trajan Posted 12 October , 2018 Author Share Posted 12 October , 2018 (edited) A very nice piece you have there! Blade markings = 'government issue' broad arrow over EFD mark for (made by) Royal Armouries, Enfield, over the 'X' bend test mark (crown) 34 over E = Inspector's mark; (crown) ER = Edwardius Rex - King Edward VII 1903 = Pattern number - beneath that the month and year mark of production Top edge near bayonet lug: (crown) over 83 = Inspector's mark Wood grips: HY 150 (or) 160 = is probably a unit mark but I am not certain which one (yet!) Pommel: 5 RF 425 = originally issued to 5th Royal Fusiliers, bayonet 425, markings then struck out when passed to another unit Pommel end: EFD = indicates blade from a Pattern 1888 bayonet, recycled at Enfield to become the blade for a Pattern 1903 Scabbard top edge: 18 = number of bayonet the scabbard belonged to Frog: = can't help there as I don't know much about frogs, but looks at first sight to be Australian. The maker's mark seems to me to end ISIS... Duh, 1916... Trajan Edited 12 October , 2018 by trajan spelling, plus later correction end final sentence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 12 October , 2018 Author Share Posted 12 October , 2018 8 hours ago, MKC said: W?? & Co Ltd 1916 (last figure obscured) How about "W.BRUCE .LTD. 1916" - the maker and date. Australia? "6 F.C.E." 6th (Australian) Field Company Engineers", e.g. - https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1378458 Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 12 October , 2018 Author Share Posted 12 October , 2018 8 hours ago, MKC said: ... Wood grips: HY 150 (or) 160 IF there was an 'M' at the end, then Hymers College OTC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 12 October , 2018 Share Posted 12 October , 2018 frog looks like P14, and manufacturer looks like W.B.& Co Ltd....can't find any reference to that I'm afraid. Could the markings on the grips indicate a Yeomanry unit? Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 12 October , 2018 Share Posted 12 October , 2018 (edited) 53 minutes ago, Dave66 said: frog looks like P14, and manufacturer looks like W.B.& Co Ltd.... I agree, the Patt.14 frog is marked W.B. & Co. LTD. 1916 who were makers of various leather articles during the war. Here is a clearer view of the marking on another Patt.14 frog. As you can see it is in the exact same form and typeset. Edited 12 October , 2018 by shippingsteel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 12 October , 2018 Author Share Posted 12 October , 2018 1 hour ago, Dave66 said: frog looks like P14, and manufacturer looks like W.B.& Co Ltd....can't find any reference to that I'm afraid. Could the markings on the grips indicate a Yeomanry unit? Good-oh on that W.B.& Co.Ltd Dave - and ta very much to SS for his "cobberorish" () corroboration and showing an example. I remain happy with my interpretation of the "6.F.C.E." mark, unless there are any other contenders! At the very least it fits the Australian origin of this frog. I did wonder about 'Yeomanry', but couldn't find a suitable candidate for the 'H'... The county, etc., abbreviations are - in my limited experience - always at least two letters and sometimes three. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 12 October , 2018 Share Posted 12 October , 2018 13 minutes ago, trajan said: Good-oh on that W.B.& Co.Ltd Dave - and ta very much to SS for his "cobberorish" () corroboration and showing an example. I remain happy with my interpretation of the "6.F.C.E." mark, unless there are any other contenders! At the very least it fits the Australian origin of this frog. I did wonder about 'Yeomanry', but couldn't find a suitable candidate for the 'H'... The county, etc., abbreviations are - in my limited experience - always at least two letters and sometimes three. The HY is an odd one, and can't think of anything else for the 6 F.C.E, certainly fits well. Just goes to show how well traveled these old things can be. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 12 October , 2018 Author Share Posted 12 October , 2018 On 10/10/2018 at 23:58, shippingsteel said: ... Again that BAH 'unit marking' which seems very common. There are at least 4 of us on GWF that have pieces from this very same 'cache'.! Being one of those four, I guess no advances on what BAH means? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 12 October , 2018 Author Share Posted 12 October , 2018 On 09/10/2018 at 12:20, shippingsteel said: Sounds like this scabbard is the P1903, Naval, Mark II which was introduced 11th March 1904. (LoC 12185) This scabbard has the 4 rivets securing the seam, and should also have another 2 rivets forming the belt loop. I thought I'd elucidate SS's excellent description somewhat by posting this from LOC 12185, as reproduced in Mike Roses' excellent book on the P.1888 and P.1903. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MKC Posted 12 October , 2018 Share Posted 12 October , 2018 Gents, I replied earlier this morning, but it seems to have been lost in the ether. All, thank you for sharing your knowledge. It appears to be a bayonet with a most interesting history: 1888, reworked to 1903, British Army issue, then issued to an AIF artillery driver with a later 1916 manufactured frog which had been previously issued to an Aust engineer unit. If only it could tell its tale! I wonder where Harold came to be issued with it - possibly a replacement issued in the UK or France? Again, thank you. Mike 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