dllagost Posted 31 January , 2014 Author Share Posted 31 January , 2014 Oh man, I hate to hear that but I see your point. Is there any way that I can verify the pommel; if I remove the wood grips is it possible to see something on the steel handle that would tell me something else? I have not removed them so I have no idea what's under there. Is the comparison knife you have in the pic next to mine a 1903 or is it a better example of a British conversion from 1888 blade to 1903 pommel? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dllagost Posted 1 February , 2014 Author Share Posted 1 February , 2014 Ok. I think I'm gonna take the grips off this weekend and see if there is anything else under there. Will let youbknow what I find and post more pics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 1 February , 2014 Share Posted 1 February , 2014 The pommel of the comparison example is an Enfield stamped part that was added to the 1901 Patt.88 blade in the conversion that was done at Enfield around the 1903 period. Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dllagost Posted 1 February , 2014 Author Share Posted 1 February , 2014 Hi shippingsteel. Ok, I took the grips off and here is what I found. I don't think this is a fake but still a mystery. I see a crown with an I below it and an M below below that. I also see the F1 again and some other marks. I've seen that odd symbol that looks somewhat like a lower case n. I will add photos tomorrow; the ones I took are too large and I need to download and reduce the size. Also, there is an E mark om it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dllagost Posted 1 February , 2014 Author Share Posted 1 February , 2014 Ok, here are some pics if the markings underneath the wood grips. This is the best I have for now until I can reduce the pic size. Have any of you ever seen that crown I M mark. It doesn't appear in Skennerton's broad arrow book. I will try to get some better pics on here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 18 November , 2014 Share Posted 18 November , 2014 Found this while trying to find some general information on P.1903's from the pundits... So, apologies for the late reply When I saw this bayonet in the first photos, I thought there were quite a few things that weren't quite right about it. Hard to explain but you get that 'gut feeling' about something. One of the issues for mine was the pommel shape, and now with the extra photos it is much easier to see. I always check suspect examples against my own known 'standards'. So I go through my pile until I find one from the same maker and period, etc. to compare. In this case it is an Enfield made Patt.88 blade that was converted to P1903 at Enfield.... Now this still could be the foreign rework that was done in India, where they have replaced everything except the blade, but I think it is fair to say that the pommel is not original. It just makes me think of the stories I've heard about the stuff that was coming out of the Afghan markets, of 'merchandise' that was being made-up for the Army souvenir trade. Well, to begin with, we are not comparing like with like: a 1903, with an Indian marking, with a re-hilted 1888. But note also that the angle of the respective photographs is not quite the same... I personally don't see anything wrong with the shape of the pommel, and even if it is slightly different then, given the amount of slight variation one can see in a wider selection of pommels, no problem with it really. The pommels on my 1888's all show slight differences from one another... As for gut feelings - read on! Oh man, I hate to hear that but I see your point. Is there any way that I can verify the pommel; if I remove the wood grips is it possible to see something on the steel handle that would tell me something else? I have not removed them so I have no idea what's under there. Is the comparison knife you have in the pic next to mine a 1903 or is it a better example of a British conversion from 1888 blade to 1903 pommel? Ok, here are some pics if the markings underneath the wood grips. This is the best I have for now until I can reduce the pic size. Have any of you ever seen that crown I M mark. It doesn't appear in Skennerton's broad arrow book. I will try to get some better pics on here. Well, those tang marks look fine. So my gut feeling is that it is not an Afghan! People tend to forget that there is quite a lot of variation to be seen in these artefacts. And a quick glance at the markings that SS kindly showed in post 21 makes the point that even markings can vary! So, cheer up dllagost! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 18 November , 2014 Share Posted 18 November , 2014 Related thread here ... http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=206182 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 19 November , 2014 Share Posted 19 November , 2014 Thanks SS! I have a 1903 to post at some future date and was trying to find what there was already up, and missed this continuation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gew88/05 Posted 29 November , 2014 Share Posted 29 November , 2014 Maybe I am too trusting but I can not see anything wrong with this P-03 bayonet. It appears to have the remnants of it's original, blued finish on the hilt and the top of the polished blade, exactly as seen on British P-07 bayonets and the markings do seem to indicate that it is correct, despite the hard to recognize cross guard markings. It may well have had Indian service but the Indians fought hard and well, nothing to be ashamed of on the part of the Indian soldiers who served in the name of their Emperor and his Empire. Also, remember that the products of the Indian armory at Ishapore and at all of the contractors that worked within the system had to adhere to the same standards as the British manufactories. Indian equipment was issued to and happily accepted by all British and Commonwealth troops, not just the Indian forces. In my collection there is a barreled receiver made at Ishapore (can't recall the date, it is in storage now) that is plainly stamped with the "C - Broad Arrow" of Canadian Government ownership and issue. The quality is in no way less than that of Birmingham Small Arms, LSA or Enfield. T.P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reese williams Posted 9 December , 2014 Share Posted 9 December , 2014 I'm with Chris and the other in feeling strongly that this is an Indian rework of a legit P1903. It was new made as a 1903, not a P1888 conversion. The markings are consistent with a 1903 and not with an 1888. It doesn't look like the Afghan bring backs I've seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donbogen Posted 12 February Share Posted 12 February Heres my 1903 12/02 manufacture matching rack no just a knock to the grip a part of its history . 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