The 3 Inch Crossguard Wilkinson First Pattern

An Analysis Of This Enigmatic & Rare Wilkinson First Pattern F-S Fighting Knife

by

Roy Shadbolt

Introduction

When collecting or studying the original Wilkinson First Pattern F-S Knife, one could be forgiven for thinking that, at least on first glance, if you’ve seen one you’ve seen them all.  This is often bore out by the fact that many collectors choose to have just one representative example within their collection.  However the concept that all are identical (wear and condition excepting) is not strictly true.  When enough examples are studied it soon becomes clear that there are indeed quite a number of differences to be found.  Although such differences are usually only observed on the more seldom-seen and rarer examples, they are still worthy of note.

Referring to such rare examples as ‘variations’ is not strictly correct, however.  Perhaps more correctly, one would term them as production anomalies within the First Pattern production period (November 1940 - August 1941).  An example of just such a rare First Pattern and perhaps one that has caused more discussion than most are those few examples that feature a crossguard of 3 inches in length; a full third longer than one normally encounters on standard production knives.

The complete story of these knives is not fully known.  However with recent discoveries of period documentation along with continued and exhaustive research into numerous original First Pattern F-S Knives, it has become possible to hypothesize on likely scenarios that go some way toward explaining this anomaly.

Those few Wilkinson First Pattern F-S Knives having been observed with a crossguard that measures ‘3’ inches in length have attracted many unsubstantiated stories.  This has been further exacerbated by a number of fake examples - those fakes being more prolific than original and correct examples.  For many years these knives (along with the unsubstantiated stories attached to them) have caused much consternation within the F-S collecting community.  What follows are my own thoughts and analysis based on many years of study and the personal observation of over one hundred First Patterns.  The conclusions put forward are by no means proved but do offer a plausible explanation that fits the timeline of production, surviving documentation and most importantly, the knives themselves.

The Facts As We Know Them

Through the diligent research carried out by Robert Wilkinson-Latham into Wilkinson’s surviving records a few original documents have been identified which not only prove the existence of the 3 inch crossguard First Pattern but also indicate that knives were indeed returned for a re-fit of the smaller 2 inch crossguard.  This appears to have been initiated as of 21st January (1941) with the work being started as of 9th February of that same year.

It has been suggested that these knives were of the original design and/or production and circumstantial evidence along with surviving documentation certainly indicate the possibility of this.  This hypothesis, though valid, appears on the face of it to be inconsistent with those other knives which have details pointing toward early or first production (see the article ‘The Earliest 'Trials' First Patterns').  It has also been considered that these knives were part of a ‘special’ order of some sort.  The latter explanation is not an unreasonable conclusion as such orders were known to have been produced by Wilkinson.  However as of this writing no evidence is suggestive of this latter explanation.  

So which is it?  Or, is it possible that more than one scenario is correct?  Let’s look at some of the evidence and see if further conclusions can be drawn.

Fortunately there are a small handful of examples that on very close and careful examination do indeed appear genuine.  There is also one potentially important example with provenance in the collection of my good friend and fellow author Ron Flook.  Ron and I have discussed this example on many occasions and although I have not personally examined it (due to Ron and I being separated by the Atlantic Ocean), I have no doubt of it's authenticity.  Add to this that there is also some scant surviving documentation it becomes more clear that such knives at one point did exist.  What as yet is not clear is how they fit into the F-S history. 

Three official Wilkinson documents have survived which reference these knives and though they don’t fully answer all of our questions, they do offer some tantalizing information.  Specific comments and observations taken from their content may be prudent at this point.  I will refer to these as documents A, B & C respectively and I will discuss these in the order in which I believe they were created.

Document ‘A’

Wilkinson Internal Memorandum Dated 21st January 1941

This internal memorandum from J.W. Latham to Charlie Rose appears to be the first written account of the 3 inch crossguard.  It is dated 21st January 1941 which is a full nine weeks after the original order was placed and after production started.  Marked ‘Urgent’ the text reads:

 “I have just spoken with Capt L.J.C. Wood at the War Office concerning the special knives we are making.

He has asked that we make the cross guard 2 ins in place of the 3in cross guard originally designed and supplied.  

Please would you URGENTLY get made new sets of cross guard tools reflecting this change and also either modify or make new tools for shaping the cross guard blanks.  

As this is a PRIORITY, please ask Mr Vaughan to leave what he is doing and assist you and if necessary use some of the Night Shift Toolmakers.”

In this memorandum there are a few points worthy of note.  The reference to “special” (knives) is interesting as one would think the more apt term to use would be ‘F-S’ (knives).  There could be two explanations for this; one is that these were indeed a ‘special’ order.  However it is also possible that as production was still within the first few months perhaps the term F-S had not become commonly adopted.

Another important phrase to point out which I feel is really quite significant is the request to, “get made new sets of cross guard tools reflecting this change”.  This implies the original set of tools were indeed created for the 3 inch crossguard and lends more weight to the theory that this was indeed the original design.

Document ‘B’

Wilkinson Internal Memorandum Dated 21st January 1941

This memorandum created on the same day as document ‘A’ was sent to Mr Naughten and is in reference to finished knives already in stock.  It reads:

“Mr Naughten

Further to our telephone conversation, please ensure that any Fighting Knives held in stock are to be returned TODAY to the Works.

