Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 32 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I hope the experts here can help me with a 1907 bayonet I just got. From my research, all should be stamped 1907 as a model designation. A manufactuer's year should follow. Mine does not appear to have room for an additional line of text. It looks like it has an ER under the crown instead of a GR but it is hard to tell. I am assuming mine may have actually been made in 1907 with a hooked quillion. It has what looks like a 1925 arsenal mark so I am assuming the quillion was modified then (if not before). It looks like it was refurbished at least once and maybe twice. I'm looking for somebody to either confirm my analysis or correct me where I'm wrong. Any other info wold be appreciated. This one may go well with my 1904 Sparkbrook Mk1***. Thanks in advance!!
3780285
3780286
3780287
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,895 Posts
1907 is definitely the pattern number. The P07 production began in 1908 which was the hooked quillon. However at that time James A Chapman was using the JAC marking on the ricasso. They reverted back to CHAPMAN during WW1, by which time King Edward was dead. Your bayonet as it stands is a puzzler.
I'm unable to determine a year of manufacture date, but the worn cypher does hint at a E. All I can say is i think it was made in February. Unless there is an obliterated 1 which would then be December.
The ghost of the year looks as though it might have been 15 which would easily explain the makers stamp but not the ER...if that's what it was.
By 15 it wouldn't be a hookie as I'm able to recall.

If seeking a close period date for your rifle, then a Pattern 1903 bayonet would be better. That would have been issue at the time. But a 1907 could have replaced it later, somehow, somewhere.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
I can see the very bottom of a "1" before the 5 so I think you are correct about 2/1915 as the manufactier date. I'm sure then it has what is left of GR and not ER under the crown. It has the cleanout hole drilled. Priobably done in 1925. Still a nice WWI dated Pattern 1907 for my collection. I agree that I need a Pattern 1903 for my rifle. I love the shape of those. I didn't have a 1907 so I'm glad to have this one. Thanks very much for the education!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
That statement sure interests me! I'll be patient but be sure to tall me sometime.

It has markings from at least two time periods. The original markings from 1915 appear buffed out dfuring a refurbish. The '25 date is later and sharper. The marking on the back are the same way. I don't know enought to say if there are three sets of marks or just two.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
The more I look at it, the numbers that look like 15 horizontally across the blade are actually '23 running vertically. If this is correct then it has a '23 and a '25 refurb mark. The year to go with the 2 appears to have been cleaned off. More to think about. Thanks for the help everybody.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,509 Posts
@w10085 , I believe you are correct in the we are misconstruing a vertical 2 for a horizontal 5. However, Chapman was not producing bayonets in 1923.

This will hopefully narrow down your timeframe:


Perhaps @JMB1943 will chime in!

I would add, IMO, your crossguard does not appear to have the profile of an ex-hooky, further pics could confirm.

I'll go out on a limb & say you're looking at 1914-1918.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,170 Posts
Not to hijack but can someone show me the difference between the de hooked hookie & a non-hookie?
I have a 1917 one with that same (to my uneducated eye) crossguard shape?
3780612
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,895 Posts
Plonker, the date alone tells you it wasn't a hookie. But since you asked..
1913 was the 'year of transition' so to speak. At least on paper. The hooks were being deleted in practice earlier. Mostly at the field level.
On a quiilon removed specimen there is often signs of grinding where the remaining spur of the cut off hook was blended into the underside of the crosspiece.
Grinds vary. The tip of the crosspiece could be a wee bit shorter, sometimes longer. They might also retain a little more "meat" where the profile was achieved without excessive grinding.
Its hard to explain in words. Seeing a removed quillon or quillons compared side by side to later ones is the best teacher. Stay alert and it will be much easier to spot.
Keep in mind some grinds are better than others. A later dated bayonet might be tough to distinguish if the markings are close regarding timeframe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,509 Posts
The guards have a slightly different profile on a hook (or ex-hook) vs non-hook, as viewed from the front. I don't have an ex/hooky for comparison, if I could request assistance?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,509 Posts
The upper photo is a Lithgow ex-hooky courtesy of @SDigger , the lower photo is my Vickers. I have highlighted the differences, hopefully it is not distracting. I would describe the ex- as "waisted", whereas the non- seem to have "straighter" edges as it tapers.

3780740

3780741
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
405 Posts
@w10085 , I believe you are correct in the we are misconstruing a vertical 2 for a horizontal 5. However, Chapman was not producing bayonets in 1923.
This will hopefully narrow down your timeframe:
Perhaps @JMB1943 will chime in!
I looked back at that thread and was surprised to see that it was back in Sept., 1916 so the last JAC/Chapman that I recorded was probably about December of 1916.
At that time, I had recorded 28 CHAPMAN & 18 JAC, as below.

JAC CHAPMAN
YEARNUMBER YEARNUMBER
1908​
4​
1908​
0​
1909​
4​
1909​
5​
1910​
2​
1910​
0​
1911​
1​
1911​
1​
1912​
0​
1912​
1​
1913​
1​
1913​
0​
1914​
0​
1914​
0​
1915​
1​
1915​
3​
1916​
3​
1916​
5​
1917​
0​
1917​
6​
1918​
0​
1918​
7​
It shows that there was no clear-cut change-over year, although CHAPMAN does predominate in 1916 and onwards.
Altogether, it doesn't provide a definitive date for the bayonet in question, so 1914-1918 is about it!!!
I must admit to being curious about the timing of the apparent switch from JAC to (largely) Chapman in 1916.
We know that Wilkinson went to Wilkinson Pall Mall in the same year, clearly and cleanly in 5 '16.
Coincidence?
Or did Chapman seek greater visibility for their war effort ?

Regards,
JMB


 
1 - 20 of 32 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top