418 replies to this topic

[shippingsteel]

Smokey in Oz, on 04 June 2012 - 02:19 PM, said:

^{I stand corrected on only one David Ford , it's been a few years since I checked the Roll, must have been updated since I received this blokes records in Jan '06.
I better hop too it, might have the wrong bloke after all, thanks for that.............}

I'm pretty certain that you have a Tasmanian bayonet there Smokey ... and I'm also fairly sure that I have your man ... 2736 Pte. Arnold David Ford 47th Battalion.

This guy was born at Waratah and then enlisted at Burnie, in Tasmania. Embarked for Egypt and found his way to Anzac for a brief period before the evacuation.
Then back to Egypt where he was crook and eventually medically discharged back to Australia. A hard case being Court Martialled twice, receiving periods of FP.

Probably swiped this bayonet and scabbard from the depot at some stage, keeping it as a momento - the date being something important from his time at Anzac.?
Thats as good as I can piece together anyway - all the records are there if you want to look, and the dates at least check out with whats scrawled on the scabbard.

Cheers, S>S

[Smokey in Oz]

Hmmmm, ok, so it was a Tassie bayonet at some stage early on. Still not totally convinced about your man though.  As faint as the name on the scabbard is, theres definately no A or Arnold to go with the rest..... what is written on there is unmistakable, apart from the 5 in 1915...... but, I'll follow up on Arnold anyway, some other link might turn up. I like the thought of a Tasmanian Anzac connection, I just don't want to jump to a conclusion without some genuine evidence to support it. Thanks for your help SS. This research side of bayonets really sucks you in, doesnt it.
Cheers, Smokey.

PS; After reading A D Fords service record it seems he also lived in NSW in 1936, where the previous owner picked up the bayonet. With a record like his I could imagine why he might be a bit sheepish about putting the correct name on the bayo. You might just be on the right track SS.

[shippingsteel]

Plenty of chaps went by their middle name back in those days (its something to watch out for) just because his first name is Arnold it doesn't mean he didn't call himself David.

Cheers, S>S

[Smokey in Oz]

Yep, I'm already onto that SS, I notice on his digitised record he named and signed his oath and medical record as David Ford.

[Garron]

shippingsteel, on 26 April 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

Yeah I'm trying to cut back a bit myself, problem is my storages are full to capacity. So I have been limiting myself to only the 'absolute quality' bargains ...
But that little hiatus may be a thing of the past now, as I have just purchased and installed a completely new set of drawers, couldn't resist it was on special.!

Hey that rimfire shooting sounds like fun. I just love the 22's - still got my original Brno from 30 years ago plus a few more - my boys use them hunting rabbits.!

Cheers, S>S

It is a lot of fun, and the ammo is cheap. One of the favorite rifles at the club is a CZ bolt action, the Czechs certainly know how to make a firearm. Built like a tank and so easy to maintain.

Once I finish the probation period at the gun club (3 Months left), I'll be applying for my license for that I'll need a safe/secure ammo storage before they issue the certificate. If pass the checks ect I get my FAC. I'll buy a rifle (probably a .22 Bolt action and .45 Long colt under lever, my club is only rated for small bore/ pistol rounds, for rifles I need to go to another) but it all mounts up. Eventually I want to get into full bore shooting with some classic black powder bolt actions like the Gras, Kropatschek, Mauser 71/84. I'll need the bayonets as you can't have a rifle without a bayonet.

Gaz

[shippingsteel]

Garron, on 06 June 2012 - 01:34 PM, said:

It is a lot of fun, and the ammo is cheap. One of the favorite rifles at the club is a CZ bolt action, the Czechs certainly know how to make a firearm. Built like a tank and so easy to maintain.

Eventually I want to get into full bore shooting with some classic black powder bolt actions like the Gras, Kropatschek, Mauser 71/84. I'll need the bayonets as you can't have a rifle without a bayonet.

