1888 MkI bayonet marking?

[trajan]

... I am not sure exactly which year the change occurred, the latest WD one I have is October 1894, Ollie's example above is September 1896, but then I have no Enfield made ones until an EFD marked one from July 1899 (a type 2). ...

... 1888's were made by Wilkinson, Sanderson and Mole ... (not sure about Mole). In fact Wilkinson made them from the start, but I think the other 2 started a bit later. I have one Sanderson from June 1895. 3 of the others are Wilkinson's, so the remaining 6 are Enfields.

6 of the bayonets have no re-issue marks. They are all regimentally marked - being bought because of that.

Regarding Nick's question about the correct scabbard for his bayonet, it will almost certainly be the Mark 1, the most common by far. The Mark 2 was produced from 1902 to 1904 in small numbers. The 1903 pattern scabbards will fit of course, but then most 1903 bayonets are found in the 1888 Mark 1 scabbards. ...

Many thanks for sharing that information Tony! I still haven't properly catalogued my P.1888's but I just had a quick check of these and the literature...

The date for the switch-over from WD to EFD would seem to be the winter of 1896/1897 - Mike Rose just says EFD ones appear in 1897, and I have three WD's from 1896, the latest being 11/96, my earliest EFD being 08/00.

MOLE certainly made P.1888's. For those of the pedantic bookish' and data inclination, details generally loved by serious collectors as well as OF's(!), Mole were supplied with parts and a pattern example for a P,1888 in the financial year ending March 1899, and this bayonet and the parts may have been for the Mk I/1, although no examples of these made by Mole have been recorded. Mole, and also Sanderson, were supplied with pattern examples and parts, including gauges, in the financial year ending March 1900, so these will be the Mk I/2 version. Wilkinson were certainly making them by December 1888, when they responded to an allegation that their P.1888's used parts made in Solingen(!). In all, Wilkinson allegedly made some 108,000 P.1888's, Mk I and Mk II, and Mk III; figures for Moles and Sanderson are either not known or 'guesstimated', but Sanderson only made Mk I and Mk II, but Mole did these and also the Mk III.

So, from your sample and mine, 're-issue' markings would seem to be in the minority... However, IIRC, my examples are all heavily marked in this way, i.e., at least three markings. I'll try and check on this later.

I'd go with you on the Mk I scabbard as probably best suited for Nick. Replacements of this type were certainly being made by Barrow, Hepburn and Gale (BHG) in 1939 and 1940, and I suspect in India also - I have one which could be Indian and which is dated 1941 or 1942! Not surprising really when one reflects on the fact that the P.1903 continued in service use up to 1947, when it and its scabbard were finally declared obsolescent (L of C 3004, 18th April).

One final thing. I have been in contact with JMB re: what I refer to as the 'carbon leaching' visible on so many P.1888 blades - those pits that are often seen as in the three examples I show on the left in the photograph below. A friendly metallurgist in the UK has been helping me understand what this results from and once I have had a chance to follow up some references he suggested, I'll pass on the news to JMB and yourself.

Best wishes,

Julian

[shippingsteel]

Here is a photo of some of mine which shows a few of the earlier Mole, Wilkinson & Sanderson examples. (Patt.1888 Mk.I 2nd type)

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

Here is a photo of some of mine which shows a few of the earlier Mole, Wilkinson & Sanderson examples. (Patt.1888 Mk.I 2nd type)

Interesting set there SS! You may be interested to know that the lack of any clear corrosion patterns suggests the use in all of these of steel with a relatively high phosphoric content, which matches with their relatively late dates of production - although this type of finish will of course be enhanced by careful storage and care rather than sustained field use.

For others, what is worth noting - from a pedantic point of view - is the differences in ricasso shape between the makers. But in particular note the characteristically wide ricasso leading into the mid-rib of the MOLE. Note also that some of these Moles often have their own distinctive date marking system also, namely a closely set sequence of month, full stop, year, e.g. "12.98": or of month, slash, year, e.g. "11/91" - I have examples of these on record.

Trajan

[trajan]

On the subject of Moles, here is a nice one I have just found - http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?90169-WTS-Rare-Pre-WWI-MOLE-1888-MkI-2nd-Pattern-bayonet

And a display idea like SS's is visible at: http://www.britishblades.com/forums/showthread.php?134596-Bayonet-Display

Trajan

[msdt]

So the Mole maker's name is in a slightly different place.

Cheers,

Tony

[shippingsteel]

Tony FYI here are some of the ricasso markings that are found on my 1893 dated Mole P1888. Plenty of "reissues" here.!

And I would just like to point out that length of service has little to do with the current condition of our 'antique collectables'.

