1888 Bayonet to 3rd Bat. Scots Guards

[msdt]

My latest acquisition, marked to the 3rd Battalion of the Scots Guards. I am posting this to try to further my understanding of re-issue marks.

Like many 1888's this one has many re-issue marks: 02 / 03 / 04 / 05 on left ricasso, and 16 on the right. One recent post to do with removing hooked quillions stated that inspectors toured the regiments; as the inspectors' marks for the dates all look to be Enfield ones, does this mean that in the years of peace before WW1 they did an annual tour and inspected all the equipment? I'd assumed that 're-issue' marks were to do with repairs or re-issue, but these 1888's just have too many for that.

An additional point of interest with this bayonet is the regimental mark. The 3rd battalion seems to have been disbanded in 1906, and reformed in 1914. When did they get this bayonet? If they disbanded in 1906, you'd expect a mark around that time - indeed I'd expect an inspection mark when the bayonet is turned in as when the regimental mark is struck out. So could the bayonet have gone to the 3rd SG in 1916? Indeed is the regimental mark struck out, in which case maybe 1916 represents the removal of the bayonet from 3 SG (the plot thickens - and the audience thins as my dad used to say!).

Haven't found out too much about the third battalion so far.

Cheers,

Tony

[shippingsteel]

Tony, my take on your bayonet is that it is an extremely early production Enfield Patt.1888 Mk.II ... made July of 1899 (these only hit the List of Changes in May)

I would describe all the inspections in 02, 03, 04, 05 and in '16 as "reissue marks" however this term is a catchall for issue in and out of stores as well as repairs.

I wasn't there so I don't know exactly what went on, and I'm sure there was quite a lot of difference between the various units, in the way they did things as well.

During those peacetime years I think a lot of the marks are "depot" marks, struck when being issued out of stores, as Battalions went training or shipped abroad.

As far as I'm aware the regiment only had 3rd (Reserve) Battalion during the war, when it was formed in 1914 as a Training unit to furnish drafts to the Line units.

My best guess would be, it was an unknown units bayonet in the earlier years, before being issued to the Guards c.1914 then possibly returned to stores in 1916.

As always it is hard to say with any certainty, you can at best try to "join the dots". Regardless it is certainly a nice bayonet with plenty of history (& wartime used)

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

I would describe all the inspections in 02, 03, 04, 05 and in '16 as "reissue marks" however this term is a catchall for issue in and out of stores as well as repairs.

I wasn't there so I don't know exactly what went on, and I'm sure there was quite a lot of difference between the various units, in the way they did things as well.

During those peacetime years I think a lot of the marks are "depot" marks, struck when being issued out of stores, as Battalions went training or shipped abroad.

As far as I'm aware the regiment only had 3rd (Reserve) Battalion during the war, when it was formed in 1914 as a Training unit to furnish drafts to the Line units.

My best guess would be, it was an unknown units bayonet in the earlier years, before being issued to the Guards c.1914 then possibly returned to stores in 1916.

As always it is hard to say with any certainty, you can at best try to "join the dots". Regardless it is certainly a nice bayonet with plenty of history (& wartime used)

A very nice bayonet indeed!

SS has put his finger on a number of points where nobody simply don't know what is going on. Why do some P1888 (and other GB ww1 period bayonets) have a multitude of 're-issue' stamps and others none? Off-hand, none of my very small P.1888 collection have re-issue marks, although one at least, a regimentally-marked example, quite possibly / probably saw service-use in WW1...

The matter of re-issue marks (correlated with inspector's marks?) could do with some study and cold chiseling to see - even from what is viewable on GWF - if any patterns emerge...

However, to be pedantic (but accuracy is important here!), let's be clear that 'wartime used' and 'wartime issued' are very different matters! As I know you will be aware. your example was issued, apparently, to a reserve unit, and so strictu sensu the evidence is that it is 'wartime issued', not necessarily 'wartime used', as in active service use...

SS, no comments on the grip marking?

[msdt]

Thanks for the replies guys. Maybe we need a third category: wartime used for training!

As shippingsteel stated on the Hooked Quillion post, a great number of surviving WW1 or before marked 1907's are to Reserve/Training battalions.

