S>S

[auchonvillerssomme]

Vickers?

[shippingsteel]

auchonvillerssomme, on 25 July 2011 - 01:28 PM, said:

Vickers?

What - is that it.!? No supporting evidence or detailed thought processes to explain your decision.!? Could be just a stab in the dark.!!
Anyway, seeing as though you've 'let the cat out of the bag', I'll admit that you are absolutely correct and it is a British P1907, made by Vickers and used by Canadians.

The 9C/E viewers mark is only found on Vickers manufactured bayonets, and the unusual looking clearance hole appears slightly larger than you would normally expect.
If you look closely you can just make out the bevelled edge of the hole, which again makes it look larger than it is, and is something that is unique to the Vickers bayonet.  

Also the excellent fit of the timber grips together with the cleanly recessed grip screws, both indicate that this is a nice intact GW bayonet that is in relatively good condition.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Sticking with my theme - here's a few more of those inspection marks.
Any thoughts on the different markings shown here.?
PS. The crossguard is stamped with the serial T6244.

Cheers, S>S

 070.JPG   95.66K   0 downloads

[auchonvillerssomme]

Apologies I made an assumption everyone knew it was a P.07. The supporting evidence for it being Vickers was the inspection stamp and the Canadian went without saying after your confirmation of the indistinct stamp    Its been a long time since I sat an exam that included the words 'show your working out'  

[MikB]

shippingsteel, on 26 July 2011 - 12:03 AM, said:

Sticking with my theme - here's a few more of those inspection marks.
Any thoughts on the different markings shown here.?

I don't know bayonets at all, but on eg. instruments the shallow, curved Broad Arrow would look Victorian (like on my Snider Mk.III) - certainly by 1909 some optics were carrying the '3 converging wedges' style.

Regards,
MikB

[shippingsteel]

MikB, on 26 July 2011 - 08:41 AM, said:

I don't know bayonets at all, but on eg. instruments the shallow, curved Broad Arrow would look Victorian (like on my Snider Mk.III) - certainly by 1909 some optics were carrying the '3 converging wedges' style.

Yes it is interesting that while the Broad Arrow always meant the same thing, quite a lot of different variations were used on the various types of equipment.
With British bayonets the "shallow curved Broad Arrow" is the one most commonly encountered, however some of the makers used their own style marking.
This one shown below is on a P1903 bayonet manufactured by Mole. You'd probably describe this as a "crows foot" - also a strange crown and bend test X.

Cheers, S>S

 095.JPG   95.71K   4 downloads

[jscott]

Without cheating and consulting my Skennerton I'm stumped on the T marking on the crossguard... Was it reissued post war for training purposes??

[Mk VII]

Somebody's added a serial number, to track ownership and assign responsibility in case of loss. Australia did this, possibly it's seen use there.

[shippingsteel]

shippingsteel, on 26 July 2011 - 12:03 AM, said:

Any thoughts on the different markings shown here.?
PS. The crossguard is stamped with the serial T6244.

So with the photo in post #6, the ricasso markings are all pretty standard stuff for a British P1907 bayonet.
The broad arrow, 3 viewer/inspection marks and the bend test X are standard, then we have a '22 reissue and its accompanying inspection mark to the left.
Nothing unusual there, the only thing of note is that it has continued on in service postwar, so would not be expected to have remained in its original GW shape.

The serial number on the crossguard is the main thing of interest here, and is something that I have not seen a lot of, especially on bayonets in British service.
I have enquired about this marking before and the educated opinion is that it was matched to a rifle at some stage, so making it a SMLE rifle serial number.
This theory does check out, with the T prefix correlating with a number of manufacturers late-war SMLE production. (The bayonet was made in December '17)

Please let me know if anyone has seen this kind of thing done before.

Cheers, S>S

[Joe Sweeney]

shippingsteel, on 26 July 2011 - 09:37 AM, said:

Yes it is interesting that while the Broad Arrow always meant the same thing, quite a lot of different variations were used on the various types of equipment.
With British bayonets the "shallow curved Broad Arrow" is the one most commonly encountered, however some of the makers used their own style marking.
This one shown below is on a P1903 bayonet manufactured by Mole. You'd probably describe this as a "crows foot" - also a strange crown and bend test X.

Cheers, S>S

095.JPG

I think you will find that the strange crown is Sparkbrook inspection stamp.

Joe Sweeney

[Garron]

I started analysing photos when I began searching for a S84/98 bayonet, as they can be just listed as a WW2 K98 bayonet. It can be a WW1 S84/98 or a even early converted S71/84 to S84/98, they don't know the difference. Its just a case of looking carefully at the photos and markings, and any hints in the description.

Can't say I have seen a serial number stamped on a 1907 S>S, I will keep my eye out incase I do. Matching to a rifle sounds very plausible to me, I've read of one bayonet fitting a rifle and not another so yeah I'd think that likely.

Gaz

[shippingsteel]

Joe Sweeney, on 27 July 2011 - 01:51 AM, said:

I think you will find that the strange crown is Sparkbrook inspection stamp.

