Royal Air Force marked bayonets

[navydoc16]

Followed by 1.A. 9652 on the other side of the same 

Another odd variation of these 1.A markings on the crossguard

kind regards

g

Edited 27 June by navydoc16

[JMB1943]

Navydoc,

Unique placement of the 1A 9652 on the cross guard.

Regards,

JMB

[navydoc16]

@JMB1943 I am tracking 3 or so examples of the crossguard marking, all on the 1 and 1A.

more importantly it is the same bayonet that @t.ryan posted, so it is marked 1A on one side and 1D on the pommel, I think he saw the pommel markings but didn’t see the cross guard. 
 

im not sure what it means for the data, but it does add some needed colour 

I am also noting it is a different set of stamps on the cross guard to the others, it looks like an older marking to be honest.

kind regards

g
 

[t.ryan]

navydoc & JMB,

I did see all the markings on the bayonet but only recorded those on the pommel,1D 2664, knowing that they were the R.A.F. markings. Was wondering what the markings on the other side of the pommel represent tho; RAR or RAB and the unusual cancelled out broad arrow looking stamp.

Is it known if the 1A 9652 on the cross guard is also connected to the R.A.F.?.

Cheers,

TR

 

 

[JMB1943]

@t.ryan,  @navydoc16,

I think that on re-examining the markings, I will only list this latest bayonet as RAF / 1. D / 2664 because,

1) the 1A 9652 is not in the correct RAF format, 

2) 1. D 2664 has not been lined out,

AND

3 ) the presumed RAF stamp on the pommel is not in fact a clear and certain RAF.

Trajan and I wrote-up our RAF-marked bayonets about 3 yrs ago, and had already recorded several with the S(tores) D(epot) and the unusual Runic-looking symbol on the pommel.

We decided that the would-be Rune was actually just the Sold-out-of-Service stamp which had been cancelled by two lining-out marks.

Regards,

JMB

 

[navydoc16]

@JMB1943

i tend to disagree slightly
 

it is a clear RAF marking- There is a clear F and clear indentation above. 
 

it also shows the 1SD 4 - 21 markings with the “Rune” so it follows the same format
 

we have seen that font on the other cross-guard marked one and that style of “Canceled/SOS” mark is the same as the others.
 

I think 1A marking is the correct format and quite a unique sequence - for it not to be RAF would be highly coincidental - and the same for saying it is a RAB or RAR when on the same bayonet that is RAF marked is a bit of a stretch for me. 

 

kind regards

g

 

Edited 1 July by navydoc16

[JMB1943]

Navydoc,

At the end of the day, this is a SINGLE bayonet that has a SINGLE marking (RAF / 1 D  / 2664) in the prescribed format in the approved location (pommel); furthermore, this has NOT been lined through, as it should have been if a new number had been assigned.

The second numbering MAY well possibly be RAF-related, but is not in the usual format/location and so there is no certainty for it.

Because of this, the bayonet will be entered in the Table as indicated previously; if this bayonet had come along while Trajan and I were writing up the article, we would have had a discussion of it that included the second marking just as we did with the only other bayonet that was double-marked.

Regards,

JMB

 

 

 

 

[navydoc16]

Just to clarify, I really don’t have an issue with accounting for One bayonet with One number, I didn’t make a reference above that I had a problem with that. Nor do I really mind which one we take as the ID

It was the immediate discounting of the additional RAF mark and the 1A marking that I had an issue with. 

For me research is including all possibilities, but the photos were just dismissed, so we had no photos of the SD markings or the crossguard 1A until I posted them

At the end of the day, we are the ones applying a set of “rules” to these pieces, when we know no standard currently exists 

To clarify we should take into consideration that the 1D marking also does not conform, it is in the same location but the marking does not match the others in that the RAF is above the stud when it is normally below. 

