1907 Hook Quillon Bayonet find

I don't really collect bayonets but thought I'd better grab this one. It is in honest unmolested condition Sanderson 1907 model made in October 1910 and the scabbard also made in 1910. I had to ring a friend to check what I should be looking for so Roger Payne obliged (thanks Rog.). No unit markings that I can see but looks like Naval issue because there is a large N on the blade and also on the scabbard. Does this make it rarer? Would Royal Marine bayonets be marked differently? There seems to be a rifle number of an A over 5037 near the catch.

Any other comments about it would be welcome as it is not my area of expertise.Attachment 73811Attachment 73812Attachment 73813Attachment 73814

I know...... I know ......... I know absolutely sod all about bayonets......... I know exactly what you're all going to say BUT. It's has been said that if something looks too good to be true, like this absolutely superb almost mintish hooked bayonet, then it usually is. I stand to be corrected by the really knowledgeable of course......

Steel helmet on and awaiting incoming.......

Markings are for the 54Th Foot Dorsetshire Regiment 2nd Battalion scabbard is AC '11https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../2pshefc-1.jpg

Well I don't profess to know a lot about bayonets either Nige, but I would reiterate what I said to you earlier when I was wandering round Asda doing the shopping & looking at the photo's of it you emailed me; it looks alright to me.

We'd better let the bayonet experts tell us what they think.....!

Looks ok Nige, any unit marking would normally be on the Pommel on a sword bayonet, RM is usually the norm for Royal Marines , can't remember if I have a RM marked 1907 but do have a 1888 marked RM.

None (that I know of) where marked with a rifle number, "normally" marked in the following order, Battalion, Regiment, Company and weapon number (weapon number being the bayonet itself)
Reserve or Volunteer Battalions were marked slightly different, Type, (Volunteer/ Reserve etc) Regiment and company.

HGR = Hepburn,Gale & Ross Ltd, leather manufacture and supplier to the Government.



I picked up a Lincolnshire Regiment (LIN) marked quillion last week at the International,
thought I'd struck lucky as it was a faint marking and noticed the LL = The Kings (Liverpool Regiment)...... maybe one day.

Nice bayonet Nigel, All correct in my opinion. With the right N mark for Navy, Royal Marines would be RM. I don't think you would have any problem moving it on.

Thread 3, RCS. According to the Equipment Regulations of the Army, amended in 1932 and 1942, in respect or unit marking for weapons and accoutrements, the code for The Dorsetshire Regiment from 1900 until the practice ceased officially in 1944 (although it had been generally abandoned since 1939 or so) was DORS or Dors. There was no other mark listed.

Thread 5, the Kings Regiment was always KINGS or Kings.

There might have been another Equipment Regulations that Quartermasters used of course - but I never found one in the WO Library ........

Peter think we agreed to disagree a few years ago regarding the DT...... but regarding the Kings Regiment, I have never seen a bayonet marked Kings as yet...... but have seen a frog marked Kings.

I have only had a basic list but there is the,

Small Arms Unit Marks : Instructions For Armourers (with amendments 1916) : APPENDIX IX - Marking of Arms - List III

which I gather lists the Kings (Liverpool) Regiment as LL, (must state I don't have a copy and looked for one on and off)

I have had this Wilkinson 5 '09 dated bayonet for quite awhile and really not certain about the D.T. over R. 389 markingsAttachment 73840Attachment 73841Attachment 73842

I take everyones point with good grace but generally speaking, these old time, long serving quartermasters generally went by what the regulations decreed. After all, that's how they became long serving and old-time Quartermasters. Additionally, they were usually Quartermasters having risen all the way through the ranks to Warrant Officer Class 1 quartermasters, knew a bit about rules and regulations in relation to stuff - and were then Commissioned. And if you think about it, the old Instructions for Armourers were part of the Equipment Regulations. Indeed, the EMER's are just a continuance of them.......

