OllieV Posted 27 December , 2015 Share Posted 27 December , 2015 Hi all, I was lucky enough to get a 1888 Mk I bayonet for Xmas from a friend who found it at a flea market. I've established a few things from the markings/stamps such as date of manufacture, but I was wondering if anyone had any insight into the numbers on the pommel. my pic is too big to upload (what a drag) but here's what they are: Closer to the handle there is "21st" over a line, and "94" below said line. And above that in a triangular formations going clockwise starting at 12 are the numbers 7, 2 and 4 and they all have a line through them. I'm thinking this is unit/regiment related? Any info is greatly appreciated! Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 27 December , 2015 Share Posted 27 December , 2015 Hi all, I was lucky enough to get a 1888 Mk I bayonet for Xmas from a friend who found it at a flea market. I've established a few things from the markings/stamps such as date of manufacture, but I was wondering if anyone had any insight into the numbers on the pommel. my pic is too big to upload (what a drag) but here's what they are: Closer to the handle there is "21st" over a line, and "94" below said line. And above that in a triangular formations going clockwise starting at 12 are the numbers 7, 2 and 4 and they all have a line through them. I'm thinking this is unit/regiment related? Any info is greatly appreciated! Cheers! Normally, Regimental pommel markings consist of letter ( initials ) denoting the particular regiment to which the bayonet was issued i.e. H.L.I. for Highland Light Infantry. Numbers on their own would be unusual, and the only British Army markings made up just of numbers I can think of, were those markings for the Territorial Force County Associations, which were numbered 1 - 94 ( allocated alphabetically ), with the number 94 being for the Zetland Territorial Force County Association. Your 21st/94 could stand for 21st Regiment/Zetland Territiorial Force ( 94 ) County Association ? Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 28 December , 2015 Share Posted 28 December , 2015 ... my pic is too big to upload (what a drag) but here's what they are: Closer to the handle there is "21st" over a line, and "94" below said line. And above that in a triangular formations going clockwise starting at 12 are the numbers 7, 2 and 4 and they all have a line through them. ... Numbers on their own would be unusual, and the only British Army markings made up just of numbers I can think of, were those markings for the Territorial Force County Associations, which were numbered 1 - 94 ( allocated alphabetically ), with the number 94 being for the Zetland Territorial Force County Association. Your 21st/94 could stand for 21st Regiment/Zetland Territiorial Force ( 94 ) County Association ? A photograph is posted at: http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?420325-Newly-acquired-Bayonet - and OllieV, I can download and post that here if you would like! It is a very nice looking piece. It is a P.1888 Mk I 2nd type, WD, 09/96. The 'triangular' marking - reading "7" over "42" - is closer to the pommel and parallel to the bayonet: the numbers have been struck out, and so this is the older of the two markings. The other marking is parallel to the crossguard and reads "21st/94". LF - I never knew of those "Territorial Force County Associations" so thanks for the enlightenment! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OllieV Posted 28 December , 2015 Author Share Posted 28 December , 2015 A photograph is posted at: http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?420325-Newly-acquired-Bayonet - and OllieV, I can download and post that here if you would like! It is a very nice looking piece. It is a P.1888 Mk I 2nd type, WD, 09/96. The 'triangular' marking - reading "7" over "42" - is closer to the pommel and parallel to the bayonet: the numbers have been struck out, and so this is the older of the two markings. The other marking is parallel to the crossguard and reads "21st/94". LF - I never knew of those "Territorial Force County Associations" so thanks for the enlightenment! Trajan Thanks for linking the pic! Those numbers still have me stumped.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 28 December , 2015 Share Posted 28 December , 2015 Thanks for linking the pic! Those numbers still have me stumped.... Well, LF has the later one mark sorted for you. The '7' over '42' might be the same type of unit mark? After all, I can see how P.1888's would be eventually relegated to Territorial use - some certainly went to OTC units. But, best of all, give me the ok and I'll re-post the photograph of yours here for others to comment on! Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lancashire Fusilier Posted 28 December , 2015 Share Posted 28 December , 2015 Well, LF has the later one mark sorted for you. The '7' over '42' might be the same type of unit mark? After all, I can see how P.1888's would be eventually relegated to Territorial use - some certainly went to OTC units. But, best of all, give me the ok and I'll re-post the photograph of yours here for others to comment on! Trajan Trajan, If the Territorial Force County Association marking is indeed correct, then the 42 would relate to ' Huntington ', giving 7th Regiment / Huntington Territorial Force County Association ? Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 28 December , 2015 Share Posted 28 December , 2015 The style of this marking (with a number over a line over another number) is the Canadian method of regimental unit marking for the period. It is also found stamped on the rifle buttstocks, with the top number being the regiment number, while the bottom is the actual weapon number. I also have a 1896 dated P1888 bayonet with a similar style of marking, and I have seen others with this date that are also marked like this .... Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 28 December , 2015 Share Posted 28 December , 2015 To help illustrate the similarities and methodology of this style of Canadian marking, I have copied that section of the photo to compare with my example. As you can see the original marking on Ollie's bayonet was to the 7th Regiment with weapon number 42. Then later to 21st Regiment, weapon number 94. The marking on my example shows 24th Regiment and weapon number 99. Both these bayonets are dated 1896 and show period Canadian marking styles. EDIT. The Canadian 7th Battalion, Fusiliers was redesignated the 7th Regiment, Fusiliers on 8th May 1900 (see HERE) The Canadian 21st Battalion, Essex Fusiliers was redesignated the 21st Regiment, Essex Fusiliers on 8th May 1900 Cheers, S>S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mysie Posted 28 December , 2015 Share Posted 28 December , 2015 Hi my husband has been given a Bayonet. We think going by the pictures on identification sites that it is a Lee Metford Mk 2, on the Pomel is 436, there is a mark been carved into the wooden part but cant make it out.On the one side of the blade we can make out Arrow head under neath is crown,below that is a 4 above a 1 and below that is an X.On one end of the sheath is a crown above 75.at the other end is 68 above E, just where the leather joins the metal there is an F. There is writing down the leather but to faded to make it out.Neither of us have a clue how to post pictures of it so intend to try and find anywhere in Glasgow or Edinburgh that will have a look and see if they can find the regiment. Mary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawdoc34 Posted 28 December , 2015 Share Posted 28 December , 2015 S/S, I always connected these type of markings with Canadians also, sure the same are on quite a few ross bayonets that i have encountrered, nearly sure there is a pretty recent thread that has mentioned this type of marking, Aleck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sawdoc34 Posted 28 December , 2015 Share Posted 28 December , 2015 Mysie, sounds like an inspection mark in the wooden grips, pommel mark will probably be a rack number but pics will be a big help, Aleck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 29 December , 2015 Share Posted 29 December , 2015 ... nearly sure there is a pretty recent thread that has mentioned this type of marking, There is indeed - see http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=233545 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 29 December , 2015 Share Posted 29 December , 2015 The style of this marking (with a number over a line over another number) is the Canadian method of regimental unit marking for the period. Sounds reasonable SS! Now, as an expert on Australian markings, how about you cast your eyes over to and comment on the markings shown on posts 10-12 at: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=227017#entry2346163 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 29 December , 2015 Share Posted 29 December , 2015 ... I also have a 1896 dated P1888 bayonet with a similar style of marking, and I have seen others with this date that are also marked like this .... A likely historical context for these 1896 P.1888's in Canada would be in association with the Venezuelan crisis of 1895, when Britain and Venezuela nearly came to war over a border dispute. On 17 December 1895, President Cleveland of the USA more or less openly threatened war with Britain if Westminster did not agree to follow US of A arbitration in the dispute, and according to S&R, 299, 40,000 Lee Enfields and P.1888 bayonets were shipped to Canada in connection with this - but of course they give no reference... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OllieV Posted 29 December , 2015 Author Share Posted 29 December , 2015 Well, LF has the later one mark sorted for you. The '7' over '42' might be the same type of unit mark? After all, I can see how P.1888's would be eventually relegated to Territorial use - some certainly went to OTC units. But, best of all, give me the ok and I'll re-post the photograph of yours here for others to comment on! Trajan By all means, repost it, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 30 December , 2015 Share Posted 30 December , 2015 By all means, repost it, thanks! Thanks Ollie - Not all GWF members are GBF ones also and I am certain that the P.1888 people here will appreciate it! Here we go... And... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 30 December , 2015 Share Posted 30 December , 2015 And.