A new purchase and a couple of New Zealand related questions.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../03/0202-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1/03/028-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1/03/026-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1/03/025-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1/03/024-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../03/0222-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...1/03/019-1.jpg
Well here's something that came with a story.
Supposedly this was bought back by a Kiwi soldier from Gallipoli.
Now I always buy the object not the story,and that's exactly what I have done in this case.
However having researched the said chap there was indeed a Kiwi gentleman of that name who served at Gallipoli.
I think its indeed probable this bayo did belong to him,but perhaps more likely bought by him privately sometime after the war rather than bought back.
Which brings up the question,could returning Kiwi soldiers (both Wars) in fact keep/purchase their weapons if they wished?
If they could would they have sold out of service marks applied,as this bayo has?
What was the procedure for returning soldiers,did they still carry their arms off the boats to be collected later or were they collected on the boat before disembarking?
Its not the first time I have come across rifles etc that were supposedly carried by some chaps grandfather or other,but unfortunately without provenance its just a nice story.
Sometimes however there are ways of disproving these one way or another with a little detective work.
Oh,one more thing,the frog (which did not come with it) I am told is a specific NZ pattern,can someone confirm this?

Cheers,

GDU

I think the 'X' marking is a bend test proof, not a sold out of service mark:

http://www.radix.net/~bbrown/brit_bayo.html

Nice bayonet, The mark on the pommel is the sold out of service, the X on the blade (Ricasso) is the bend mark.

Regarding the frog etc, I would go to the edged weapons forum, a few experts on there will help you out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

The mark on the pommel is the sold out of service, the X on the blade (Ricasso) is the bend mark.

---

Must get that eye test booked...:lol:

Nice bayonet, seems to have been a lot of enfeild bayonets that came back to AUS and NZ after the war to end all wars, I have one Enfield nearly the same but with NSW stamped on it with the serial number. I have seen quite a few of recent enfield bayonets which are more common but the lithgow is more of a rare beast as just about all the quillions on them were cut off. As to the frog it appears more of an earlier pattern IE boer war or the british WW1 webbing for Kitcheners Army. as some one said previously though try the edged weapons forum as they would be able to shed more light on it. This i would also be interested in.
Regards
Fergs

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GDU

What was the procedure for returning soldiers,did they still carry their arms off the boats to be collected later or were they collected on the boat before disembarking?
Its not the first time I have come across rifles etc that were supposedly carried by some chaps grandfather or other,but unfortunately without provenance its just a nice story.

---

I have a copy of Somme Mud, an autobiography of an Australian soldier named E.P.F. Lynch. On page 318 he writes "It's early April 1919. The cold winter is giving way to spring. We're still at Nalinnes, but our equipment has been handed in and we are on a draft due to leave for England any day now."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by peregrinvs

Must get that eye test booked...:lol:

---

Thought that was the case,:thup:

THe sold from service mark on a quillioned blade is always intersting as all quillions were removed in 1916 - or were supposed to be - and it woudl seem very strange for someone to sell blades from service during the war, or so soon after it was introduced to service. One can always assume that this markign is actually post WWII and came from a rear echelon unit that didnt remove the quillion, or stock sitting in stores that never got issued. Don't suppose the story will every be learnt

As for the frog yes it is New Zealand bookmark

It used to be an absolute offence to possess government stores, indicated by the big WD arrow. So poeople that had previously 'liberated' or 'diverted' or just plain stolen some of this kit took it upon themselves to mark it with an extra arrow to make the 'sale-mark' of two face-to-face arrows look genuine.

The old Army equipment regulations contained a whole chapter explaining how to tell the real thing but it was of little use because mere possession ceased to be an offence. So anyone with such a marked bit of kit soon learned that the best thing was to say to anyone silly enough to investigate too deeply was simply say words to the effect that '........ if you think that it's stolen, then you prove I stole it. Possession isn't an offence so I don't have to prove anything'

Just a thought................ but I think that bayonet slipped out of the gate

But unmodified bits of kit does tend to stay the course for many years. For example, unmodified British L1A1 and 2 bayonets (without the deeper catch recess) were still on the shelves and in Ordnance stockpiles for many many years, well into the early 70's

The 'sold out of service' mark in this case does not mean it was marked when leaving service. I believe this mark indicates it has been sold out of British service and into colonial (or NZ.?) service.
I have a number of British made quillon bayonets of that era that have this mark, and most have WW1 Australian marks present as well. I have also seen pre-war scabbards with WW1 Lithgow repairs done.
Equipment was being sent to the 'colonies' during that 1910 period and it was being marked with the SOS arrows. Much of this equipment ended up going back to Europe again with the troops to serve in the war.
The Sanderson example pictured below is interesting as it has been 'sold out of service', marked with Aussie MD ownership marks, had its hook removed during the war, but has never had the clearance hole drilled.

THat makes sense, never thought of SOS for items going to other countries, but it follows with several items I have seen, including my hook that is Australian marked.

Just saw i sadi WWII in my earlier post that is of course a mistake I meant WWI

Thanks for your replies.

Evidence is starting to suggest equipment was handed in before they disembarked,which makes sense as it would be hard work getting it off Kiwis once home!

When was this pattern of frog introduced and when was it replaced in favour of webbing?
I have seen these before on 88 bayos,and I was not sure it was correct on an 07 but that appears to be the other way round.Which begs the question what frog should a Patt 88 have?

