English Made M1917 Trench Knife?

[thorin6]

I just picked this up from another board, and I’m still trying to figure out what it is.  The more obvious observation is that it looks like a M1917 ACC Trench Knife, and when I bought it, I thought that there was a reasonable chance it was a modified US knife.  Now I have it in hand, and I’m quite sure it was made this way and is not an ACC modified knife.  The more interesting part isn’t the knife but the sheath, which is well made and shows some craftmanship.  The sheath is marked “ENGLAND 1917 V (which may be the British Broad Arrow proof mark),” and the guard is marked “1917” over “SCOTT & SON” with the number “180” on the side.  The inside of the knuckle guard is marked “1917.”  The blade is six-sided, unsharpened double-blade, 9 and one-half inches long in the white.  Not sure if it’s WW1 or WW2; just because it has 1917 on it doesn’t necessarily mean it was made in 1917.  The hooks to attach the sheath to a US belt would indicate it was made for US soldiers, not British soldiers.  Here are some pictures; if any one has seen something like this or owns something like this please post here.  And any speculation is welcome.

 

[militariaone]

Greetings,

 

Biggest red flag for me is the “1917” marking visible on the inside of the knuckle’s bow. That marking just so happens to be in the exact same location that it appears on a set of reproduction handles (see compared image below). True, the “U.S.” surcharge is not present on the knife you have posted, but the “1917” serendipitously appears in the exact same place, which for me is enough of an indication that the posted knife is less than 10 years old. Perhaps, the “U.S.” was filled in, ground down, and refinished/re-blued. The “1917” fonts are ever so slightly different, which is why I believe it has been refinished. Either case, the “1917” marking appearing in the same location as the reproduction’s keeps me from thinking the posted piece has any significant age. Here’s a thread with the same “1917” marking being used to create the impression something is older than it actually is:

 

Anytime I view leather (scabbards and/or pieces of leather on the knife itself), which possesses the “red luster” color as on the posted example, that color resembles newish creations, which are regularly offered for sale as being contemporary to WWI or WWII. That color comes from a form leather dye or leather dressing, which is frequently used to tone down/age new leather. See what I mean by viewing some of the leather scabbards and other bits on this thread

 

Additionally, contemporary (to WWI) English/British knife makers possessed much pride in trademarking their wares; versus the individually hand stamped dates/maker's name as viewed on the posted example.

 

In the end, I believe this is a knife and scabbard created by someone with no small amount of skill yet, once the broad arrow/Pheon stamps and use of reproduction’s parts occurs; becomes something for a potential buyer to want to believe in, but for the aforementioned reasons…..I believe, it a recent creation. Thoughts complete.

 

Best Regards,

 

V/r Lance

[thorin6]

First, thanks militariaone, as much as I hate to admit, I think you are right on.  I went back and looked at the inside of the guard, and, faint as it was, discern that the U.S. over the 1917 was removed.  Don't think I can get a good picture of it, but I can also feel it by moving my finger back and forth softly.

To me, the convincing part was the sheath, but that apparently isn't that old either.  The seller told me he had it for 10 years, and bought it from an antique dealer who didn't have any thing to add to the story.  The seller did say it could be a fantasy piece, so I really can't say I wasn't warned.

Looks like it will go into the lessons learned drawer for now, maybe sell it with attribution later.

[Doctorofwar]

Reference to this style knife as a M1917 trench knife is a “collectorism”, as they are more correctly M1918 trench knives, with the bronze knuckle successor being the M1918 Mark 1.  Makes this extremely suspect to be marked 1917 when their was never a government designation.  

[Allan H.]

Pure Fantasy! There is another version that is made with a spike bayonet and a 1918 brass handle, complete with broad arrow proof. It is also a fantasy piece.

 

Allan

[Doctorofwar]

8 minutes ago, Doctorofwar said:

Reference to this style knife as a M1917 trench knife is a “collectorism”, as they are more correctly M1918 trench knives, with the bronze knuckle successor being the M1918 Mark 1.  Makes this extremely suspect to be marked 1917 when their was never a government designation.  

I should clarify my post- I realize there were many of the real knives dated 1917, however the way this piece is marked ‘1917’ and without the markings of a known maker or ‘U.S.’ makes me think whomever made up this piece was trying to play up the knives known as M1917s among collectors to make the association and sale.  

[militariaone]

1 hour ago, thorin6 said:

First, thanks militariaone, as much as I hate to admit, I think you are right on.  I went back and looked at the inside of the guard, and, faint as it was, discern that the U.S. over the 1917 was removed.  Don't think I can get a good picture of it, but I can also feel it by moving my finger back and forth softly.

To me, the convincing part was the sheath, but that apparently isn't that old either.  The seller told me he had it for 10 years, and bought it from an antique dealer who didn't have any thing to add to the story.  The seller did say it could be a fantasy piece, so I really can't say I wasn't warned.

Looks like it will go into the lessons learned drawer for now, maybe sell it with attribution later.

 

No sweat, I possess a few ahem....lessons learnt myself😪. And those experiences were the instigation for the creation of my Frankenspike's thread. While not a post WWI creation, a few weeks ago while online, I viewed what was listed as an "unmarked" M1918 (wooden handled L. F. & C. variant) and just as I was about to purchase it (an inner voice said, "look again."), I then realized someone had simply cut off the guard's/Knuckle bow's extension where it would have been trademarked/surcharged. So while it was in fact an "unmarked" example; a more apt description would have been to refer to it as "modified" and because of that modification now unmarked. Who knows why that piece was cut off yet initially, I wanted to believe I had (finally) found an original and most importantly...a wholly complete unmarked variant. They are out there, but the knife listed was not that. I believe a lot of these types of "put together" knives are playing on the desires of collectors who are looking for something not in the books and quite often, reasonably priced. That is a heady combo for any serious collector yet, if one studies the latest reproduction's available a lot of the fog surrounding these creations may be lifted. 

 

At times, I'm amazed at how much effort (& creativity) goes into the manufacture and crafting some of these hokey examples. For what it is worth, many of these questionable examples seem to originate from the UK and perhaps why the broad arrow's/Pheon's fetish is so prevalent on/linked to these creations. 

 

Best Regards,

 

V/r Lance