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 30 December , 2015 Share Posted 30 December , 2015 Looking at Ollie's very nice bayonet, two thoughts occur to me. One is the lack of a maker's name, unless "EFD" is underneath the dark stain very close to the cross-piece. Second is the lack of any re-inspection dates, but given issue to Canadian service this may be normal. I have also just acquired a P.1888 (Wilkinson, 2 '95; pommel is marked only "178") and it too lacks any re-inspection dates. Is this "normal" for British service ? Regards, JMB Edit: 179 ==> 178 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 30 December , 2015 Share Posted 30 December , 2015 ... One is the lack of a maker's name, unless "EFD" is underneath the dark stain very close to the cross-piece. ... Second is the lack of any re-inspection dates, but given issue to Canadian service this may be normal. ... I have also just acquired a P.1888 (Wilkinson, 2 '95; pommel is marked only "179") and it too lacks any re-inspection dates. ... Well, these P.1888's are really not my field, but I believe that up to 1897, the WD mark was used as on Ollie's example and was then replaced by the EFD one - I have no idea of which month that happened... SS or LF will no doubt correct if I am wrong and may even know which month the change occurred - Mike Rose almost certainly will... Good point on re-issue markings - I reckon SS or Mike Rose may have an answer to that and if so they might share it with us... All I can say is that I have 10 of these P.1888's, all Mk I/2 and Mk II (I have never seen anything else over here), and all the marked ones are GB units. Of these 10 only two have additional 're-issue' markings. Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdt Posted 30 December , 2015 Share Posted 30 December , 2015 The early 1888's were made by Enfield and have no maker's mark. I think around 1896 was the change point - others can confirm. Re-issue (inspection) marks depend on the bayonet's history. We've had some big threads on these before and I think that the consensus was that certain regiments had regular inspection regimes resulting in annual (or similar) marks (particularly when home-based in the UK). Other ones can be actual re-issue marks as the bayonet moves to a new unit. Ones with no re-issue marks are not unusual. Try searching on this forum for the previous threads. Cheers, Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikp Posted 31 December , 2015 Share Posted 31 December , 2015 I also have an 1888 Wilkinson made Lee Metford but without scabbard. Are there any other scabbards that will fit or does it have to be bayonet specific ? Cheers, Nick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 31 December , 2015 Share Posted 31 December , 2015 I also have an 1888 Wilkinson made Lee Metford but without scabbard. Are there any other scabbards that will fit or does it have to be bayonet specific ? Cheers, Nick. I think there are threads on this but I expect somebody will answer more specifically at some point! But to help in the meantime, broadly speaking, P.1888 and P.1903 scabbards are interchangeable, and there are refurbished scabbards for these from the WW2 period. Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikp Posted 1 January , 2016 Share Posted 1 January , 2016 Many thanks Trajan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 3 January , 2016 Share Posted 3 January , 2016 Happy to help nikp, BUT remember that a real purist collector would insist on having the correct scabbard! So, depending on what date your P.1888 is and who it was issued to, that would be the Scabbard P.1888, Mk I or II or II* - or it could even be the Mk I, Naval...!!! There are also variants to these... Trajan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
msdt Posted 4 January , 2016 Share Posted 4 January , 2016 Have had a look at my copy of "British and Commonwealth Bayonets" and my own small collection of 10 1888 bayonets (snap Trajan!). As stated (or implied!) above, Enfield did not put a maker's name on the ricasso. Their early bayonets had nothing other than WD with the Broad Arrow, then the WD became EFD. I am not sure exactly which year the change occurred, the latest WD one I have is October 1894, Ollie's example above is September 1896, but then I have no Enfield made ones until an EFD marked one from July 1899 (a type 2). 1903 bayonets also are marked the same - Broad Arrow plus EFD (unless they are converted from 1888's). In addition to Enfield, 1888's were made by Wilkinson, Sanderson and Mole, with the name on the ricasso (not sure about Mole). In fact Wilkinson made them from the start, but I think the other 2 started a bit later. I have one Sanderson from June 1895. 3 of the others are Wilkinson's, so the remaining 6 are Enfields. 6 of the bayonets have no re-issue marks. They are all regimentally marked - being bought because of that. Regarding Nick's question about the correct scabbard for his bayonet, it will almost certainly be the Mark 1, the most common by far. The Mark 2 was produced from 1902 to 1904 in small numbers. The 1903 pattern scabbards will fit of course, but then most 1903 bayonets are found in the 1888 Mark 1 scabbards. Cheers, Tony 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