On NO account are any of these knives to be sold as there has been an URGENT change in the pattern.”

Firstly note there is no reference to ‘special’ (knives) but rather the term “Fighting Knives” is used in its place.  This is more normal and may have little significance but I feel it is worth observing none the less.  Perhaps the most telling phrase is “change in the pattern” which does very much imply that there was a standard pattern which one can presume is the one with the 3 inch guard to which the change is going to be made.

Document ‘C’

Wilkinson Day Work Sheet Dated 9th February 1941

This last document which comes a surprising 19 days after the initial “URGENT” request reads:

“Change over cross guard on FS Knife”

Though seemingly self-explanatory, this quote does clearly refer to ‘replacing’ the crossguard on existing knives as opposed to new production and may reflect (at least in part) those knives mentioned in memo ‘B’ which were to be “returned”.  Perhaps the delay of 19 days reflects that the new tooling had now been made and production had been resumed, leaving these ‘in-stock’ knives to be returned and retro fitted with the smaller crossguard.

Analysis & Conclusions

On the face of it and with no other documentation to study, it would seem reasonable to draw a conclusion from these details that the original pattern was of the longer 3 inch guard and that it was subsequently replaced by the 2 inch guard as of late January.  

However this hypothesis creates some problems.  The handful of examples with a 3 inch guard and believed to be correct clearly show construction details that are of the standard later pattern and not of those found on earlier knives.

These two ‘types’ of F-S, the 3 inch guard and the early production (2 inch guard) would seem incompatible with one another.  So what are we to make of these knives and how do they relate to one another?

These two seemingly incompatible types of First Pattern appear to be at odds which one another.  On one hand we have the early production (hand-fitted) knives that when examined clearly show evidence of ‘first’ or ‘trials’ production.  On the other hand we have these three pieces of documentation that seem to point to the original pattern being that with a 3 inch guard.  If we accept that the trials knives, the documents and the (non-fake) surviving 3 inch guard knives are all original and correct - and I believe this to be true - then I conclude there can only be one logical scenery that marries up all of these seemingly conflicting facts.

As per my earlier research and subsequent article (The Earliest 'Trials' First Patterns) it seems reasonable that these knives were part of a ‘trials’ batch of knives produced in November of 1940 to iron out the kinks, test the tooling and prove the concept.  Although the small group of surviving examples known all have 2 inch guards fitted, it is possible that these were originally fitted with a 3 inch guard.  This would tie in with the surviving documentation already discussed.  After the initial trials run, changes were made (such changes being pointed out in the article mentioned earlier) in order to streamline the process and make it more efficient.  These subsequent knives of the ‘simplified’ pattern ,and still with the three inch guard, were continued to be produced until 21st January 1941 at which point the decision was made to reduce the guard length.  All knives in stock including the trials knives and updated simplified pattern underwent a refitting to have their guards either shortened or new ones fitted.

Notes:  The known surviving knives consist of five example of the trials knives with the new replaced 2 inch guard.  Presumable these ‘hand-fitted’ guards were cut downs/shortened?  And four examples of the later standard pattern with 3 in crossguards.

As of writing this is the only hypothesis (and a working one at that) that seems to explain the evidence available.  The challenge of course will always be the very small numbers of surviving examples from which we can extrapolate details suitable enough to draw any conclusions.  The trials knives which have survived are only five in total and all have the shorter 2 inch guard.  Whereas to date I have only identified four examples of the knives with a 3 inch guard that I’m comfortable calling correct and original.  And all of these are of the later, simplified design (post-trials production).

Proposed Timeline:

4th November 1940 - Meeting held at Wilkinsons and design agreed.

14th November 1940 - First order for F-S Knives received.

? November 1940 - First ‘trials’ production run carried out to test tools and concept.

(all the above with 3 inch crossguard)

? December 1940 - Changes made to simplify process and standard production commenced.

21st January 1941 - 3 inch crossguard reduced to two inch

9th February 1941 - All knives in-stock (including trials knives) returned to be fitted with shorter crossguard.

Some Closing Comments

In summation it is worth reflecting on my approach to this challenging topic.  All research along with any subsequent hypotheses and conclusions are based on the actual study and personal observations of surviving examples of First Pattern knives.  Over one hundred examples over many years have been examined and studied.  This not only includes those rare examples discussed here in this article but also examples of fake knives for completeness and comparison.  A great deal of time was also expended in studying and interpreting many original Wilkinson documentation (some of which is not shown for reasons of relevance).

What has not been done during this research and subsequent report is to attempt to embrace and explain any myths, stories or rumor or to try and make the facts ‘fit’ such unsubstantiated speculation.  I feel that such an approach is detrimental to the subject and has little or at best a very limited place within honest, sincere and forthright research.  I make the latter comment because I feel it is important to distinguish between these two approaches, as so often the latter approach can easily obtain a small following even if misguided or incorrect.  If we as F-S enthusiasts wish to expand our understanding of these knives and pursue the authentic history behind them, then we must continue to keep a clear and sensible approach and resist the temptation to embrace and present the myth as fact, as such an approach will always be detrimental to the subject matter.

Acknowledgments:

All documents featured are the copyright of Robert Wilkinson Latham.  The Author would like to extend his sincere gratitude to Robert Wilkinson Latham and also Ron Flook for their longtime friendship and ongoing support and assistance.

Other Articles On Related Topics You May Also Enjoy