Hope I don’t step on any toes, but even if we find all the bayonets, we won’t be any closer to understanding them, unless we try to work out these odd pieces

I have spoken to the dealer who is well known in Australia and I have dealt with before- “JB” and it comes from his personal collection, it is also complete with a 1952 dated frog. 

He is going to get back to me if the throat is RAF marked as I’m hoping it has a serial number too

Kind regards
George 

Edited 30 July by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

1D 3869

[JMB1943]

Navydoc,

First, thanks for the new number, 1. D 3869, duly entered in the Table.

Second, the issue with the 1 A 9652 number on the cross guard— I hear you regarding your thinking that it is an authentic RAF marking (as I had previously agreed that it MAY be) but I think that you should also respect that the serial on the pommel has not been lined through.

If I were the owner of this bayonet, I would be sorely tempted to do some light cleaning of the pommel to try to have a better look at the RAF / RAB(R) stamp. Again, I don’t arbitrarily accept/reject markings and although RAB may really be RAF how coincidental is it that a stray  marking on the pommel would exactly overlay the F with the appropriate font size in the right place?

You recently proposed that the format of RAF / 1. Letter / Number was simply a post-war inventory method to count bayonets in batches of 10,000 to make the counting process easier. If this is the case, wouldn’t the format RAF / Letter / Number have been more rational?

Also, how would this theory account for the change from 1 D 2664 to 1 A 9652, and the other double-marked bayonet that was recorded earlier? 

Incidentally, Trajan and I did hire a researcher to tread the archives in London, but he was unable to find any documentation relating to the stamping.

I hope that I haven’t trodden on your toes, certainly not intentionally!

At the end of the day we may just have to agree to disagree………

Regards,

JMB

 

 

[navydoc16]

15 hours ago, JMB1943 said:

Navydoc,

First, thanks for the new number, 1. D 3869, duly entered in the Table.

Second, the issue with the 1 A 9652 number on the cross guard— I hear you regarding your thinking that it is an authentic RAF marking (as I had previously agreed that it MAY be) but I think that you should also respect that the serial on the pommel has not been lined through.

If I were the owner of this bayonet, I would be sorely tempted to do some light cleaning of the pommel to try to have a better look at the RAF / RAB(R) stamp. Again, I don’t arbitrarily accept/reject markings and although RAB may really be RAF how coincidental is it that a stray  marking on the pommel would exactly overlay the F with the appropriate font size in the right place?

You recently proposed that the format of RAF / 1. Letter / Number was simply a post-war inventory method to count bayonets in batches of 10,000 to make the counting process easier. If this is the case, wouldn’t the format RAF / Letter / Number have been more rational?

Also, how would this theory account for the change from 1 D 2664 to 1 A 9652, and the other double-marked bayonet that was recorded earlier? 

Not at all mate, no toes stepped on at all. The whole point of me raising the topic again was to see what the concerns were and discuss them- I am on neither side of the fence. I just believe in playing Devils advocate and I think this piece really helps, because it has a lot of “data points”. 

firstly I think the 1A is before the 1D. In terms of time line- that makes more sense to me. Why the 1A is not crossed out- unsure, it does not make sense to me except perhaps it was missed.

but I would like to try treat each side of the bayonet differently, we have RAF- 1A and a 1 SD and potentially date 4-21 

we have a SOS marking which we see at various times, and as we have discussed, uncommon marking too see, but indicates the bayonet came from elsewhere and was acquired by the RAF. 

Now the 1A marking although in a wierd orientation, does conform to the other 1A that we have on record with a crossguard marking - assuming the marking requires RAF- 1X - XXXX then it does meet that parameter- remembering that when an “instruction” was given likely after WW1, it would have come with a drawing at best, but no photo for someone to copy

now the crossguards is marked on the opposite side of the 1A. Perhaps one of the reasons it was not crossed out is that it was not noticed being that it was on the opposite side to normal?

