Printable View
Peter,Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
Not sure where you are going with this. The answer to your question has been answered. It has been skimmed and remarked. This bayonet has been authenticated by three individuals now, one of them being the "expert" on the type. If you need further answers as to why, I suggest contacting Graham Priest as he is the individual who discovered the variation and published his findings on them.
I have a 1951 No 9 Enfield made bayonet marked 96IJ, thought it was a "c" but it's apparently a "J" with a very long hook so they were in use prior to 1957. The frog with the cruciform bayonet is dated 1955 which only means something if they were paired together and stayed together after the refurbishment.Quote:
Originally Posted by nzl1a1collector
............... just a minute Aragorn!
In Q10 I asked if you'd checked it for thickness with a micrometer to see if it'd been ground and re-engraved.
In Q11 you answered that you hadn't checked because you didn't have a micrometer.
In Q18 I mention AGAIN that the (interesting) answer might be found in the thickness - and again in:
In Q20 I ask the same question again as I'd like to know, just out of interest.
Then in Q 21 you finally answer that it has indeed been skimmed! How am I meant to know unless you tell me! That's all I asked........ I have to say that mind reading and guesswork isn't one of my finest attributes
At least we all know that it's been skimmed off and re-engraved
Peter,
I asked a simple question, is the bayonet fake or simply a different style marking. Three experts on bayonets including Graham Priest, the author of the volume you claim to have examined, have authenticated this bayonet as REAL and simply being remarked. You admit you are not an expert in your first post. Your exact words were "from someone who's totally clueless about bayonets". Graham Priest answered your question in his book before you even asked it here. That answer has also been referenced several times in this discussion including Q4 which seems to have caused you to ask your initial question in Q10. So it has been answered. It has been reworked and remarked, part of the rework involved the removal of the old markings.
Old Smithy is the first of the bayonet experts I was in contact with, he has posted his confirmation here. The second was Ralph Cobb from worldbayonets.com with whom I exchanged a series of e-mails. The final expert was Graham Priest himself who requested detailed photos before he would comment on it. He examined the photos and confirmed it as one of the reworked bayonets he discussed in his book.
You have been provided with this information yet still ask for a micrometer measurement and now metallugy test to prove the specs of the metal.
To get an accurate micrometer measurement, I would have to strip all the paint off of it first which I have no plans to do at this time. Doing so removes the "history" of the bayonet or so I've been told by many on this forum. I would also have to get a micrometer which I have no need for, especially since the work has already been done for me by an accepted expert in his field.
So again, where exactly are you going with this? Do you doubt the work of Graham Priest? Do you doubt this is a genuine bayonet? Do you really think that someone would go to his much effort to make a bayonet that few would recognize as being authentic and do such a good job of it they will fool people who have devoted years of their lives to research these things?
I asked a question, it has been answered to my satisfaction. This is a genuine bayonet, I did not waste my $65 in purchasing it and it is now a valued addition to my collection.
If you need to take this further, contact Graham Priest. I found him to be very friendly and informative.
Has the No9 bayonet got a rifle number stamped on it? This may help with the history of it. Can't find the stamping 96IJ. Nearest I can find is S96 which is the stamping for Plant Machinery & Acc. Who are noted as a gun barrel manufacturer.
Lester,
Bayonet was brand new in the wax paper so no rifle number. It is marked NO9Mk1, then ED (overlayed) - 51 It has the acceptance arrow on the blade, the base and the push button. The 96|J is under a normal acceptance arrow. The "|" represents the broad arrow. I used an "I" earlier because I couldn't figure out how to duplicate the other posters symbol. Forgot about cut and paste. On closer inspection, hadn't seen this one before, there is another ED (overlayed) over 166 on the face of the base where the blade attaches. As far as I can see, that's all the markings. One possible marking is a slanted "X" on the face where the barrel would protrude. Could just be a machining mark.
Aragorn, please..... you are insinuating things that are just not correct and I cannot let you imply otherwise. I wasn't interested in anything else, never asked anything else, didn't imply anything else, accepted that the bayonet is the real McCoy from the very beginning but just for interest, asked if it had been skimmed. Only later after you didn't answer several times, did I suggest that if there was any douby, a metallurgy test would answer it.
Please don''t pass the parcel, implying that I might doubt Graham (a good friend of mine incidentally) or Old Smithy.... or anyone... Nothing of the sort and it's below the belt to suggest so
Neat story. The bayonet and the gun sounds like a good deal. Such an understanding wife the better deal.
Peter,Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Laidler
We can go round and round on this but I insinuated nothing, I asked very direct questions of you and now you try to "pass the parcel" onto me.
That I won't accept. But I will let it go.
---------- Post added at 07:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:31 PM ----------
That she is.Quote:
Originally Posted by tlitt
And so will I