Hey Gaz, yeah what was once Brno is now CZ and their model 2 rifle is the best .22 ever made (IMHO)
I've still got a couple, both the original and the modern and they are always brilliant rifles to shoot. (You would not believe some of the things I've brought down with a .22 slug)

And by the sounds of it, this could be just another sneaky plan to allow yourself an excuse to buy some more bayonets - I've gotta say you're going the LONG way about it.!
Now I just cut to the chase.!

Cheers, S>S

[Garron]

Hey s>s

Yeah, I'm going the long way around, as that way I cant get distracted with other stuff, if I focus on rifles I cant buy bayonets until I need them.
I have the MkIV Martini-Henry and no bayonet then a Gras and chassepot bayonet with the no rifles, so its either the bayonet or Gras or Converted Chassepot next.

Either way the collections going to get bigger

[shippingsteel]

Found THIS bayonet that is just begging to be brought forward for some serious 'prosecution' - a perfect example for "whats goin' on 'ere then" (my new segment.!)
So what do we think of it - is it worth a bid.? Plenty of things to ponder here and discuss ... such as what advice we should be giving to any newbie with a wad of cash.!

Personally I think it may have some legitimate claims ... as well as some "technical issues" that need explaining. So feel free to dive right in with your considered views.

Cheers, S>S

 molehook.jpg   34.54K   1 downloads

[TRAJAN]

Hookies were phased out after 1913 but this has a clearance hole in the pommel which is 1916+ feature... My copy of Skennerton is at home and I am in the office so I can't give you a LOC for that.

Trajan

[shippingsteel]

TRAJAN, on 16 June 2012 - 01:01 PM, said:

Hookies were phased out after 1913 but this has a clearance hole in the pommel which is 1916+ feature ...

Very true ... so what are you implying here.? (Check out the attached Link for plenty more photos)

Cheers, S>S

[TRAJAN]

Ooh, eck, didn't follow the link through ( I am supposed to be working on something else...).

Now, you know that I don't really know that much about P1907's, but it would not surprise me if a hookie missed being unhooked while having a clearance hole put in in 1916 or later. But I do find it a tad surprising that the hook didn't go when "refurbished by Lithgow in the early 1940's for further re-issue in WW11."

Trajan

[auchonvillerssomme]

Ok as you know I am no expert but have seen and handled a few bayonets, my first instinct is to look carefully at the blade, every '07 I have has a different edge entry from the ricasso to that in the picture.

[shippingsteel]

auchonvillerssomme, on 16 June 2012 - 03:21 PM, said:

Ok as you know I am no expert but have seen and handled a few bayonets, my first instinct is to look carefully at the blade, every '07 I have has a different edge entry from the ricasso to that in the picture.

Thats a very good point to make ... we should always look for differences to the norm as a way of discerning whats right from wrong, but remember some bayonets WERE made different.
Not just in their style of manufacture but also in the way their markings were stamped. These things changed slightly over time but the biggest point of difference is between various makers.

This example was made by R. Mole & Sons of Birmingham, one of the less common manufacturers to be found, so don't be surprised if some of its characteristics do appear to be different.
I always go through a simple checklist when looking at a bayonet with a view to 'ticking off the boxes' - working from photos can be difficult but most things can be checked out to some extent.

So with the above photo my checklist would include such things as fuller shape, blade runout, ricasso markings, crossguard shape, grip and screw fit, pommel shape, period and patina match.
At first glance everything in the photo looks OK ... its only when you start to look at the finer details that you start to feel that something is wrong, and that this example could be just a 'lash-up'.

Cheers, S>S

[TRAJAN]

One thing I did not like about this one was the relative locations of the crown, the [E]R, 1907, MOLE and the issue date marks on the reverse ricasso. But I only have one pre-WWII P1907 and so I have almost no experience in possible variations from maker to maker. Everything else I know about these is what I have learnt from here, GBF or Skennerton.

Bearing that in mind... If I saw this locally for a reasonable price and saw nothing obviously wrong after handling it (e.g., patina, weight, 'feel'), then I would eventually buy it but I would be thinking it might be a 'marriage' piece (made up from two original bayonets), and then would post it on GWF and GBF for help/advice - or condemnation, as the case might be

[shippingsteel]

TRAJAN, on 17 June 2012 - 04:06 AM, said:

I would be thinking it might be a 'marriage' piece (made up from two original bayonets) ...

