shippingsteel Posted 15 February , 2014 Share Posted 15 February , 2014 I have a couple of p1888's this one made by Sanderson is only marked on the handles is there anyway to date this. Very nice bayonet and scabbard you have there. Without the usual issue and acceptance stamps it does make it difficult to date but in saying that it is a P1888 Mk.II So this narrows it down considerably to production somewhere between mid-1899 and roughly around 1903. Sanderson was a contractor so could also be even later. This example has none of the markings which would signify issue to the military (commonly known as "Volunteer" bayonets) but could also just be surplus to contract. Around the time of the Boer War many of these type of unmarked bayonets were supplied by contractors to fit out the locally raised Volunteer regiments going to Africa. You also have an interesting scabbard, which looks to be the P1903 Mk.III Naval version. So not necessarily correct for the bayonet but still an acceptable compromise. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 15 February , 2014 Author Share Posted 15 February , 2014 Yes lovely bayonet z4, and the scabbard is a lovely example. Thanks for posting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zephyr4 Posted 15 February , 2014 Share Posted 15 February , 2014 This is one of the other p1888's I have, is this a Naval issue bayonet with the N stamp if so should I swap the scabbards round. z4. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zephyr4 Posted 15 February , 2014 Share Posted 15 February , 2014 second pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 15 February , 2014 Share Posted 15 February , 2014 This is one of the other p1888's I have, is this a Naval issue bayonet with the N stamp if so should I swap the scabbards round. Yes that letter N is the mark for Naval issue, so now you are left with a quandary of what to do. It's one of those collectors dilemnas which we spend far too much time wondering about.! While the Naval issue bayonet would be more correct in a Naval version scabbard, it is a P1903 scabbard so neither bayonet is perfectly 'correct' in it anyway, but it's an acceptable match. Personally as a collector, I would be looking at the condition of the scabbards and matching the bayonets to the scabbards based on their condition. Its a tough one but I'd leave them as is. PS. Your latter bayonet is made by Enfield, and that is a later period frog that is attached to it. I'm not certain but I think that is what is known as a Home Guard leather frog made for WW2. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wulfrik-the-wanderer Posted 15 February , 2014 Share Posted 15 February , 2014 Yes that letter N is the mark for Naval issue, so now you are left with a quandary of what to do. It's one of those collectors dilemnas which we spend far too much time wondering about.! While the Naval issue bayonet would be more correct in a Naval version scabbard, it is a P1903 scabbard so neither bayonet is perfectly 'correct' in it anyway, but it's an acceptable match. Personally as a collector, I would be looking at the condition of the scabbards and matching the bayonets to the scabbards based on their condition. Its a tough one but I'd leave them as is. PS. Your latter bayonet is made by Enfield, and that is a later period frog that is attached to it. I'm not certain but I think that is what is known as a Home Guard leather frog made for WW2. Cheers, S>S Yep, the frog looks like a 1939 pattern frog, The leather equipment wasn't designed for home guard, it was designed and introduced as "emergency" equipment to shore up shortages in equipment after a lot was lost with the B.E.F. , issued for home service battalions, and for troops in training it allowed a lot of 1937 pattern equipment to be freed up to go to front line units. http://www.karkeeweb.com/patterns/1939/1939_intro.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zephyr4 Posted 16 February , 2014 Share Posted 16 February , 2014 Thanks for the advice, I will leave the scabbards as they are. z4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawdoc34 Posted 19 February , 2014 Share Posted 19 February , 2014 Z4, Couple of nice bayonets you have there, especially like the mk3 naval scabbard, a quite hard to find example, well done mate Aleck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 20 February , 2014 Share Posted 20 February , 2014 "...And of course the first model P88's which had three rivets in the grip are very scarce and would generally be £200+." Cheers, J Just back on line on GWF... Last one of these I saw for sale in the UK went for about GBP 600 or so which I thought was rather pricey! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 20 February , 2014 Share Posted 20 February , 2014 ...So to summarise where I have got to with researching these markings, we first have to compare the examples, with their dates & markings etc. Your top example was made in August 1896, marked with the M.R over 79, and came with a scabbard similarly marked, both in certain pattern. My marked example was made October 1896, stamped on pommel with 24 over 99, but with another 1896 scabbard marked with 21 over 347.... So we have 4 objects presumably all made in 1896 that were shipped to Canada and marked in a certain pattern, all with similar font stampings....Cheers, S>S Just for the record on this batch issue of 1896 bayonets to Canada... Two of my P1888's are Enfield products from the same year, one is 10/96, with its 'original' Enfield 96 scabbard, the other is 11/96, no scabbard markings visible. Neither is regimentally marked, but the first has a pommel rack number '5', the other '681'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 20 February , 2014 Author Share Posted 20 February , 2014 Hi Trajan, good to have you back on board! J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 21 February , 2014 Share Posted 21 February , 2014 Thanks! Nice to be back after a very hectic and unsettling few months! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 23 February , 2014 Author Share Posted 23 February , 2014 Well I guess it must be my turn to post another P88 - and here it is. Not perfect condition, but well marked to the 1/7 territorial battalion of the Northumberland Fusiliers. In fact the bayonet has two markings to the 1/7 NF (one on either side of the pommel). It also has a 1916 dated marking on the scabbard, although strangely the scabbard throat is marked 2HT (which seems odd as a regular army battalion shouldn't have been using a P88 bayonet in 1916…). I suspect that the dual markings on the bayonet may be due to the bayonet originally being issued to the battalion pre/early war, and then re-stamped when the battalion went to France in April 1915. Presumably the scabbard may gave been assembled in 1916 from an existing chape / throat (hence the regular army markings) and from new leather (hence the 1916 markings). Presumably the very fact that P88 scabbards were being made in 1916 would suggest / confirm that the P88's were still being used regularly by territorial battalions at this time. Would be interested to hear any thoughts! . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 24 February , 2014 Share Posted 24 February , 2014 Well I guess it must be my turn to post another P88 - and here it is. Very nice! I have never seen a unit marked example over here but hopefully one day will get one. Can't say anything about your idea, of it being re-issued in the same unit, although that does seem a plausible explanation given how the marks are different in style and on opposite sides of the pommel. I certainly don't see any problem in units re-issuing old kit - look at all those lovely photographs of German soldiers in POW guard, etc., units, with all kinds of rifles and bayonets! What is needed is, as you pointed out on the Mannlicher 95 thread, is someobody to take on this life-time's task of slowly cataloguing all known examples of P 1888's published here and elsewhere... Now, who do we know of who seems to have the largest amount of details on these? Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 24 February , 2014 Author Share Posted 24 February , 2014 If we compiled the collections of the people who have posted on this thread it would be a pretty good start! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 24 February , 2014 Share Posted 24 February , 2014 Nicely marked bayonet J. The left-hand side regimental marking almost looks like it was professionally engraved. I am thinking perhaps after the war as a keepsake, momento, etc.? Just looks to be too well done to be of wartime military origins (people had more important things to do.!) And I don't recall ever having seen the battalion numbers marked as such (1/7) The P1888 scabbards were certainly still being manufactured during the war, especially the spare parts used for repairs such as the leathers. Contractors were used to supply these parts. The marking J.W.B. 16 is in the recognised format for scabbard leathers that were made at the time, so definitely 1916 manufactured leather body. I'm not sure who J.W.B. was though.? Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jscott Posted 24 February , 2014 Author Share Posted 24 February , 2014 Thanks S>S and yes I agree its quite an unusual looking marking in terms of the actual font/ engraving style… Perhaps it is a memento marking as you say. The other marking looks much more like the typical markings I see. I think I have seen the 1/7 style marking once or twice but maybe I'm mistaken - I'll have a bit of a look and let you know what I find. J Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 25 February , 2014 Share Posted 25 February , 2014 I'm not sure who J.W.B. was though.? Cheers, S>S I read somewhere it is for J.Wilson Brown(e), which is what I have in written in my collection catalogue for a P.1907 scabbard, but I apologise that I can't find the source of that information... Certainly a prolific scabbard maker! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 1 August , 2014 Share Posted 1 August , 2014 As this thread covers a lot of ground, here's a question I have, what can anyone tell me about the oil hole in the grips is it to drain or to receive oil, it seems to me that introducing oil into wood in such a manner would result in oil soggy grips and especially around the brass rivet would be likely to loosen the fitting resulting in movement of the grips. However I have to note that I have never seen an 88'that was in good plus condition with oil degraded grips. Are we positive that the hole is oil related or is it to allow the wood to breathe etc? I note that later on the hole is moved to the pommel. khaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 1 August , 2014 Share Posted 1 August , 2014 My understanding is that 'oil hole' was a misnomer of uncertain origin for what was always technically known as the 'clearance hole', for clearing out gunge and dirt from the mortise slot - but I could be wrong! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 1 August , 2014 Share Posted 1 August , 2014 Hello Trajan, Yes, it's one of those things that I take for granted for years, until at about 3am on a stormy morning I suddenly realize that it doesn't seem to make sense. I have also heard the term 'clearance hole' but the hole in the grips is some distance from the mortise slot so I just don't know, unless it was to introduce a 'wood' oil to nourish the grips to prevent them splitting etc. khaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 1 August , 2014 Share Posted 1 August , 2014 Hi Khaki, Yes, but, the tang goes all the way down on both sides, and I can't see how any oil inserted there would get to the grips. Perhaps oil to eliminate rust though? After all, most of those those 'orrible metal-handled German Ersatz jobs have a 'clearance/oil hole'... Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 1 August , 2014 Share Posted 1 August , 2014 The hole in the grips has nothing to do with adding oil ... it is a "clearance" hole that is utilised when accumulated rubbish needs to be removed from the internal slot in the bayonet. On the P1888 bayonet Mk.I this hole is positioned further forward up on the grips, because this bayonet was designed for the earlier Metford and Enfield rifles using the clearing rod. On the Mk.I bayonet this said hole allows clearance of the slot for the clearing rod, while the hole on the Mk.II bayonet (which is designed for rifles without clearing rod) is further back. Because the later Lee-Enfield rifles did not use the clearing rod, the hole was only needed to clear the mortise slot at the point of attachment (as found on the P1903/P1907 bayonets) Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Khaki Posted 2 August , 2014 Share Posted 2 August , 2014 Thanks S>S, Straight forward answer to a question I made over complicated by my active imagination, make sense, Trajan was on the right track. regards khaki Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calibre792x57.y Posted 2 August , 2014 Share Posted 2 August , 2014 Came to the fray late on this one. Another P.'88 carrier - LM Mark II from South Africa - slight touch of Mauser Moth - SW 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