JMB1943 Posted 3 May , 2021 Share Posted 3 May , 2021 Terry, Thank you. This is an eye opener, because I would have sworn that numbers 3 & 4 are by the same maker! Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyH Posted 9 May , 2021 Share Posted 9 May , 2021 This clean example of a P1888 came to me a few years ago via auction. It carries the makers mark for Sanderson, date of Feb 01. On the opposite side of the ricasso, the broad arrow, bend mark and inspectors stamp. No re-issue marks present. The scabbard, presumably the original is marked EFD 01. There are no unit marks on the pommel. Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 9 May , 2021 Share Posted 9 May , 2021 Yes, a very nice, clean blade/grips & scabbard. Is that an 8 on the tang? Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyH Posted 9 May , 2021 Share Posted 9 May , 2021 3 hours ago, JMB1943 said: Yes, a very nice, clean blade/grips & scabbard. Is that an 8 on the tang? Regards, JMB JMB, It's a 3, also seen on the spine. Regards, Mike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 9 May , 2021 Share Posted 9 May , 2021 Always nice to see a good honest piece, looks like both bayonet and scabbard have been together since 1901, thanks for sharing it with us Mike, Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWF1967 Posted 16 May , 2021 Share Posted 16 May , 2021 Today’s finds. P.1888 Enfield. Unit marked - 5. E. Y. C. and numbered 351, with matching scabbed. Unfortunately the Frog has been removed. Dated - 07-95. P.1888 blade dated 10 - 97, reworked and marked as a P.03. Unit marked R. E. W. T. S ? 01 ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 16 May , 2021 Share Posted 16 May , 2021 Another couple of great finds GWF. WTS would be Wiltshire, but looks as though something should be between the F/E and the W. So could be Wiltshire Royal Engineers or Wiltshire R.F.A.???? even though the frog strap is missing, matching numbers not easy to find…..I’m jealous😀. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWF1967 Posted 16 May , 2021 Share Posted 16 May , 2021 43 minutes ago, Dave66 said: Another couple of great finds GWF. WTS would be Wiltshire, but looks as though something should be between the F/E and the W. So could be Wiltshire Royal Engineers or Wiltshire R.F.A.???? even though the frog strap is missing, matching numbers not easy to find…..I’m jealous😀. Dave. The same seller had another number matched set, but the other example wasn’t unit marked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 16 May , 2021 Share Posted 16 May , 2021 I think you made an excellent choice, can the frog be swapped if a suitable donor can be found?….I am presuming there’s only a staple holding it in place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWF1967 Posted 16 May , 2021 Share Posted 16 May , 2021 On 17/05/2021 at 06:28, Dave66 said: I think you made an excellent choice, can the frog be swapped if a suitable donor can be found?….I am presuming there’s only a staple holding it in place. I have absolutely no idea how it is put together Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 1 June , 2021 Share Posted 1 June , 2021 Having a bit of a sort out, stock take, basic maintenance check - they appear to have multiplied. The first two are unit marked to 1/4th Gordons and 1 VB Gordons, 4th in line is an Afghan produced bayonet, first without a scabbard is a Mole blade and the last one is really a relic with a ground blade and frozen/ground down button. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 3 June , 2021 Share Posted 3 June , 2021 Hey Chris, I do not know if optical illusion or what, but the 2.3.4 look longer than the first and fifth bayonet? You say an Afghanistan made (4th) one. They, Kabul made a 1888 type for the .303 Martini they had, about 7-8cm longer than a British 1888. Since you say #4 if Afgan. Made, they made some standard size “British 1888 as well? Just learning here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 3 June , 2021 Share Posted 3 June , 2021 On 04/06/2021 at 01:45, Steve1871 said: Hey Chris, I do not know if optical illusion or what, but the 2.3.4 look longer than the first and fifth bayonet? You say an Afghanistan made (4th) one. They, Kabul made a 1888 type for the .303 Martini they had, about 7-8cm longer than a British 1888. Since you say #4 if Afgan. Made, they made some standard size “British 1888 as well? Just learning here I think it is a product of using a rather wide angle lens and the fact that the scabbards may not be leaning at precisely the same angles. The brown, Indian (?) scabbards are indeed slightly longer than the two standard British ones but the blades of the bayonets do not differ significantly. There is very some minor variation in length of the blades between the different examples but it is a matter of millimeters. The Afghan blade is standard length. Here is the marking: Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 4 June , 2021 Share Posted 4 June , 2021 Hey Chris, the Afghanistan one I talking about was “ copied “ from the British P.1888, with or without consent?, but have read many times, was used for the Martini Henry, guessing in .303?, but is 7-8 cm longer. All the ones I seen ( photos) have the same single stamp inside a shield/badge or whatever as mine These are scarce, but not rare. Have seen 3 recently on line for sale, half the time, no scabbards. Mine is only one with frog I have seen. But it could simply be a British frog? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 4 June , 2021 Share Posted 4 June , 2021 The frog looks 'pukka' to me - but I am not an expert on these - SS, among others, would know better. Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 4 June , 2021 Share Posted 4 June , 2021 Hey Julian, what is “Pukka”, An Afgan or a made up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 4 June , 2021 Share Posted 4 June , 2021 Hindi / Pashto for 'looks ok/ is the real thing'! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve1871 Posted 4 June , 2021 Share Posted 4 June , 2021 Thanks Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 8 June , 2021 Share Posted 8 June , 2021 I just got another fairly clean, unit marked Wilkinson example. Dated 12-93 - no scabbard unfortunately. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 13 June , 2021 Share Posted 13 June , 2021 That's a nice one! Royal Garrison Artillery, in case you did not know. And which, according to LLT, was No. 102 Company: Eastern District. Malta. Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWF1967 Posted 17 June , 2021 Share Posted 17 June , 2021 On 09/06/2021 at 03:31, 4thGordons said: I just got another fairly clean, unit marked Wilkinson example. Dated 12-93 - no scabbard unfortunately. Chris I just picked up it’s ugly cousin. 6-96 dated. Unit marked - D.M. R.G.A. Rack number 195. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 17 June , 2021 Share Posted 17 June , 2021 D.M. woulD be for Durham accorDing to the Instructions for 1897. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWF1967 Posted 17 June , 2021 Share Posted 17 June , 2021 2 hours ago, trajan said: D.M. woulD be for Durham accorDing to the Instructions for 1897. Many thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 17 June , 2021 Share Posted 17 June , 2021 GWF, I think there is a T stamped just above the R of R.G.A., according to the link below they were Territorials and would date the unit marking to post 1908. https://wartimememoriesproject.com/greatwar/allied/rgartillery.php?pid=404 Nice find. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWF1967 Posted 20 June , 2021 Share Posted 20 June , 2021 (edited) On 17/06/2021 at 18:31, Dave66 said: GWF, I think there is a T stamped just above the R of R.G.A., according to the link below they were Territorials and would date the unit marking to post 1908. https://wartimememoriesproject.com/greatwar/allied/rgartillery.php?pid=404 Nice find. Dave. Thanks Dave. Glad you had your eyes in. Edited 20 June , 2021 by GWF1967 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