Joe Sweeney

Yes thats correct, RSAF Sparkbrook. The crown is placed above the letter B for Birmingham.
The maker of the P1903 bayonet, R.Mole & Son was also located right there in Birmingham.

Cheers, S>S

[auchonvillerssomme]

I'm not sure about corresponding rifle and bayonet numbers, would rifles and bayonets be kept/stored together? I'm not an expert in either but I have handled a lot of both and bought sold quite a few over the years and never noticed  a number stamped on the cross guard so in my experience it wasn't a common practice. As for bayonets not always matching, the only ones I have seen that don't quite fit are those where time and mishandling has caused a distortion in one or the other. Given the inspection marks on all of these weapons I cant see why a new bayonet would not have fitted a new rifle.

[Andrew Upton]

auchonvillerssomme, on 27 July 2011 - 06:33 AM, said:

Given the inspection marks on all of these weapons I cant see why a new bayonet would not have fitted a new rifle.

Because all parts of a bayonet and rifle would have been made to certain tolerances, which would have catered for a degree of outsize/undersize around the intended measurement. Picture an outsize nosecap on a SMLE with an undersize 1907 bayonet and you see where problems of fit start to come into play. With my deac SMLE I have the opposite problem - with my normal 1907 bayonet it is a decidely loose fit on the nosecap and rattles, yet my hooked version is a perfectly snug fit. Not all kit issued at the time would have been new as well - time and mishandling would have played its part during the war as well for reissued kit. All the more reason to test for a good fit on issue, and possibly number a bayonet to match a rifle for future reference to that.

[auchonvillerssomme]

I don't agree, tolerances are just that, tolerances to fit. What would be the point of tolerances that don't fit and allow for a bayonet not to fit any rifle. Do we even know what tolerances they worked to?

[Garron]

It wouldn't be a case of not fitting any rifle just the odd one to two, for example a bayonet has an extra 0.02 of an inch and so does the bayonet lug on rifle A, it wont fit. Rifle B's lug may be under by 0.02 of an inch so that bayonet will fit fine.
They were mass produced under war time conditions, the same for small arms ammo, rifles had oversized chambers to cope with the variances in ammo.


Gaz

[Andrew Upton]

auchonvillerssomme, on 27 July 2011 - 07:22 PM, said:

I don't agree, tolerances are just that, tolerances to fit. What would be the point of tolerances that don't fit and allow for a bayonet not to fit any rifle. Do we even know what tolerances they worked to?

Exactly as Garron already stated. On a personal note, I was an intern at Angels the Costumiers last year for two months and had to do a fair bit of Police insignia for that. The number of times the screw-bolts generally used for holding the letters/numbers in place would fit one piece perfectly, be a loose fit to the point of falling off on another, and yet so tight as to the point of not going on properly on another was staggering, and this from items that were all meant to be made to the same measurements and not under war-time conditions.

[shippingsteel]

I agree that the machining of both the bayonets and the bayonet lugs (boss) was not done to very exacting specifications.
There was always a certain amount of matching required to ensure each bayonet was mated with a suitably fitting rifle.
The bayonets manufactured at Lithgow were always matched with a rifle at the factory, and if the fit was found to be acceptable they were then stamped on the pommel with the rifle's serial number.

I am away from my files at the moment so cannot add any more photos, but if anyone else has a detailed pic they would be willing to share for discussion, please feel free to post away.
EDIT. So I'm back only to find no new photos posted, oh well ....   Anyway here is another one below with some more unusual markings to ponder - any thoughts.??

Cheers, S>S

 refurb.jpg   31.44K   1 downloads

[shippingsteel]

So the above photo was a pretty tough one to post, as its an Australian bayonet with strictly Australian markings, but still a P1907 though.
The 5 digit serial number indicates that it was first matched to a 1916 Lithgow SMLE rifle, and it then remained in service throughout WW2.
The other markings include the more modern Australian 'broad arrow', and the 7/47/R which shows it went through a FTR after the war in 1947.
The interesting thing to note here is even after all that service and refurbishment, there is still no clearance hole added - so much for the regs.!

Got another photo below which may be more applicable here. Anyone care to hazard a guess as to its details and service history.?

Cheers, S>S

 1903ric.jpg   28.09K   0 downloads

[sawdoc34]

Cant make out the markings out very clearly on this laptop but is that a Danish crown mark above the ER?
Another nice P1903 there S>S How many have you got now?

[shippingsteel]

sawdoc34, on 01 August 2011 - 09:46 AM, said:

Cant make out the markings out very clearly on this laptop but is that a Danish crown mark above the ER?

Nothing Danish about this one Sir.! It's strictly British - (and first issued to the Coldstream Guards, if you will.!)

Cheers, S>S

[sawdoc34]

Whats the markings above the ER CROWN? Never seen them before   
Looks to be made from a P1888 blade (01 Date)
Coldstream Guards are of interest to me as my uncle spent his national service in the regiment along with lawrie McMenamy the footballer & manager, in fact its only an hours drive from me to the regimental museum.
On the topic of bayonets fitting all bosses, I have an Indian wire wrapped No1 mk3* that will not take my british P1907s but all my indian Mks fit ok.