As I say, I only quote from the 1944 regulations that were updates of the 1942 regs which were updates of the 1932 version which dates from 1900.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

Small Arms Unit Marks : Instructions For Armourers (with amendments 1916) : APPENDIX IX - Marking of Arms - List III

which I gather lists the Kings (Liverpool) Regiment as LL, (must state I don't have a copy and looked for one on and off)

---

Correct Bigduke, i have that book and it lists Liverpool as L.L

For what it's worth, the list here http://martinihenry.com/units.htm lists DT as The Dorsetshire Regiment
Rob

Nigel, your last picture in post 1 showing a close up of the quillon seems to show a diagonal line exactly where I would expect there to be a weld scare if a "new" quillon had bee welded on to the cross guard. However, the lighting is not exactly great in this shot and it could just be a shadow in the picture. I believe that I am correct in saying that many of these quillon 1907s had their hooks removed around the beginning of WW1 but some have, apparently, given birth to new hooks in more recent years. Are you able to post some more close up pictures of the quillon better light, please?

Rob and Mike, threads 11 and 12, all I can do is to quote the official Equipment regulations that Armourers who do these markings are apt to follow. I've laid my cards on the table for all to see and even published these findings, copied directly from them, in a little booklet form. And to date, no one has seen fit to inform/tell me to correct, alter, amend or add to it!
Let's see where this other info originates from. That's all anyone can ask, surely?

Reminds me of writing a book some time ago and having to include a chapter dispelling certain info that proved to be questionable. In this case, my source was from the Army Library, (Prince Consorts Library) at Aldershot. There may be other sources of course and the single Army library might not be infallible but I did have the actual regulation and updates in my hands

Im happy to scan or photograph the relevant pages of "Instruction For Armourers 1912 (1916)". If its of any use to anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike1967

Im happy to scan or photograph the relevant pages of "Instruction For Armourers 1912 (1916)". If its of any use to anyone.

---

Would certainly help me Mike.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

Would certainly help me Mike.

---

No problem, ill probably have to take pictures as I'm afraid to damage the spine if i open it right out to scan it.

Thanks Mike,

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Nigel, your last picture in post 1 showing a close up of the quillon seems to show a diagonal line exactly where I would expect there to be a weld scare if a "new" quillon had bee welded on to the cross guard. However, the lighting is not exactly great in this shot and it could just be a shadow in the picture. I believe that I am correct in saying that many of these quillon 1907s had their hooks removed around the beginning of WW1 but some have, apparently, given birth to new hooks in more recent years. Are you able to post some more close up pictures of the quillon better light, please?

---

Just one small point (I am not a expert in these bayonets by any means) wouldn't it make sense that a hooked quillion bayonet would be in better shape than a standard P07? The reason I am thinking this is if it saw a fair bit of usage it would have been much more likely to have had the quillion removed, rather than a bayonet that got hidden somewhere out of sight for a long time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eaglelord17

wouldn't it make sense that a hooked quillion bayonet would be in better shape than a standard P07?

---

No...they saw as extensive use as the next. Some went through the whole war. They were missed for refurb was all. Anything is possible, this one could have been out of battle from the beginning. It has the correct scabbard with teardrop button which is super shape too. THAT'S strange...unless the whole thing was sitting aside for 100 years. Thing is, we'll need lots of clear close ups to determine. I've had the real ones and I've pointed out fakes at the gunshows to the vendors who immediately withdrew them from sale... We need clear close ups.

Hey Nigel, if you don't mind me asking what did you pay for the bayonet?

Peter raised concerns in post 2 about this bayonet. I have spent my whole working life in the metal working industry and know that it is very difficult to weld 2 pieces of metal together without leaving a trace/scar. One would normally expect to see some sign even when the metal has been ground/linished. The last picture in the set of photos in posts 1 appears to show a witness line or scar, as I have already stated, but we need to see better quality pictures to be sure that it has been welded.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

The last picture in the set of photos in posts 1 appears to show a witness line or scar, as I have already stated, but we need to see better quality pictures to be sure that it has been welded.

---

Its normally on the hooked part where you find the problem. That bayonet looks ok to me.