Thats spot on - its definitely had a new pommel grafted on ... and I certainly don't believe its something that would have been done in service (hook would have been lopped).
The photo below shows it has a Lithgow pommel with a B serial which would date it late 30's early 40's with the bluing to match. It also has the 'sticking out' Aussie press stud.  
Note the bad fit of the grips which would indicate they have been replaced at some stage, together with the vice marks on the top of the pommel it is certainly not a good look.!

Cheers, S>S

 pommel.jpg   20.47K   1 downloads

[TRAJAN]

shippingsteel, on 17 June 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

...it has a Lithgow pommel with a B serial which would date it late 30's early 40's with the bluing to match. It also has the 'sticking out' Aussie press stud. Note the bad fit of the grips which would indicate they have been replaced at some stage, together with the vice marks on the top of the pommel...

Well, as I indicated earlier, I thought the reverse ricasso marks odd (but the obverse ricasso inspection marks were ok), but what made me wonder about it being a marriage was the WWII inspection and issue marks on the pommel. I could go along with the possibility of a hookie having its hook left on when a clearance hole was added in the field sometime between 1916-1918, but what I thought rather suprising was that a hook might survived re-issue in WWII. I would not have worried about the badly fitting grips and would have assumed these were a WWII replacement, except that I would have expected Slazenger's with a WWII refurbishment. As for the vice marks on the pommel, I would have associated these with fitting the new grips. Of course, now I wonder if I would have seen any evidence on the tang for the actual 'marriage part'!

All in all, though, a nice practical exercise, so 'Thanks'!

Trajan

[jscott]

Very odd. Presumably there would be a very clear weld/ joining mark visible from the top and bottom of the handle (ie in between the wooden grips)? S/S - what are your thoughts for the reason for the new pommel - contemporary forgery or something else?

[shippingsteel]

jscott, on 17 June 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

S/S - what are your thoughts for the reason for the new pommel - contemporary forgery or something else?

My guess is some well intentioned soul tried 'fixing up' grandads old bayonet out in the garage workshop using simple 'wrecking yard theory'. Take donor part from A and place in B.!
Problem is they forgot the bit about the particular make and model they were repairing, and while the replacement part may work just fine it simply doesn't match ... ruining said item.
It could have been something as simple as a missing press catch (which can be replaced if a similar donor can be located) but in any case it has destroyed its value as a collectable.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

auchonvillerssomme, on 03 June 2012 - 06:06 AM, said:

Anyway heres the 2 that came very early on in my collecting career, I'm not sure if there is any statute of limitations but I filched them. One has intrigued me for a while.

Mick, I am bringing this one back for another look as I think its a very interesting bayonet. It kind of got missed earlier on when I got badly distracted by Smoky's nice hookie ...
Anyway yours is an Enfield dated December 1914 with an ER cypher and no sign of a hook.! Going by the reference books it should not even exist ... but never say never, hey.?

It's quite a coincidence but I have been coming across a few of these interesting ones, and all have been dated 12 '14 - so 'something' must have been going on (ie. mobilisation)
I think at the time it must have been a case of "we are frightfully short of kit, chaps, so how about we clean out some of those storage warehouses and see what we come up with".

I've posted the 3 photos below for a comparison. Yours on the left could perhaps have been a prestamped blade that had not been assembled, but was later put together and issued.
Then we have another matching date and stamped Enfield in the middle (just to show yours was not alone) with the exact same date stampings, just a pity the cypher wasn't visible.
Then there's a photo of my Wilkinson hookie that also has the ER cypher and another issue date of December 1914. I think a case of being made earlier but then not issued until later.

Anyway very interesting, and once again just goes to show that you can never say never ... especially during the pressures of wartime, when the old 'rulebook' went out the window.!

Cheers, S>S

 enfield4.jpg   36.24K   0 downloads  14Enfield1.jpg   23.09K   0 downloads  wilkhook.jpg   17.79K   0 downloads