calibre792x57.y Posted 19 June , 2014 Share Posted 19 June , 2014 Here is one for bayonet collectors, a P.1888 Mk2 with oil clearing hole in the pommel. Although these are usually said to be for the Long Lee-Enfield, the L.E. Mk1 did have a clearing rod and was fitted with the bayonet with the clearing hole in through the grip. The clearing rod was deleted on the L.E. Mk 1*. The rod was abandoned on all rifles including those Metfords in service in 1899, so they would accept all the P.1888s. This one was manufactured by Mole of Birmingham and the ricasso is stamped 1.00., presumably January 1900. There is no Crown or Royal Cipher, although the blade is profusely marked with Inspector's stamps for '03,'04 and '05. The pommel is stamped 2WTS (Second Wiltshire Battn.) but in line with the axis of the bayonet instead of across the pommel as is usual. Also unusual is the date stamp to the right of the unit mark.'1.01' probably the date of acceptance into service with this unit. I have seen this on Webley revolvers but not on bayonets before. The bayonet came with a brown leather frog which has every appearance of having been fitted for many years. It is an unmarked commercial pattern copying the regulation Patt.14, but lacks the strap to secure the helve carrier which suggests that it was a V.T.C. item. A bit different anyway. - SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 19 June , 2014 Author Share Posted 19 June , 2014 Here an overview. - SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 19 June , 2014 Share Posted 19 June , 2014 Here an overview. - SW SW, Nice bayonet, with as you say, a very interesting set of pommel markings. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 19 June , 2014 Share Posted 19 June , 2014 A very interesting example - thanks for posting SW. I would think it's been subjected to a 'spit and polish regime' somewhere along the way (probably during it's military service) A closer inspection of the markings on the ricasso show the stampings to be worn back commensurate with said polishing. A lightly stamped cypher could well have been erased. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 20 June , 2014 Author Share Posted 20 June , 2014 Possible - there is no real sign of 'spit and polish', the edges of the ricasso and blade are not rounded off, and some of the marks are clear and other later dates faint. It underwent three inspections tho' so it could be that it was polished before going back into service. The grips show some wear too. - SW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 20 June , 2014 Share Posted 20 June , 2014 Here is a comparison to help illustrate the differences in the ricasso stampings between bayonets that would have been in use around the same time. My example is a converted P1888 to P1903 also with reissue dates and matching inspection markings. Note the crispness and clarity of the markings. While there is some wear clearly evident, the stampings still show that deep edged imprint. That's why I believe SW's example has been well polished. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 4 July , 2014 Share Posted 4 July , 2014 Generally agree with SS on this. The markings on some of my early P.1888's are really very faint, much fainter than inspection marks, etc.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 22 July , 2014 Share Posted 22 July , 2014 For your interest here's a Wilkinson Metford blade that just arrived, ricasso completely filled with reissue dates, khaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 24 July , 2014 Share Posted 24 July , 2014 For your interest here's a Wilkinson Metford blade that just arrived, ricasso completely filled with reissue dates, khaki Now, where do you start on working that lot out? Good luck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 24 July , 2014 Share Posted 24 July , 2014 Thanks, I had thought of printing the image, and eliminating each date using a highlighter, unless anyone has better ideas, trouble is, it is a jumble of dates and inspectors marks, khaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 25 July , 2014 Share Posted 25 July , 2014 Hi Khaki, I can see at least five... IF they follow the bottom one then it looks like the month is above the year... What's the original issue date on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 25 July , 2014 Share Posted 25 July , 2014 I count 8, now that is a project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 25 July , 2014 Share Posted 25 July , 2014 Nice little project to occupy the summer months certainly I find it hard enough just doing 'Fraktur marks'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 25 July , 2014 Share Posted 25 July , 2014 I count 8, now that is a project. So far I can see twelve that are recognizable, they are 95, 96, 97, 00, 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08. these are the larger numeral stamps as opposed to what I believe to be inspectors stamps and are smaller I cannot see the date of manufacture, interesting that the years 98/99 are not there, maybe the bayonet was in South Africa.? Only other markings are on the pommel, what appears to be S 1 (lined out) and a rack number 155 do those years coincide with what you guys see? thanks khaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 25 July , 2014 Share Posted 25 July , 2014 Can you make it slightly bigger. The picture that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 25 July , 2014 Share Posted 25 July , 2014 , Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 25 July , 2014 Share Posted 25 July , 2014 .That's about as big a picture I can get without losing too much definition khaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
auchonvillerssomme Posted 25 July , 2014 Share Posted 25 July , 2014 I would agree with your numbers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 25 July , 2014 Share Posted 25 July , 2014 Thanks, I don't know how unusual this is, not being a bayonet student as such, but I think that is the most I have seen on a blade of that period. khaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 25 July , 2014 Share Posted 25 July , 2014 Does the Wilkinson address on P88's come in different styles? It appears to me that it may say WILKINSON. LOND, is that the standard address/makers mark? khaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 25 July , 2014 Share Posted 25 July , 2014 Thanks, I don't know how unusual this is, not being a bayonet student as such, but I think that is the most I have seen on a blade of that period. khaki Ii is certainly way above the ordinary! I have seen them with up to three markings, but none with as many as that... It must have been back and forth like nobody/s business.... Does the Wilkinson address on P88's come in different styles? It appears to me that it may say WILKINSON. LOND, is that the standard address/makers mark? khaki There are certainly variations - I can think of three or so off-hand. I'll have a look-see when I get home. IIRC, the original date of issue should be on the same side and above the Wilkinson mark - I like these P 1888's, but am by no means all-knowledgeable on them! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 25 July , 2014 Share Posted 25 July , 2014 Many thanks, I will look forward to your further research, khaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 25 July , 2014 Share Posted 25 July , 2014 As far as I understand it - but my own collection and data list is small - the WILKINSON LONDON was used after about 1890 or so, but there may be some 1888's with the WILKINSON SWORD COMPANY mark. Can you let us have a photograph of the other ricasso, with crown, VR, original issue date, and maker's mark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 25 July , 2014 Share Posted 25 July , 2014 Unable to assist, as the crown/cypher side is the one that has all the reissue dates, and the WILKINSON. LOND mark although visible through a loupe will not reproduce with my camera any clearer than in post # 17. The other side has in descending order broad arrow over WD, an inspectors? mark, crown over 35 over W and lastly the bend test mark. Maybe the inspectors mark is a clue to the original acceptance/manufacturing date? khaki I am now paying more attention to the lined out pommel marking, what I thought is a badly struck S 1, now appears to be S L, maybe POW South Lancashire? (k) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 25 July , 2014 Share Posted 25 July , 2014 Unable to assist, as the crown/cypher side is the one that has all the reissue dates, and the WILKINSON. LOND mark although visible through a loupe will not reproduce with my camera any clearer than in post # 17. Oh, sorry, I see what you mean now... I didn't have a chance earlier to look at the bigger photo you posted... As for Inspector's marks and their dates and identities - what do you fancy doing in your retirement??? TOTALLY unexplored field there waiting for somebody to take it on! 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