Michael Haselgrove Posted 18 April , 2015 Share Posted 18 April , 2015 Hi Julian, Well, thanks for your response. The more I look into this subject the more confused I become. For instance, in post 1 above I read: "A weapon is never stamped in a likewise fashion upon entering or leaving stores". However, in the Broad Arrow by Skennerton at page 17 he writes: "When small arms were delivered to the factory inspectorate, usually in the employ of the armed services for whom the factory produced the weapons, they were passed into store and distributed to units as required. In some cases, dates were marked when the arms went into store, in the form of a month and year e.g. 4.12 or 4/12 as opposed to the issue date marked when issued to the unit, as marked on the butt disk and associated with the rack or issue number". All a little confusing. Regards, Michael. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 18 April , 2015 Share Posted 18 April , 2015 An interesting example, Trajan, looks to be a Jan 1894 manufacture, with an inspection mark for every single year through to 1906. Definitely an annual process. Perhaps we had better stick to inspection mark as less misleading than reissue mark. Cheers, Tony How long did that take you?! Heck! But well done - treat yourself to one on my bar chitty! J. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 18 April , 2015 Share Posted 18 April , 2015 Hi Julian, Well, thanks for your response. The more I look into this subject the more confused I become. For instance, in post 1 above I read: "A weapon is never stamped in a likewise fashion upon entering or leaving stores". However, in the Broad Arrow by Skennerton at page 17 he writes: "When small arms were delivered to the factory inspectorate, usually in the employ of the armed services for whom the factory produced the weapons, they were passed into store and distributed to units as required. In some cases, dates were marked when the arms went into store, in the form of a month and year e.g. 4.12 or 4/12 as opposed to the issue date marked when issued to the unit, as marked on the butt disk and associated with the rack or issue number". All a little confusing. Regards, Michael. Very confusing... I don't have that Skennerton - does he give a reference? Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRDK1 Posted 18 April , 2015 Share Posted 18 April , 2015 Specifications for bayonet pattern 1888 states that the date mark is to be applied in the final inspection. This is clearly the month and year of manufacture. Cheers Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 18 April , 2015 Share Posted 18 April , 2015 That seems clear enough - thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 6 January , 2016 Share Posted 6 January , 2016 Having had a chance to review this topic in relation to another thread (http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=234820&page=2#entry2349719 ), well, it strikes me that here is an opportunity for another POF to take 'scholarship' a stage further and list up these 're-issue' markings! Looking back at the above posts on this thread, and at some multiple-marked ones posted elsewhere, it does look as if those P.1888's in particular with multiple marks form separate series running on a 2-3 year basis, starting around 1893 or so and going up to about 1909 or so, although a few do have later marks (16 seems to be common). BUT, an average of seven out of every ten P.1888's do NOT have multiple marks.... Why? I personally think they are 'stock-taking' markings - what is in stock in the armoury and so available there to be checked to certify they are ready for use if required (Seph's 'playtime for armorers' hypothesis, akin to whitewashing lumps of coals...!!!), the non-multiple-marked ones being those that were already out in service and with somebody's kit, and so not available for inspection. So, anyone ready to take up the challenge? I can't - too many other things to do, but I'll happily put my multiple-marked ones up for others to put on a data base. Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 6 January , 2016 Share Posted 6 January , 2016 Oh well, why not ? I was looking at Ebay this a.m.; there are currently 4, of which 3 have multiple date stamps, so it will be interesting to see what accrues from a "'population" rather than a small sample of P.'88s. As has been suggested, maybe a static unit (RGA etc) had a more ordered existence and would have had bayonets stamped every year, rather than e.g., every other year for an infantry battalion. So to make my effort worthwhile (i.e. to mean something, other than just having a long list) any unit markings on the pommel should also be recorded. I know how time-consuming it can be to take photos and then post them on GWF, so feel free to send me a PM with details (maker; date of acceptance/approval; other date stamps; unit). On another related thread**, is the start of a conversation on relative condition of the blades (almost mint, as per 5 from S>S in a display case vs. much carbon 'staining' as shown by Trajan) and quality of steel; any PM should also state condition of blade so that we may be able to correlate staining with maker & year of manuf. etc. [**Markings on P.1888 bayonets] EVERYBODY will have access to any photos/cataloging that I manage to produce. Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 7 January , 2016 Share Posted 7 January , 2016 Well done! Although I have to admit I thought this would appeal to you! I'll try to get mine sorted next week! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawdoc34 Posted 7 January , 2016 Share Posted 7 January , 2016 emails sent JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 10 January , 2016 Share Posted 10 January , 2016 Don't have photographs just yet, but... 1) WD, 08/91: '96, '99, [?]'00, '03. '06: unit marked M/ 3 A&SH / 414: good ('mirror finish') except for point, but 'new' grips. 2) Wilkinson London, 06/96: '??; '00; '04; '07: unit marked W.A.M. / 3966 (i.e., 396 corrected to 366 by over-stamping): good ('mirror finish'), original Wilkinson- marked grips. I'll try to do photographs when possible, but I think these are both on GWF already. JB 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