I am still curious re the 're-issue' date stamps. They all come with a correlating inspector's mark. As these are always official stamps like the Enfield ones here, then even if they are depot marks doesn't that mean an Enfield inspector must be present?

Cheers,

Tony

[jscott]

Lovely bayonet Tony, thanks for sharing. My experience is that you can't place too much store in reissue marks - I have several P88s which are regimentally marked to wartime raised territorial units and which do not have any reissue marks at all. I have about 12 P88s in total and without pulling them all out my recollection is that very few have reissue marks (and all are unit marked). So quite a similar experience to that described by SS and Trajan.

Cheers, J

[shippingsteel]

I am still curious re the 're-issue' date stamps. They all come with a correlating inspector's mark. As these are always official stamps like the Enfield ones here, then even if they are depot marks doesn't that mean an Enfield inspector must be present?

This is another grey area, which can only be guessed at (and theories developed from experience and observations over a range of dates) but these are my thoughts.

During the earlier years of the Patt.88 bayonet you see a wide variation in inspector marks, which are nearly always related to the factory of their production or origin.

But later this process changed until you will see an overwhelming predominance of RSAF Enfield inspection markings, which I believe signifies a 'centralisation' effect.

Now these inspection marks were not all applied AT Enfield, but I think applied by armourers and inspectors that were 'accredited' (supervised) under Enfield authority.

So to give a modern analogy, these inspection marks are attached under a QA type system whereby the inspectors are identified by number, providing some traceback.

Cheers, S>S

[shippingsteel]

Here is another example of a 1916 "reissue" marking on a P1888 from my collection. You can clearly see the similarities in date and inspection mark.

Tony's example on the left, with mine on the right for comparison. The stampings are both very similar, possibly pointing to an organised programme.

In the absence of any written evidence, I believe this manner of observation is the only way in which we gain an understanding of the processes used.

Cheers, S>S

EDIT. Also of interest in relation to Tony's other thread is the shape of the number 1 in the '16 stamp. Not hard to mistake for a letter I stamp in a hurry.!

[trajan]

And don't forget that Wilkinson example with a Wilkinson inspectors stamp over-stamped by an Enfield one.

As I pointed out earlier...

The matter of re-issue marks (correlated with inspector's marks?) could do with some study and cold chiseling to see - even from what is viewable on GWF - if any patterns emerge...

And as SS concurred...

This is another grey area, which can only be guessed at (and theories developed from experience and observations over a range of dates) ...

So a little bit of archaeologically-oriented forensic analysis required on these markings to get rid of the guesswork! But this research and analysis is only of use if people are willing to share the data...

Trajan

[msdt]

I'm completely with you, shippingsteel and Trajan, by getting more of a handle on how these marks were applied will mean that a bit more of the bayonet's individual history can be pieced together.

My 1907, pictured below, has a similar series of re-issue marks. To me these point to some kind of annual inspection regime during the years of peace. Maybe this varied by regiment, and obviously would be dependent on location (especially if posted overseas). Bootneck put the following in his post on the HQ thread:

"The WA appointed armourers teams visit units in a set sequence, at set periods of time. Unless an 'AO/LOC' was deemed contrary to the effective operating of a peace of equipment, or weapon... the units would be visited as originally forcast. When the team is actually at the unit, such an ammendment as taking off the hooked quillion would be carried out as best as could be at the time... taking into account the units operational task."

Who is WA? Would the team have embedded inspectors?

The 1916 mark is also interesting, shippingsteel. Is your bayonet regimentally marked, and are there other reissue marks? And the right ricasso? Stamping on the RR seemed also to happen following the end of the war. I have examples of 1907's with the following stamped, and only the one date, on the RR:

'17 (a Remington 1913), '19, '20, '22, '23

Cheers,

Tony

[shippingsteel]

The 1916 mark is also interesting, shippingsteel. Is your bayonet regimentally marked, and are there other reissue marks?

Tony, my bayonet is a 1901 Enfield which appears to have been Naval issue initially. Having the N and rack number cancelled out, and with only the '16 "reissue" mark.

