shippingsteel Posted 11 June , 2013 Share Posted 11 June , 2013 Here's my P1903 with a damn near perfect blade. Yes, an excellent example. Now that's what I would call "Mint UnCirculated" condition (just like the coins).! Are those conjoined arrows above the cypher.? Which would indicate being 'sold out of service' to the colonies (NZ?) Also with the correct (and matching date) Pattern 1903 Scabbard, Land, Mark I which is always very nice to see. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5thBatt Posted 11 June , 2013 Share Posted 11 June , 2013 Here's my converted P1888 to P1903 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 11 June , 2013 Author Share Posted 11 June , 2013 Lovely P1903 5thBatt - its in superb condition and lovely scabbard too. The rifle looks to be in wonderful condition as well. And S>S I'll try to pop up more photos soon, I seem to be stuck working 14 hour days at the moment so a little pressed for time. Seems odd that my 1903 has regimental markings (so clearly issued) but no govt acceptance arrow. I guess the rules were there to be broken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 12 June , 2013 Share Posted 12 June , 2013 Seems odd that my 1903 has regimental markings (so clearly issued) but no govt acceptance arrow. I guess the rules were there to be broken. Not that strange when you consider the bayonet is a conversion from an original P'88 blade. So the blade is P1888 while the pommel is P1903. Around the time of the Boer War many P'88 blades were produced which were not procured by the War Department via official Gov't contracts. These were made by the trade for sale to allcomers, some of which were the privately raised "Volunteer" regiments buying their own equipment. So those blades purchased outside of an official contract never received any official acceptance, therefore no Royal cypher / acceptance marks. Later when the P1903 version was introduced, many of these 'cleanskin' blades would have been taken out of stores for conversion into the P'03. As I said I'd like to see the other ricasso of yours, but from what you say I gather this is the case with your bayonet, and it is a P1888 conversion. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 12 June , 2013 Author Share Posted 12 June , 2013 Thanks, I see what youre saying and suspect that you are correct. I'll put up some photos soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 12 June , 2013 Share Posted 12 June , 2013 In the meantime I have also been checking through some of mine to see if I have anything similar, as in conversion of a late dated P'88. Seems I have and I've already posted it.! Check out post #2 in this thread which is a conversion of a 1901 Enfield (with inspection mark) Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 12 June , 2013 Author Share Posted 12 June , 2013 That bayonet does look quite similar actually. And a coldstream guards regimental marking is always a nice one to have! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 12 June , 2013 Share Posted 12 June , 2013 And a coldstream guards regimental marking is always a nice one to have! I suppose I had better post the proof now, just to show I'm not bluffing.! Actually this particular bayonet has certainly been around the block ... When you consider the quite short time frame of usage in service for the Pattern '03 bayonet, this one has done more than it's fair share I believe. The markings on the ricasso show 2 separate reissues in '06 and '07, while the pommel has a cancelled regimental and possibly a service serial.? I posted this previously and we determined that the WN and 2497 could relate to a man's initials and service number, but thats open to speculation. The 2CG is more easily identified (2nd Bn Coldstream Guards) but the fact it has also been cancelled suggests it went around again during the war. Even though it is quite battered and well used, this example is still a favourite of mine for its history and strong claims as an actual veteran of the war. (From memory the initials WN were possibly linked with William Needham who was mobilised with the Sherwood Foresters and shipped across early) Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 13 June , 2013 Author Share Posted 13 June , 2013 Very interesting. Is there any precedent for marking a bayonet like this? It does seem to be a bit of a coincidence if the initials and service number matches. I wonder if certain regiments took a different approach to their regimental markings - for example some regimental markings seem to be almost common (I quite regularly see bayonets market to gloucestershire and yorkshire battalions) but there are other regiments for which I have never seen a marking - including Notts & Derby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 14 June , 2013 Share Posted 14 June , 2013 Hard to say what the explanation for this really is. This man in question was a pre-war Territorial and I wonder if they were allocated their own take-home kit. Hence the initials to show ownership and prevent it from going astray. It would have been against regulations I'm sure, perhaps explaining the cancelling out. Another alternative line of reasoning is that the markings indicate a Junior Division OTC such as Wellington College (WN.) but why such a large rack number.? And why would those marks need to be cancelled out. OTC markings are usually the last ones added, unless it happened to be requisitioned back into service.? Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 14 June , 2013 Author Share Posted 14 June , 2013 Interesting. The first explanation does sound the more likely but I guess its very hard to prove either way. Given the initials and service number match this should durely give some weight to the first proposition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 16 June , 2013 Share Posted 16 June , 2013 I always try to keep an open mind with these things, and work through all the possibilities. It's an intriguing subject somewhat like a puzzle that needs to be solved.! This discussion has brought it back to mind, so I did a little more research (which always produces more ideas) into the Wellington colleges & schools period OTC's. Seems there were a few Wellington OTC's that were very active in that pre-war period. Wellington College, Berkshire (& Salop) and the Wellington School, Somerset. We do know that the OTC abbreviation used for Wellington was WN. (you would expect a persons initials to have used another period/stop in between such as W.N.) Which then requires an explanation for such a large number below the mark. Another brainwave I had is that the bayonet was matched to a period SMLE rifle's serial. Those serial numbers would have commonly been of 4 digits at that time so perhaps that is it. Matching a bayonet to a certain rifle in an armoury sounds a good idea. And then these marks being cancelled out when the weapons were requisitioned back into service upon mobilisation when there was a definite shortage of weaponry. It would not be unheard of for the OTC's to supply whatever rifles they had to support the war effort. They certainly supplied a lot of young men to the Officer's ranks. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 23 August , 2014 Share Posted 23 August , 2014 Yes Trajan, many of the 'Indian pattern' scabbards can be found with these leather loops attached to the back of the frog and towards the bottom near the chape. Likewise some can be missing them but you can see where they have been once attached. I don't know when this was done as none that I have seen are dated. For general information re: the dating of these scabbards with helve-carrier loops, I will summarise (and slightly modify) what I posted on another thread, post 20 on: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=186439#entry2143773, and which, may have been missed by some. "... I have an 11/04 Enfield 1903 with land Pattern scabbard with the loop marked for the 1/5 HANTS... As I understood it when first reporting ... on GWF, this is a regular Indian pattern scabbard, loops top and bottom to take straps for the helve carrier... (T)he 1/5th Battalion Hampshire Regiment was raised August 1914 in Southampton, sailed for India 9 October 1914, landing at Karachi 11 November 1914, and stayed there for the rest of the war until May 1919, when it was at Kohat for service in Third Afghan War, but withdrawn 8 June, arriving back Southampton in November, when demobilised. I was given to understand that the bayonet and scabbard had come back from Afghanistan, but either way, there can be no doubt about Indian service only for the 1/5 Hants, the unit that employed this scabbard." And so in this case the helve carrier loops should, I suppose, date to between 1914-1919 but I stand to be corrected! On that same thread, I post (no 21) a 1941 dated and 'W C C' marked Land Pattern scabbard, which is either re-furbished (it has some newer but 'period' stitching), or newly made (it doesn't seem to be a SA one), and which I would appreciate informative comments on. Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xf87 Posted 14 March , 2019 Share Posted 14 March , 2019 Kia ora..... I'm just new to the site and have 'o3 scabbard pics to share. Picked it up at a local auction for $23 NZD. From the talk.... I would assume "Indian" pattern? It has had some restitching etc done - sorry for the crap pics..... any idea from anyone what the A.A. markings represent? The scabbard when bought had inserted a: #2 Sticking Knife - T. Williams Smithfield London Made/Pipe Brand.... bonus. Any feedback much appreciated.... Cheers Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 15 March , 2019 Share Posted 15 March , 2019 One of our "resident experts", e.g., SS in Australia, should be able to deal with this better than I, who at best can only make an effort! But is certainly a fun lot of markings! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 16 March , 2019 Share Posted 16 March , 2019 On 15/03/2019 at 00:01, xf87 said: Kia ora..... I'm just new to the site and have 'o3 scabbard pics to share. Picked it up at a local auction for $23 NZD. From the talk.... I would assume "Indian" pattern? It has had some restitching etc done - sorry for the crap pics..... any idea from anyone what the A.A. markings represent? The scabbard when bought had inserted a: #2 Sticking Knife - T. Williams Smithfield London Made/Pipe Brand.... bonus. Any feedback much appreciated.... Cheers Chris Terrible news from down your way... Pause for reflections... As a NZ colleague said to me - "Paradise lost"... OK. to this frog. I am surprised SS hasn't chipped in yet ("Wakey-wakey!") but yes this looks to be the so-called 'Indian model", with loops top amd bottom for the helve strap. The markings on the top part of the frog, the belt loop part (stamp A), certainly have an 'Indian' look about them. Now to guesses. Stamp C, with its War Department arrow between I an C looks to be an official suppliers and/or inspector's stamp. Can't help with the rest, though. What you need, probably, is: 12 inches of imperial steel in the service of the Raj : sword bayonets pattern 1888 and 1903 in Indian service by Michael Rose, Melbourne, 2017. I don't have a copy - the price of sending it to Turkey is more than the book! