trajan Posted 4 May , 2014 Share Posted 4 May , 2014 Made a nice find today at a really nice price! It's not in the best of condition, with muzzle-ring bent back slightly, and it does need some cleaning, but it is a 'Wilkinson London', 12/92, Mk.1 2nd type, and the pommel is marked '7 MAN' over a serial number which I think is '714'. Well, quite an exciting find for me, partly because it is the first regimentally-marked P.1888 I have ever seen in Turkey (my others are unmarked [except for the 'Naval' one], apart from serial numbers), but also because of its marking - if I am correct, that is, in my understanding that the 7th Manchester Regiment was at Gallipoli with the 127th Brigade, which is why I thought it deserved a new thread! Of course, I can't prove that this particular one went there, but IIRC there is a consensus that some of the units at Gallipoli had these bayonets, and having found this Gallipoli-unit marked bayonet here in Turkey it is certainly very tempting to view it as a possible Turkish capture! Whatever, it is a nice addition to my small collection of these P.1888's, and an extra star in my collection as a whole as being the only one I can say 'Could very well have been at Gallipoli'! I'll post a photograph when I get the pommel cleaned up a bit more. Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 4 May , 2014 Share Posted 4 May , 2014 Nice work Trajan - sounds like a great find. I have a real soft spot for regimentally marked P88s, and these bayonets were definitely used at Gallipoli. Looking forward to seeing the photos. Cheers, J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 5 May , 2014 Author Share Posted 5 May , 2014 Thanks! I'll get going on cleaning this tonight. To tell you the truth I like P.1888 bayonets, and when I saw this one I basically decided to buy it anyway, if it was at a reasonable price - and then I picked it up and saw the letters 'MA' and that there was a serial number underneath, so that was the end of any hesitation! To be honest I was expecting the guy to ask around TL 300 = GBP 85 or more for it (they can be ridiculous prices here: there was a 10/17 P1907 with scabbard and post-WW1 regimental-markings three tables down for which the seller was asking TL975 = GBP 275!), and although I restrict myself to spending TL 500 = GBP 140 a month on bayonets (I get a Turkish salary - ) I was quite prepared to blow that limit for this one... And got it for TL 150 = GBP 43... So, one very happy Julian! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 5 May , 2014 Author Share Posted 5 May , 2014 Well, here it is after a wee bit of work. The overall condition is average to good for what I find over here and no match for what you, SS, and others have in your collections - but it is mine and it was a bargain price! I am not certain as yet how much further to go with cleaning it: but if I do then it will be a summer job! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 5 May , 2014 Share Posted 5 May , 2014 Great find, you've cleaned up that marking quite well, especially given it wasn't fully visible previously. I would agree that finding a 7 MAN P88 bayonet in Turkey would strongly suggest a Gallipoli capture. Regarding condition, as far as I'm concerned unit marked bayonets are unique and therefore condition is not really important; and I'd much rather have a beaten up bayonet with a story to tell than a pristine bayonet which sat in storage throughout the war! I can't really see properly from the photos but would probably suggest that it doesn't even need any further cleaning (as I suspect this would probably just expose raw metal). All in all, congrats on a super find and great buy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 5 May , 2014 Author Share Posted 5 May , 2014 Thanks! Your comments are much appreciated! I do generally like to leave patina on, as found, with the minimal necessary for showing markings, etc., and if required to unfreeze the press-stud (not needed here). Like you, I always think that it is the beaten up ones that have real character, although my wife prefers that I display the shinier ones! Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 7 May , 2014 Share Posted 7 May , 2014 I'm surprised your wife lets you display them at all! Mine are all packed away in a large box. Having said that I do have an 18 month old roaming the house so its probably for the best... Once again great bayonet - thanks for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 8 May , 2014 Author Share Posted 8 May , 2014 I recognise the situation Jscott - I have two boys, one a 7-years and t'other 5-years... Most of my bayonets are in drawers with some hanging on rails in their scabbards although the ones I am working with are on my desk, but the kids have been suitably warned and are so used to seeing them around that they never touch or bother with them. There again, mustn't get to complacent as things might change so I guess I should change my working ways... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdt Posted 12 May , 2014 Share Posted 12 May , 2014 Hi Trajan, Guess what I got yesterday! Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T8HANTS Posted 12 May , 2014 Share Posted 12 May , 2014 When I was a lad I used to display my bayonet collection on the wall my bedroom,until the day I knocked one down and it stuck point first in the floor. Neatly dividing my big toe from the next little piggy, (I was barefoot). No blood was spilt, but I learned my lesson.I think the offending item was 1888 pattern. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 12 May , 2014 Share Posted 12 May , 2014 Well isn't that a coincidence! Slightly miffed that a glut of 7 Manchester marked P88s are coming to light and I'm not spotting any of them! Lovely bayonet Tony - very nice markings. I'm assuming you didn't source yours from a Turkish market? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 13 May , 2014 Author Share Posted 13 May , 2014 Well, I'll be... I don't quite know what, but... Talk about no. 7 buses... Interesting that yours is numbered 150-odd up from mine, but was inspected a month earlier, in 11/92 - so these belong to a job-lot of P.1888's that was numbered as they came to hand when required by the 7th Manchester Regiment. Also interesting (and to an extent re-assuring!) to see that yours has the same faint makers ricasso marks - IIRC, there is barely a hint of the crown or Vicky's cypher on mine, etc., and the Wilkinson London stamp is pretty faint, but visible - I'll check when I get home. Jscott, don't worry, one will come your way one day - and it'll probably have the best and clearest set of markings of the lot! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdt Posted 13 May , 2014 Share Posted 13 May , 2014 Hi JScott, Trajan, Not sourced in Turkey! From a dealer who I think is based in the Midlands somewhere. I have been collecting for about 5 years now, though I've been going to a lot more fairs in the last 2 years. I can't say I've really seen so many regimentally marked bayonets, and perhaps only a couple of others marked to the Manchester Regiment, so it is a bit of a coincidence! They really are similar, both inspected in late 1892. However mine has no manufacturer's mark, which I think means it was made by Enfield. Interesting to try and draw further conclusions. Yours, Trajan, with its Turkish provenance points to service at Gallipoli, and maybe therefore mine too as it's number is so close. When did the 7th Manchester's get them though? Is 1892/3 too early for a Territorial battalion to receive Lee Metfords? Were they first with a regular unit and then went to the 7th after the Lee Enfield appeared in 1895? Cheers, Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 14 May , 2014 Author Share Posted 14 May , 2014 Hi Tony, It would be nice if we could tempt S>S> into this discussion as he has a good collection and a good knowledge of these P.1888's! In the meantime, yes, yours, with its crowned E inspector marking is - as far as I know! - an Enfield product. I suspect SS has a listing of these stamps, but (although I am happy to be corrected) I don't think anyone knows very much about how the inspector stamps were distributed / issued. That is to say, although I would imagine that each inspector had his own personal numbered stamp (rather like the Waffenamt guys in WWII), I don't know if there is any evidence to confirm this. Either way, an Enfield number '9' stamp is much lower than anything else I have seen (but I haven't really looked at these very carefully). S>S> - any comments? Anyway, here are both sides of the ricasso - I haven't really worked on cleaning or looked too carefully at these yet (a rather demanding full-time job plus two even more demanding infant boys!), but I think there is enough here to confirm what I mentioned earlier - some markings are very faint, others not so... E.g, the crown is barely visible on the first photograph, the 'V' beneath that slightly more so; and on the other, the 'W' of the WD mark can just be seen and the inspector's mark is just visible as a crown over a two digit number beginning with '4' over the 'W' for Wilkinson Julian PS: Tony, it looks you are getting a nice collection there of really good examples - congratulations and happy hunting! Are you specialising on UK and Commonwealth ones? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 14 May , 2014 Share Posted 14 May , 2014 Yes a P1888 without a makers mark will be an Enfield made before 1895 (give or take). But I have never seen an Inspection mark with such a low number (9) I do have a listing and their all double digits roughly between 20 and 50, with the factories letter, so you see Enfield, Wilkinson, Sanderson & B for Birmingham. I believe they were allocated to each individual Inspector, and some are very common to each of the makers. This example may have been made years earlier.? Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 14 May , 2014 Author Share Posted 14 May , 2014 ... Yours, Trajan, with its Turkish provenance points to service at Gallipoli, and maybe therefore mine too as it's number is so close. When did the 7th Manchester's get them though? Is 1892/3 too early for a Territorial battalion to receive Lee Metfords? Were they first with a regular unit and then went to the 7th after the Lee Enfield appeared in 1895? I agree on the Gallipoli probability - one that got back home!?!? I don't know anything about rifle issues, but given that we have two bayonets with different makers and dates but Machester marked, my feeling is that although they were quite probably originally issued soon after being made, they could have gone back into storage before being re-issued to the 7th Battalion TF. There again, as I understand it, the 7th Battalion TF were formed around 1908 from the 4th Volunteer Battalion, the Manchester Regiment, which did see service in the Boer War with the Volunteer Service Companies. So, could be that they were already to hand when the unit was mobilised in 1914! Yes a P1888 without a makers mark will be an Enfield made before 1895 (give or take). But I have never seen an Inspection mark with such a low number (9) I do have a listing and their all double digits roughly between 20 and 50, with the factories letter, so you see Enfield, Wilkinson, Sanderson & B for Birmingham. I believe they were allocated to each individual Inspector, and some are very common to each of the makers. This example may have been made years earlier.? Cheers, S>S Thanks for looking S>S>, told you it would only take a jiffy! Thanks also for confirming that the '9' is indeed a low number! I guess a long-serving inspector involved here! Which naturally leads to the next bit of necessary research - when WAS the Enfield inspectorate established, that is to say, which is the earliest known (by year and type) bayonet with one of these marks? TTFN, Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N White Posted 14 May , 2014 Share Posted 14 May , 2014 Trajan- While unfortunately not regimentally marked, I thought you might enjoy a look at this mess of an 1888. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdt Posted 14 May , 2014 Share Posted 14 May , 2014 Hi Trajan, My theme is generally bayonets of WW1. Obviously that's a bit wide really as it pretty much covers most of the latter half of the19C as well! However interests are beginning to focus as follows: British regimental marked 1888, 1903, 1907 French, all, and especially 1866's of the Franco-Prussian War Austrian regimental marked Collection has increased a lot over the last year since I persuaded myself that I am not spending money but investing in my pension fund!!! Cheers, Tony P.S. For N White - is that an Enfield 1891 date? What is the Enfield inspector number on the other side? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N White Posted 14 May , 2014 Share Posted 14 May , 2014 Msdt- you see what I see. Different pictures with and without flash make different markings pop more or less. My best guess is 6 91. Did I mention someone chromed it...? Stamp on other side is (as best I recall, out at dinner with the inlaws) E45. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 15 May , 2014 Author Share Posted 15 May , 2014 Trajan- While unfortunately not regimentally marked, I thought you might enjoy a look at this mess of an 1888. I not so secretly rather like them like that! But it is remarkable how some of these P.1888's got re-issued and stamped again and again, and others just have the one issue mark! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 15 May , 2014 Author Share Posted 15 May , 2014 Collection has increased a lot over the last year since I persuaded myself that I am not spending money but investing in my pension fund!!! That's what I tell my wife, but every so often she calls my bluff and calculates for me what the maximum value might be were I ever to sell them... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N White Posted 15 May , 2014 Share Posted 15 May , 2014 That's what I tell my wife, but every so often she calls my bluff and calculates for me what the maximum value might be were I ever to sell them... Mine just looks at me and says "but it doesn't matter how much it's worth, because we both know you'll never sell it.". To be fair, she's also the first to say "you found that for that cheap? Buy it!". Back on topic, the reverse of that 1888. As I recalled, 45. So, if it is an earlyish one, (and it ought to be, being the type with the clearance hole through the grips, like the above), it did not meet the now famous inspector 9. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 18 August , 2014 Author Share Posted 18 August , 2014 Stumbled upon this nice photograph of a group of the Manchester Regiment lads off to war - from Manchester library, but posted with no further details on: http://www.alrightposters.com/crolla/victoriancrollas.html These are Lee-Metford rifles aren't they? Or are they MLE's? The cut-out on the buff looks more like a LM to me, but I know zilch about rifles... Either way, probably some MAN marked P1888 bayonets there!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now