Lancashire Fusilier Posted 6 December , 2015 Share Posted 6 December , 2015 W⬆️D marked Scabbard also numbered and marked to 13 LF. ' 13 LF ' - for 13th Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 6 December , 2015 Share Posted 6 December , 2015 Victorian Crown. 01 and 3 stamps. Broad Arrow. EnFielD? Stamp. Crown 85 E. X3 E. 16. Edge of blade. Crown 16 E. Crown 85 E. P? 9. The much larger ' 16 ' stamp at the base of the ricasso, is not a usual British mark, and these larger serial numbers have been seen before on bayonets having an Indian service connection. Recently, we saw such a large serial number, also on the base of the ricasso, on a Pattern 1903 bayonet which had been sent to India. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWF1967 Posted 7 December , 2015 Share Posted 7 December , 2015 The much larger ' 16 ' stamp at the base of the ricasso, is not a usual British mark, and these larger serial numbers have been seen before on bayonets having an Indian service connection. Recently, we saw such a large serial number, also on the base of the ricasso, on a Pattern 1903 bayonet which had been sent to India. Regards, LF My thanks for your speedy replies and great ID information LF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWF1967 Posted 7 December , 2015 Share Posted 7 December , 2015 ' 13 LF ' - for 13th Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers. Regards, LF Guessed 1 right then!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 7 December , 2015 Share Posted 7 December , 2015 The much larger ' 16 ' stamp at the base of the ricasso, is not a usual British mark ... That 16 stamped at the base of the ricasso is an inspection date, and goes along with the matching inspection marking stamped immediately above it. This type of marking is often seen on the wartime-used Patt.1888 bayonets. For further discussion and some examples just go to Page 8 of this thread. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 7 December , 2015 Share Posted 7 December , 2015 That 16 stamped at the base of the ricasso is an inspection date, and goes along with the matching inspection marking stamped immediately above it. This type of marking is often seen on the wartime-used Patt.1888 bayonets. For further discussion and some examples just go to Page 8 of this thread. Cheers, S>S S>S, Thanks for the follow up, however, I am not seeing any other ' 16 ' mark directly above the much larger ' 16 ' at the base of the ricasso ? Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 7 December , 2015 Share Posted 7 December , 2015 On that '16' mark, SS would appear to be referring to http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=194834&page=8 posts 193 and 195. Both have the usual inverted comma before the '16' which this one at post 218 does not have, but we all know about 'striking' errors. SS's example at post 195 has an Enfield inspection mark above it, a "CROWN/X6 or X5/E". The one at post 218 looks to have no crown ('striking' error) 'X5 or X6/E', and so to all intents and purposes, they are identical markings. So, Indian army being supplied with a mix of 'obsolete' ex-navy and ex-army P.1888 bayonets in 1916? Interesting thought... Kut was lost in early 1916... Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 7 December , 2015 Share Posted 7 December , 2015 the '16' which this one at post 218 does not have, but we all know about 'striking' errors. SS's example at post 195 has an Enfield inspection mark above it, a "CROWN/X6 or X5/E". The one at post 218 looks to have no crown ('striking' error) 'X5 or X6/E', and so to all intents and purposes, they are identical markings. Trajan, You are correct, of the photos posted in #218, neither photo show any 1916 inspection mark ? and that much larger numeral has been seen before on bayonets used in India. Regards. LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
new3.2 Posted 8 December , 2015 Share Posted 8 December , 2015 I have an 1888 sword bayonet Mk 1 that was an AEF "bring-back". It lacks a scabbard and is a little rusty; it has enough crowns and numbers to fill a bingo card. It has WD & broad arrow on one side with an X near the guard. Right above the X is a small 4(?) 5. On obverse is crown & VR below which is '00. Would this be a date of manufacture? SGT. Earle C. Laugharn of Btty. A 339th F.A. 88th Div. (This division was made up of drafted men from the upper Midwest and got to the front rather late) was the Yank who brought it back. He carved E.H. between the rivets. I wonder where he picked it up. Sorry I do not have the knowledge to add a photo which would show these many marks. Chris, if you read this he was just down the road from you at Pleasant Hill. Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 8 December , 2015 Share Posted 8 December , 2015 I have an 1888 sword bayonet Mk 1 Right above the X is a small 4(?) 5. On obverse is crown & VR below which is '00. Ken, The ' 00 ' will be your bayonet's year of issue date, i.e. 1900, and there should also be a corresponding 2 digit month of issue date to the left of the year date ? Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 8 December , 2015 Share Posted 8 December , 2015 I have an 1888 sword bayonet Mk 1 that was an AEF "bring-back". It lacks a scabbard and is a little rusty; it has enough crowns and numbers to fill a bingo card. It has WD & broad arrow on one side with an X near the guard. Right above the X is a small 4(?) 5. On obverse is crown & VR below which is '00. Would this be a date of manufacture? SGT. Earle C. Laugharn of Btty. A 339th F.A. 88th Div. (This division was made up of drafted men from the upper Midwest and got to the front rather late) was the Yank who brought it back. He carved E.H. between the rivets. I wonder where he picked it up. Sorry I do not have the knowledge to add a photo which would show these many marks. Chris, if you read this he was just down the road from you at Pleasant Hill. Ken Read it Ken. If you email me a photo of the bayonet (if you have one) I can post it for you. Is Pleasant Hill in Pike Co? If so maybe he is in the roll of honor? I'll have a look. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 8 December , 2015 Share Posted 8 December , 2015 The ' 00 ' will be your bayonet's year of issue date, i.e. 1900, and there should also be a corresponding 2 digit month of issue date to the left of the year date ? Actually if Ken's bayonet is marked with the W^D, it cannot have been manufactured in 1900. The '00' stamp that is visible will more likely be a 'reissue' date. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 8 December , 2015 Share Posted 8 December , 2015 I have an 1888 sword bayonet Mk 1 that was an AEF "bring-back". It lacks a scabbard and is a little rusty; it has enough crowns and numbers to fill a bingo card. It has WD & broad arrow on one side with an X near the guard. Right above the X is a small 4(?) 5. On obverse is crown & VR below which is '00. Would this be a date of manufacture? SGT. Earle C. Laugharn of Btty. A 339th F.A. 88th Div. and, in case you have not seen it Ken, here he is: Sgt 339th FA Son of GC and Emma Laugharn of Pleasant Hill IL. Born Hartsburg IL Jan 30th 1894. Enlisted at Camp Dodge Iowa Overseas Sept 5th 1918, Discharged Feb 5th1919 at Camp Dodge Iowa (p22 With the Colors from Pike Co). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 8 December , 2015 Share Posted 8 December , 2015 On that '16' mark ... So, Indian army being supplied with a mix of 'obsolete' ex-navy and ex-army P.1888 bayonets in 1916? Interesting thought... Kut was lost in early 1916... If it is a 1916 mark, then the ex-naval one marked this way that SS has (this thread post 195) may relate - as Tony E pointed out - to events in June 1916. when " the old 63rd Division was broken up and the RND was transferred to full army control in France and re-numbered as the 63rd Division": he made this comment on one of SS's now-locked threads, see: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=151202&page=2 post no. 34. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 8 December , 2015 Share Posted 8 December , 2015 ..it has enough crowns and numbers to fill a bingo card. It has WD & broad arrow on one side with an X near the guard. Right above the X is a small 4(?) 5. On obverse is crown & VR below which is '00. Would this be a date of manufacture? ... The ' 00 ' will be your bayonet's year of issue date, i.e. 1900, and there should also be a corresponding 2 digit month of issue date to the left of the year date ? Actually if Ken's bayonet is marked with the W^D, it cannot have been manufactured in 1900. The '00' stamp that is visible will more likely be a 'reissue' date. Well, Ken's post is a little ambiguous so a photograph is really needed! This one seems to be heavily re-marked ("enough crowns and numbers to fill a bingo card"!) and so if the '00' is on the reverse (the side with the crown) then it could be a 'commercial' P.1888, and the maker's name is obscured by markings on the reverse side! Ken, what is an issue here is that, as I understand it (and I make no claims to be a P.1888 expert) then until 1897, bayonets made by the RSAF were marked W^D on the obverse, but after that year they were marked with the letters 'EFD' below the broad arrow, except, that is, for 'commercial' bayonets (e.g., ones made by Wilkinson, etc., which continued to have the W^D mark. Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWF1967 Posted 18 February , 2016 Share Posted 18 February , 2016 A new 1888. No pommel marks. Marked inside the socket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWF1967 Posted 18 February , 2016 Share Posted 18 February , 2016 Blade markings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWF1967 Posted 18 February , 2016 Share Posted 18 February , 2016 Scabbard markings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWF1967 Posted 18 February , 2016 Share Posted 18 February , 2016 - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 18 February , 2016 Share Posted 18 February , 2016 A new 1888. No pommel marks. Marked inside the socket. GWF1967, Your's is a Pattern 1888 Mk I, 2nd Type Sword Bayonet, made by Sanderson, and issued in July ( 7 ) 1894 ( 94 ), and always a nice bayonet to own. Here is an explanation of some of your blade's ricasso markings. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWF1967 Posted 18 February , 2016 Share Posted 18 February , 2016 Tang is marked "5 E". Side of Ricasso is marked twice with a crown. "5. 78". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWF1967 Posted 18 February , 2016 Share Posted 18 February , 2016 GWF1967, Your's is a Pattern 1888 Mk I, 2nd Type Sword Bayonet, made by Sanderson, and issued in July ( 7 ) 1894 ( 94 ), and always a nice bayonet to own. Here is an explanation of some of your blade's ricasso markings. Regards, LF Thanks L.F. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 19 February , 2016 Share Posted 19 February , 2016 - The Crown / 75 / E marking on the scabbard's Chape, is an ' Enfield ' ( The Royal Small Arms Factory ) Inspector's Mark. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 19 February , 2016 Share Posted 19 February , 2016 Tang is marked "5 E". Side of Ricasso is marked twice with a crown. "5. 78". Again, these are Inspection Marks. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 19 February , 2016 Share Posted 19 February , 2016 That has to be one of the cleanest and clearest 'VR' cyphers around! All of mine, and most of what I have seen, have very weakly-impressed crowns and cyphers... A very nice piece! Trajan 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