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

[old-smithy]

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

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[GDU]

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?

[bigduke6]

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.

[old-smithy]

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

[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................

[bigduke6]

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)

[shippingsteel]

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.