Correct Scabbard for 1907 JA Chapman Bayonet?

[tanks1921]

Should it have the round stud?

[tanks1921]

or the tear-drop stud?

[tanks1921]

or does it matter?

[tanks1921]

...also, is the frog correct?

[P-40Warhawk]

Hi, your 1907 pattern bayonet is a nice example. It does not have any indication that I see of a post WWI rework (later a hole was added to the pommel, and your bayonet is on the cusp of that change having been introduced IIRC). The scabbard is a nice piece, along with the frog. Now by correct, it is correct for later issue, but if you mean correct for WWI, the bayonet is absolutely a nice WWI example. The scabbard may be marked or dated on the back along the leather seam (don't try to removed the canvas frog from the scabbard, it is probably tight and there is no need to remove it), while the frog is a very nice 1941 dated example (very nice to have that earlier WWII date). Now for a WWI piece, yes the tear drop scabbard would be appropriate, and a special frog would have been used in WWI. Depending on the equipment pattern issued of course, the most commonly used in WWI would have been the P-08 frog which had a web tab on the back for the helve holder (it held the handle for the pick mattock). Today intact and original P-08 frogs are very hard to come by, and very expensive thanks to a healthy WWI interest among UK collectors.

 

The frog and scabbard are indicative of a WWII era issue, which is normal as the P-07 was issued through WWII. The bayonet appears to be in a WWI configuration lacking any additional post-WWI dated markings (usually found on the blade), and has not undergone a post-WWI upgrade to add the hole in the pommel. Nice piece.

[tanks1921]

You are correct, there is no hole in the pommel. Yes, I was referring to being correct for WW1. You confirmed what I suspected all along. There may be markings underneath the frog, but it is very tight and I was concerned that I would damage something. Thank you very much for your help!