One final thing,the serial number one sees on both 88 and 07 NZ bayonets I had assumed matched a rifle at some point but now I rather suspect they had their own number.
That said, most 88 bayonets here have two,three or even four sets of numbers with normally all bar one set lined out.The 07's however tend to have rather rough grinder marks on the side of the crossguard where the number is normally stamped.I have seen that many of these the same they must have been ground while still in service or when first sold.
Any ideas?

Regarding the patt 88 In most cases (but not all) the markings are (battalion)(regiment)(weapon number) sometimes company will be between regiment and weapon number, as for the frog think it was the buff leather one, like pic below.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF2736-1.jpg

My copy of your NZ frog cam eon an 88 as well, although Carter says its for the 03 and 07 so that woudl dat eit 03 to early WWi probably

I have followed the sold out of service (SOS) mark part of this thread with a bit of interest and earlier this week, with an hour to spare, re-read the old 1944 Equipment Regulations (the ER's) relating to this back to back SOS arrow mark and it's application. These ER's of the era, as they do today (although they're called something different now of course.......), apply across the board, to everyone and at all levels. I can't find anywhere, where equiment sold or supplied to another Army or nation will be marked,

As a litttle example, can you imagine New Zealand say, purchasing 6,000 bayonets from Britain in 1925. If they were new, they'd come straight from a factory as a Wilkinson to NZ Government private deal. The factory would mark them with whatever they wanted - after all, that's business. If they came as second hand from a Government Ordnance Depot, can you just imagine a storman sitting there with a stamp, cancelling out EVERY previous stamp into a SOS mark................ No, I can't either .

During the everyday run of war, Ordnance stockpiles are pooled.

The ER's do specify exactly when the SOS mark is applied, where and by whom. And in general, this mark applies to what were at the time called 'valuable, attractive and accountable stores' or what we still call today 'V&A'. To be honest, bayonets aren't high on the list of Army V&A stores are they.............?

To be honest, if a soldier today wanted to keep a bayonet or a, say, wristwatch, then he'd 'loose' it during the course of his duties, take the consequences, pay for it and that'd be that. But he'd always have at the back of his mind that stolen property NEVER belongs to the person who stole it. It ALWAYS belongs to the loser. That's be a good reason for him to mark it with the back to back arrow AND why the old ER's mention what to look for if it looks suspect.

But SOS marking every bit of kit sold to another Army................

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

I have followed the sold out of service (SOS) mark part of this thread with a bit of interest and earlier this week, with an hour to spare, re-read the old 1944 Equipment Regulations (the ER's) relating to this back to back SOS arrow mark and it's application. These ER's of the era, as they do today (although they're called something different now of course.......), apply across the board, to everyone and at all levels. I can't find anywhere, where equiment sold or supplied to another Army or nation will be marked,

As a litttle example, can you imagine New Zealand say, purchasing 6,000 bayonets from Britain in 1925. If they were new, they'd come straight from a factory as a Wilkinson to NZ Government private deal. The factory would mark them with whatever they wanted - after all, that's business. If they came as second hand from a Government Ordnance Depot, can you just imagine a storman sitting there with a stamp, cancelling out EVERY previous stamp into a SOS mark................ No, I can't either .

During the everyday run of war, Ordnance stockpiles are pooled.

The ER's do specify exactly when the SOS mark is applied, where and by whom. And in general, this mark applies to what were at the time called 'valuable, attractive and accountable stores' or what we still call today 'V&A'. To be honest, bayonets aren't high on the list of Army V&A stores are they.............?

To be honest, if a soldier today wanted to keep a bayonet or a, say, wristwatch, then he'd 'loose' it during the course of his duties, take the consequences, pay for it and that'd be that. But he'd always have at the back of his mind that stolen property NEVER belongs to the person who stole it. It ALWAYS belongs to the loser. That's be a good reason for him to mark it with the back to back arrow AND why the old ER's mention what to look for if it looks suspect.

But SOS marking every bit of kit sold to another Army................

---

Interesting point, but I,ve never seen a 1907 with the goverment acceptance mark on the pommel ? all are on the ricasso, I have 3 bayonets, 2 with the sold out of service mark which are on the pommel and also, 1 which I think relates to what you mean which has a light stamp opposite the acceptance mark on the ricasso, this would of clearly been stamped on the pommel if it was sold out of service like the other examples.
(off the subject but the saw back edge is as sharp as the day it was made)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF4256-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF4257-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF4258-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...DSCF4261-1.jpg

With respect to Peter and his comments regarding the SOS markings, I think we need to keep in mind the exact period we are talking here. These particular marks were being applied around 1910 when things were done very differently to WW2 processes. We just have to look at a WW2 P1907 made by Wilkinson and then compare to a WW1 vintage P1907 to realise that standards of marking had absolutely changed and for the worse.

At the turn of the century British armourers were busy stamping inspection marks and reissues for every time they were handled. You only have to pick up a P'88 or P'03 to see just how many times some of them were restamped and reissued. The SOS mark on the pommel is done with just the one stamp, so hardly out of the question for such a transaction, coming from a Government Ordnance depot and being sold to a colonial army.

The bayonet and matching scabbard in the OP are both dated 1910, and both are marked neatly with the SOS stamp, so I think it is hard to argue that it wasn't being done back then. Collectors of bayonets that were being used in the colonies at that time can certainly verify that this marking is quite commonly found and is nothing unique. But it is important to keep in mind the context of the article in question and the era it was used in.