Are you able to explain the diagonal line on the cross guard close to the blade if it's not a weld scar and assuming it's not simply a shadow caused by the poorly lit photograph, please, Mike? (Last picture. post1)

Last pic post one shows the ring and the scabbard...I don't see any lines that you speak of at the hook. I can't see enough of the hook to tell anything. I too need pics of the hook to be able to be sure...

Jim, there are some further pictures which you can't actually see on the post as such. If you bring a picture up to the enlarged size then scroll through the set using the arrows you should get to it if get my drift, as the saying goes. Its the last picture on the right arrow.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

Its the last picture on the right arrow

---

That bayonet is in post 9, its a different bayonet by another member.

That one is by RCS as pointed out. It's correct of course, the line is vertical and it's not how they weld them together for faking...they'd be welded at the bottom of the old crosspiece and you can see it...very clearly, no matter how careful they are. Unless you've never seen a real one...but now you have.

Surely....... If you're going to 'make' a hooked quillion bayonet, you wouldn't bother with all that welding palava which would loosen the brazed-on crosspiece while you were doing it. You'd just make a new hooked crosspiece. Far easier and simpler in a vice, on the bench. No visible seams or joins, same mild steel throughout. Unbraze old, slide off forwards, accurately fit new, fit to a nose-cap, clamp into place and re-braze. 1 hour plus at the most! Easy

PS. Just done it to an old knackered P'14 bayonet to prove the point

It's the first time I've seen the pictures from 2 posts come up on a single post but I couldn't quite work out how the date of manufacture changed part way through the pictures. What is the diagonal line then in post 9? I have of course seen hooked 1907s but have always been very cautious about buying them and don't really consider they are worth the money being asked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

you wouldn't bother with all that welding palava

---

That's EXACTLY what's done Peter, they weld a long cock down below and reshape it. Usually it's the wrong shape material to start with.

Jim, have you or any-one else got any pictures on file of a hooked quillon that you know has had the hook welded on, please, that you could share with us to give us a better idea? All the dozen or so 1907s which I have are non hookers. Part of the problem is when the 1907 has had the hook originally, been cut off but then welded back on again, about 90 years later. The bayonet itself is correct it's just determining whether or not the hook has ever been removed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

got any pictures on file of a hooked quillon that you know has had the hook welded on,

---

No sir, I'm sorry to say. Most don't have the facility to blue after and of course it would look odd. They look poor by comparison, and I do mean the one RCS shows, I believe Nigel's to be correct too. There are actually many here that have them... No pics though sorry. They were just easy to pick out. The real ones look good. The small lines discussed on RCS' are from over 100 years of duty.

If you want to make one for show Flying 10, just take the crosspiece off, use that as a template for the new one, extend the hook bit to suit a scaled up photo (I used the Skennerton bayonet book) and bobs your uncle. I'll send you the X-piece I took off my practice sample this afternoon and the extension template I cut out. No CAD just simple 1st year bench fitting courtesy of my apprentice days at Carlisle!

Not there to fool anyone, just done to prove a simple point. It is basic mild steel too. Shame the bayonet I used was scrap!

If you need to a tad more forensic than that, then I'm not a good example to follow. But where there's a will, there's an easy way.

Thank-you Jim and Peter for that and also for sending me the bits you mention above, Peter. The other point worth considering, that hasn't been mentioned, when deciding whether or not to actually purchase a militaria item is actually who you are buying from. Personally, I tend not to buy from that many dealers but like to build up a first name relationship with dealers I trust. As far as I know I haven't had many bad buys apart from the odd few like everyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Peter Laidler

It is basic mild steel too.

---

Yes they are. That way easy to straighten. The extensions are just mild stuff and filed to shape. They shouldn't be quite round...(the quillion)

A few more hook photos from my Wilkinson as shown in post #9Attachment 74037Attachment 74038

And a very nice Wilkinson it is!

And here's one for sale... at $2500.
British P-1907 First Model Hooked Quillon Bayonet Earliest Scabbard ima-usa.com

They havent reached the dizzy height of that price yet in the UK, speaking to a dealer at the International he said an excellent condition unit marked hookie would now fetch around £1000.....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigduke6

around £1000.....

---

I believe you...