It is unusual to see the CLLE still in front-line service after 1916, so I wonder if the similar '16 marks indicate the process of replacement, and returning the kit into store.?

Cheers, S>S

[msdt]

That's interesting S>S. With the similarity of the '16 marks it does seem to point to a withdrawal of older equipment as SMLE's became available. In which case the 3 SG marking on mine was also probably struck out then - with those clumsy marks.

When equipment was withdrawn to stores, where would it actually go?

Further to the discussion on regimental mark stamping, this one also doesn't completely conform to the book as there are no dots after the S and G.

My Royal Naval Brigade 1888 seems to have got away - below.

Cheers,

Tony

[shippingsteel]

When equipment was withdrawn to stores, where would it actually go?

Further to the discussion on regimental mark stamping, this one also doesn't completely conform to the book as there are no dots after the S and G.

I can't tell you much about the stores. I guess there was some flippin' great warehouse somewhere ... until needed once more or eventually disposed of.

The 3SG without the dots would be perfectly normal in my experience. I think the regulations were more "a set of guidelines" and things did usually vary.

See below a shot of my P1903 marked 2CG to the Coldstream Guards (no dots). The lower marking is still undetermined, we've discussed it once before.

Cheers, S>S

[msdt]

Have been hitting Google, and have found out more about the 3rd Battalion of the Scots Guards. The key thing is that they have been formed and disbanded 3 times, for the Boer War, WW1 and WW2.

Boer War

Raised in London 1899; 1903 moved to Tower of London; 1905 moved to Wellington Barracks; October 1906, disbanded.

WW1

Formed at Chelsea Barracks 18th Aug 1914; 31th Aug to Esher, Surrey; 2nd Oct 1914 to Wellington Barracks until the end of the War; disbanded 10th March 1919. The unit provided drafts of 11,201 of all ranks to the 1st & 2nd Battalions.

It was obviously a highly regarded regiment. In 1901 on Fri 24 May the 3rd Battalion Scots Guards took the Trooping of the Colour with KIng Edward VII, combined with the presentation of their Colours. Here is a link to an interesting article about them parading for the King in a special farewell ceremony:

http://newspaperarchive.com/uk/middlesex/london/london-evening-news/1906/07-28/

This has made me rethink the bayonet's history. I now believe the regimental mark is from the Boer War period. Thus the 'reissue marks' could relate to annual inspections for a prestigious London based regiment, 02, 03, 04 and 05 exactly fit the regiment's history. Whether on disbanding their weapons would be held together and thus available for reissue in 1914, I doubt. But it does look as if the bayonet would have been issued again at the start of WW1 to someone, and then collected back in as the SMLE's were available, at which point it went into the 1916 'programme' and into storage again.

One further piece of evidence, these pictures of a January 1915 1907 bayonet off the internet stamped up to the third - looks like they got 1907's early on (immediately in 1914?), which would make sense as they were supplying the 1st and 2nd Battalions with trained men.

Cheers,

Tony

[trajan]

Tony, this is a very interesting idea that could certainly do with following up. I'm travelling for the next few weeks, but if you or nobody else picks it up (SS, you busy?) then I'll see if I can find some spare time to get on to it in October when I'll be in the UK for a while.

TTFN,

Julian

[sgt-maj]

Hello gentlemen,

I've always loved threads like this one.

In reference to the subject of the 'issue stampings', e.g.; '04', '05', '10', '16', etc. They are predominantly used upon a modification to an item, and can in some cases be rather a contradiction to the rule. When an item has been kept in storage for a certain amount of time... upon re-issue, it will be checked over, and modified as and if required, before being issued out of stores to the unit concerned.

The 'Chapman' (J.A.C.) manufactured '07' shown, has a manufacture date of '1-15' (January 1915)... not an issue date. The issue dates are as a norm, stamped upon the right ricasso of an '07 before they spill over onto the left ricasso.

Seph.

[trajan]

Once again, nice to have you on board (again!) Seph! I am travelling (literally!) for the new week or so in a bit of an internet wilderness so communications come and go and so sometimes only have time to look in on things rather than follow them through.