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xf87 Posted 28 March , 2019 Share Posted 28 March , 2019 Kia ora Tragan.... A lot of reflection and soul searching is happening.... still hard to process.... Thanks for your help. Cheers Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterhawk Posted 20 January Share Posted 20 January I seem to have the market cornered on strange scabbards. This 1903 bayonet is a real rarity this side of the pond and was surprisingly inexpensive. (compared to other bayonets I own) Markings on the ricasso are the usual bend /arrow and on the other side; crown over ER 1903. then a hard to read 2' 03? There is an inspection mark over the crown indicating a rebuilt 1888?. the only clear inspection mark date is 04. Then Wilkinson London. Pommel 688 crossed out and 4487. Now the anomalous scabbard. It has a brass chape and locket but otherwise seems identical to my 1888 Metford scabbard. India I assume? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 20 January Share Posted 20 January Yes India would indeed be the prime suspect in regards to the scabbard. They were known makers of the brass mounted leather scabbards produced locally, and also were keen users of the P1903 bayonets over quite an extended period. Some close up photos of any markings on both the bayonet and scabbard may provide some further clues. Cheers, SS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterhawk Posted 20 January Share Posted 20 January I was hoping you would have a look at this SS. The scabbard has no marks except on the frog stud which is numbered 117 with a line through it. The scabbard has been painted with a rather shiny black paint and at one time may have included the metal. The markings on the ricasso are a bit of a mess I think the date is 2' 03 but it could be something else. There are a number of inspection numbers the only one of which is legible is '04. There is no longer any bluing anywhere on the bayonet as it has been polished. This bayonet was bought in Canada but I doubt that has any thing to do with it. The only bayonet I have come across with this type of brass fitted scabbard was an 1888 Indian bayonet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 20 January Share Posted 20 January Yes that bayonet appears to be a reworked P1888 blade. Also looks like an Indian used example with the dark timber grips and likely previously blued blade. That explains the overzealous polishing ... where people try to "value add" a less desirable blued Indian bayonet. Cheers, SS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterhawk Posted 20 January Share Posted 20 January I spoke too soon. I have just come across two more examples with the brass scabbard fittings. One in the US and the other with a dealer in Portsmouth UK. Both claim that they are British with no mention of India. I know one of them and he is very experienced. The bayonets are the same as well with no bluing, no Indian acceptance/rebuild marks. The Indian ones I have seen usually have marks on the end of the pommel none of these do. The UK one's locket has marks Ca10 and the number 28 and the bayonet: is marked A.C. 13,71. Do those marks mean anything to you? Just for curiosity what are you basing that this one is 1888 rebuild? Usually this is pretty obvious with them having inspection marks predating 1903? Just a gut feeling or the use of an 1888 style scabbard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterhawk Posted 20 January Share Posted 20 January In regards the colour of the wood I am afraid the photo showed it much darker than it actually is. I pulled the 1888 I have for comparison and the colour and wood grain structure are the same. They are however on the 1903 very heavily worn. After some study I do think you are right that it is a 1888 rebuild. We aren't looking at some kind of parade bayonet are we? The shiny paint on the scabbard seems a bit odd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 20 January Share Posted 20 January Thanks for the tip off Winterhawk, and I put it too you that both the examples you mention are indeed Indian used P1903 bayonets with Indian made brass-mounted scabbards, regardless of what dealers like to describe them as. In fact most P1903 bayonets on the market over the last decade or more have originated from Indian surplus. Heavily refurbished and blued blades with characteristic poor quality replacement grips of coarser grained timber than the original British made examples. Markings usually partially buffed out during refurbishment without the crisp stampings of the original blades. This is the description of the average Indian P1903 that is encountered. As you mentioned the Indian made brass-mounted scabbards sometimes have Inspection type markings stamped on them, and this is important information that helps confirm the origin of these items. See below the marking Ca.10 which indicates manufacture at the Cawnpore Harness & Saddlery Factory, a major Indian government leathergoods maker in 1910. (Image added for information and research purposes only - no relationship to the seller) Photo Credit - Sally Antiques, Portsmouth, UK Cheers, SS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winterhawk Posted 20 January Share Posted 20 January Okay I think that pretty well nails it. The US one has the same brass fittings but no markings. Another thought went through my mind was if this was something a Canadian soldier picked up in a Afghanistan market. I am pleased with the bayonet as I like pieces with history particularly ones I didn't pay much for. Thanks for your help. 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