Cheers, S>S

[trajan]

For those interested in the 're-issue' markings debate, see: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=217611&hl=re-issue

My personal take on these is akin to Seph's 'play-time for armourers' idea... After all, the majority of P.1888's have single original manufacture dates only, even some of those examples with pommel markings indicating use by two quite different units. One plausible and persuasive explanation for multiple marks - and one I tend to favour - is that they reflect store inventories: i.e., regular inspections of what is in stock and available and fit for issue, not what is out and issued and is already in regular service use.

That aside, I am not quite certain how to take SS's point about length of service having 'little to do' with condition. I did point out that metal quality will have something to do with this - the better the metal, then the better what a metallurgist calls its ''etch resistance''. But obviously a bayonet kept in storage in the right conditions will be in much better shape than one that has been in and out and around a bit more than a few times! A close look at the ones in the Duke of Atholl's armoury would probably pay rewards on this issue... And thanks to MikeyH for the head's up on this!

Trajan

[JMB1943]

Interesting set there SS! You may be interested to know that the lack of any clear corrosion patterns suggests the use in all of these of steel with a relatively high phosphoric content, which matches with their relatively late dates of production - although this type of finish will of course be enhanced by careful storage and care rather than sustained field use.

Trajan

My sole P.88 is from 2 '95, right in the middle of the S>S set, and is badly carbon stained so I'm not sure what inference can be drawn from year of manuf. & quality/composition of steel.

I look forward to the info. from the metallurgist regarding composition, especially P content, and 'etch resistance'.

Regards,

JMB

[trajan]

I don't want to post or pass on just yet the entire e-mail from this metallurgist on the matter of what I call 'carbon leaching' as I still have a few details to clear up with him: now that the final days of term are upon us that is one of my aims in our forthcoming short (10 day!) 'winter' vacation. ... However, I don't see any harm in repeating here something he wrote about the blades in the photograph I show above, post 26, and which I re-post here for convenience.

"Another factor to consider is etch resistance, the presence of some elements induce

etch resistance, ie the metal resistance the attack of the weak acid for longer than
other phases. In archaeological iron artefacts, if phosphoric iron is present (ie
iron containing 0.2-1%P) then it stays unetched for longer in comparison to the
ferritic (pure iron) or steel components present in the sample. Thus it may be that
the bayonet on the right of your picture either contains a minor element
concentration that induced etch resistance, or of course the method of storage and
care also either prevented or impaired the etching effect and was eg polished once
every couple of years."

So, as I indicated in post 32, steel quality, storage, and care, all have their impact on how these things look today. Note also, though, that the type of raw metal available to the blade makers likewise has a bearing on 'etch resistance': crucible steel, which is what was specified for these bayonets, has a better overall resistance than bulk steel. Indeed, something that may be of relevance here is that the P.1888 was the first wholehearted venture by Wilkinson, at least, into home-based bayonet making: they previously used Solingen steel. In which case a comparison of relative appearance by date and maker might be of use - I'll try and do mine next week, but note that in the photograph above the example on the left is a 12/90 and, I think it is a Wilkinson.

There is clearly scope for much more research in the P.1888 along these and other lines, but aside from other article and my teaching commitments, I want to get some of my German bayonet studies out of the way before going down another bayonet road - hence my reluctance to take on the 're-issue' markings! Also, thanks to a butter-fingers technician at the main museum in this city none of us archaeologists here has access to an XRF machine, which could be of use with looking more closely at my small collection...

Trajan

[JMB1943]

Trajan,

Since you mentioned the Wilkinson/Solingen connection, I thought I would put up this comparison of English vs. German sword-making steel from 1892. Of course I'm making the (justified/unjustified ?) assumption the sword- and bayonet making steels are the same.

English German

Carbon 1.08 0.738

Silicon 0.141 0.427

Manganese 0.185 0.49

Copper trace 0.06

Phosphorus 0.002 0.036

Sulphur 0.02 0.023

These are %-values. From other reading, the differences (apart from added Carbon) are due to the geographic source of the iron ore.

As an aside, I have read (very likely on GWF) that German rifles resisted rusting better than did British ones; this may correlate (again if rifle steel is similar to blade steel) with enhanced 'etch resistance' that you mention above for higher P-content steel.

Regards,

JMB

[trajan]

Interesting JMB! And thanks for showing that here as I had never got around to looking at the source you sent me...

Seeing how we have gone way off from looking at Ollie's markings and getting deeper into metallurgical issues, I think it might be best to open a new thread on these, which I'll do now. I'll take the liberty, though, of copying the above as well as linking to what there is on this thread.

The new thread is at: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=235182&hl=

Julian