 

But the 1D is quite odd on its own too  I find it even odder than the 1A marking as we know we have odd 1A markings, but the 1D or ID is a complete deviation from what is a relatively intact system of marking. I am noting that it appears completed with an i and not a 1 - and the RAF marking is completely different to the standard.

none the less I find it hard to believe someone would already “own” a real RAF bayonet and then mark it again fictionally just for fun.

Let me go away and see if I can get the photos of all the SD 1 markings and see if there is some sort of pattern to that.
 

kind regards

g

Edited 31 July by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

Also are we tracking 1D 5282, appears to be ex-navy with a ‘41 inspection date

kind regards

g

[navydoc16]

@JMB1943 so I was searching for the original post on the other crossguard 1A bayonet - turns out the other side of that was never shown either.

she has three markings, two crossguard and one pommel + SD markings several months ahead of the other 1A. 
 

so we have 1 SD 12-1920

RAF 1. 5625 (crossguard)

RAF 1A 1063 (pommel and crossguard)

More questions than answers, but curious none the less - although it is a perfect example of why you need an alphabet to seperate the numerals in terms of reading.  

kind regards

g

 

Edited 31 July by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

1.D 8292 (I think) but I leave it to to you

kind regards

g

[JMB1943]

Navydoc,

Those photos of pommel/crossguard dual serials really put the cat amongst the pigeons!

I wish that they had surfaced a few years ago.

Regards,

JMB

[trajan]

2 hours ago, JMB1943 said:

Navydoc,

Those photos of pommel/crossguard dual serials really put the cat amongst the pigeons!

I wish that they had surfaced a few years ago.

Regards,

JMB

Indeed! Sorry to have been absent from things, JMB, and others, but other matters have been taking up my time and life the past few months.

Well, looking back on these crossguard/pommel serials is a bit of an eye opener one has to admit. There are, of course, always exceptions to prove the rule, but these go beyond that in a variety of ways. I always associate crossguard markings on P.07's at first sight with Australia, but not these ones. It seems odd though that a competent armourer would not follow usual practice and either line out the existing pommel markings or better still, polish them off, which certainly seems to have been done with more than a few army bayonets when re-marked to a new unit.  

Trajan

[navydoc16]

4 hours ago, trajan said:

Indeed! Sorry to have been absent from things, JMB, and others, but other matters have been taking up my time and life the past few months.

Well, looking back on these crossguard/pommel serials is a bit of an eye opener one has to admit. There are, of course, always exceptions to prove the rule, but these go beyond that in a variety of ways. I always associate crossguard markings on P.07's at first sight with Australia, but not these ones. It seems odd though that a competent armourer would not follow usual practice and either line out the existing pommel markings or better still, polish them off, which certainly seems to have been done with more than a few army bayonets when re-marked to a new unit.  

Trajan

Well if you follow the theory that they marked 1.,1A,1B ect on sequential order and not simultaneously. Then the errors in 1. And 1A make more sense. 
 

however the standard practice : 

R.A.F.

  1.X 

 xxxx

may have been applied retroactively to the pieces already marked and not noticed by the sellers of the bayonets.

we don’t know that they were all marked at once or by whom. 

Ie. a lot of the 1 and 1A markings are found underside the pommel and crossguard. we note alot of 1 and 1A markings on the pommel side, but some also appear to be “replacement” markings. As some of the 1 and 1A underpommel markings have been crossed out on the underside and reproduced on the pommel. Whilst others have been left on the underside intact and reproduced on the pommel. Likely others were polished or filed off as well and we have no record of this. 

kind rehards

g

[navydoc16]

1D 3869

[navydoc16]

1A 7580

SOS 

CAL 72 

[navydoc16]

1A 7338

[navydoc16]

1E 4480

Vickers 9-18

 

Edited 18 September by navydoc16

[navydoc16]

1E 4586

[navydoc16]

1D 6557

[Mattr82]

I find some of these very interesting as some have overstamped War Office sale marks. 

[navydoc16]

@Mattr82 the “sale” marks added to likely indicate transfer from the Army to the RAF - which only part of these bayonet batches have

kind regards

g