At this sort of money it is understandable why hooked 1907s get faked and mysteriously give birth to new hooks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

At this sort of money it is understandable why hooked 1907s get faked and mysteriously give birth to new hooks.

---

Basic tell tale signs are the date or the date has been linished and everything else on the ricasso is there, grips and screws look too new or have been disturbed, the hook and pommel look too new or too blue, if its just part welded that area will be or most likely stand out from the rest.

If anyone has handled a lot of 1907 bayonets then I dont think its too much of a worry, I've seen German K98 "sniper rifles" at auction and if the builder had done his homework, I guess he would be a richer man.....

Another thing to look out for is the presence or absence of the transverse oiling hole in the pommel - they didn't introduce that till post hookie days, so if your hooked quillon bayonet has one, it's a fake.

I'd think a fake would be done with an early bayonet that may have been converted in the first place...generally...then the dates match.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Roger Payne

Another thing to look out for is the presence or absence of the transverse oiling hole in the pommel - they didn't introduce that till post hookie days, so if you're hooked quillon bayonet has one, it's a fake.

---

Technically yes. But it is very plausible for the hole to be present on a 07 with the hook.

Interesting thread this, all comes back to having handled enough original items to know when there is something not quiet right.

Basically with a few minutes in the hand its pretty difficult to be passed off a reproduction hookie if you have handled or seen a couple of kosher ones.

You're right mike1967, & I'm little more than a novice on hookies, & even bayonets period, but I've seen a few dozen real hookies over the years & I've yet to see a real one with the hole. But as you say, it may be that a few were uprated with the addition of the oil hole & not the removal of the quillon........anything's possible.

What I was trying to get across is that if you see one of these bayonets with the oil hole then give it a wide berth, or at the least a lot of very careful scrutiny....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike1967

difficult to be passed off a reproduction hookie if you have handled or seen a couple of kosher ones.

---

I think that's where these guys prey, the uneducated that are desperate to join the ranks of collectors that have the scarce and impossible to get. I can't imagine paying that much only to find you'd been done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I can't imagine paying that much only to find you'd been done.

---

You would certainly be hunting down the culprit Jim LOL

I think the difficulty here is not so much spotting the genuine/original hooked 1907 but knowing how to spot a fake or an original with a new hook. It would be useful if we could have some pictures posted of hooked 1907s that are known to be faked, please.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flying10uk

how to spot a fake or an original with a new hook.

---

I couldn't imagine a faker wanting anyone to take pics. Trust me, if you look at the ones on this site, then you trip over a fake...you'll be able to tell quite easily. Real looks good, fake looks altered. It's not a matter of splitting hairs. It LOOKS altered.

The most laughable "fake" bayonet that I have ever seen offered for sale was on eBay a few years back. It was described as a No4 mk1 cruciform bayonet but you could clearly see the cruciform shape had been produced by an angle grinder. The biggest joke of all was that it was still stamped with No4 mk2* and amazingly some-one actually purchased it.

The last fake hookie I saw at the Chilliwack show here either was pulled after I told the vendor it was fake, or someone snapped it up and I'll never know which. It too was very poor.

stoopit question.

what is the quillion or hook for? whats it do?

another easy test is to clean up the suspected area where the weld may be and etch it mildly and if its welded it will become very clear.

IMA sells repro's for about 80 buck plus the ride. They are repo's but are they nice? will they fit on a 41 lithgow III?

whats a real one worth.

I lived in London back in the early 70's and I remember these and all types of bayonets in beautiful condition going for sooooo cheap. you could start a respectable collection for under 50 quid. Some idiots bought them and welded them up ans anti war art. WTF?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike16

whats a real one worth.

---

If you read through this whole thing,(post 39) you see that's here. Everything from a few hundred to a couple thousand.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mike16

what is the quillion or hook for? whats it do?

---

It was for use during bayonet fighting, you'd twist your rifle and bayonet and catch the opponent's blade. The theory was you could break his blade off...

A '08 dated Wilkinson with the early scabbard just sold at auction here for NZ$2400 hammer price

Guess I should have hung onto mine a few years more...