JMB1943 Posted 19 February , 2018 Share Posted 19 February , 2018 I recently came across this Pattern 1888, Mk. I, First Type for sale. The seller evidently did not know what he had---price $50 with shipping for $20. I could see from his photos that it had been badly mistreated; both ricassos and both medial ridges had been considerably ground away. However, it is a 3-rivet early P.88 example, with quite decent (not split) grips; also, price was not $250 !! It weighs ~58 g (~2 oz) less than my Mk. I, Second Type and is ~6 mm (`0.25 in.) shorter. The tip has been rounded, but both edges have been sharpened a lot. With bayonets, as in life, you usually get what you pay for; here the cost vs quality trade-off was acceptable to me. Pommel: 54 (no unit markings) LHS ricasso: issue date ? ; should be '89 according to Skennerton; reissue '94 with crown/BR/4 RHS ricasso: WD; X-bend proof; W Upper tang: crown/BR/15 or 45 Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 19 February , 2018 Author Share Posted 19 February , 2018 (edited) Edited 19 February , 2018 by JMB1943 Add info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 19 February , 2018 Author Share Posted 19 February , 2018 Can I presume that this is a WILKINSON-made bayonet ? Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 19 February , 2018 Share Posted 19 February , 2018 28 minutes ago, JMB1943 said: Can I presume that this is a WILKINSON-made bayonet ? Regards, JMB Hello JMB, what a nice thing to find in any condition, plenty of service use, but that just adds to the history. they were only made at enfield, up until early 1890 but not totally sure of the exact dates but mine is 12-89. The W must be part of an inspection stamp, certainly had some official repairs. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
new3.2 Posted 21 February , 2018 Share Posted 21 February , 2018 Can I step in with a question? I have an early 3 rivet 1888 that was brought back to Illinois after the war. Were these common late in the war? It was brought back by Sgt. Earle C. Laugharn, who was a member of Bty. A 339th FA, 88th Div. This was one of the draftee divisions that did not get to France till later in 1918. If you are aboard Chris, he was from Pleasant Plains. Earle at some point carved his initials into the grip. new3.2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 21 February , 2018 Author Share Posted 21 February , 2018 (edited) I would have thought that the 3-rivet was uncommon at any time during the war, especially as late as 1918. There were only about 25K of these made before the design went to the 2-rivet model. Could you post some photos? Regards, JMB Edited 21 February , 2018 by JMB1943 typo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
new3.2 Posted 21 February , 2018 Share Posted 21 February , 2018 Thanks for comment JMB. I will try to get some photos next week. We are going on a little trip till then. There are a whole laundry list of numbers stamped on the blade. Think it was made in '05. new3.2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4thGordons Posted 21 February , 2018 Share Posted 21 February , 2018 4 hours ago, new3.2 said: Can I step in with a question? I have an early 3 rivet 1888 that was brought back to Illinois after the war. Were these common late in the war? It was brought back by Sgt. Earle C. Laugharn, who was a member of Bty. A 339th FA, 88th Div. This was one of the draftee divisions that did not get to France till later in 1918. If you are aboard Chris, he was from Pleasant Plains. Earle at some point carved his initials into the grip. new3.2 I am in Pleasant Plains once a week to teach a class! Did the 339th get split off and serve with another div? (PM me - don't drag this off track!) The answer is they were NOT common (ever) and certainly not later in the war because the rifle they fit to (by that point CLLE) had essentially disappeared from the Western Front in early 1916. I would guess he may have picked it up while in the Army of Occupation (ie in Germany were it may have been brought earlier) or, possibly if they trans-shipped through the UK and interacted with reserve/3rd line units there (poss at port of disembarkation?) -- interesting. Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 21 February , 2018 Share Posted 21 February , 2018 9 hours ago, new3.2 said: Can I step in with a question? I have an early 3 rivet 1888 that was brought back to Illinois after the war. Were these common late in the war? It was brought back by Sgt. Earle C. Laugharn, who was a member of Bty. A 339th FA, 88th Div. This was one of the draftee divisions that did not get to France till later in 1918. If you are aboard Chris, he was from Pleasant Plains. Earle at some point carved his initials into the grip. new3.2 I have a mk1 type 2, with a production date of 94, and the Pommel is marked up to the 4th siege battery r.g.a. They were part of the B.E.F. And landed in France in early 1915. the interesting thing is it has the letter H stamped everywhere, which would tie in with their change to a Heavy Battery sometime in 1917. I too had always assumed that by mid 1916 the use of the C.L.L.E. was restricted to reserve battalions, but it would make sense for artillery, service corps etc to still make use of their originally issued weapons, 20 plus years old at the time but still serviceable. Certainly very uncommon by the late stages of the war, but still a possibility. look forward to seeing the pictures. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bombadier Posted 21 February , 2018 Share Posted 21 February , 2018 My grandfather was in 4sb and he landed in France in August 1914, apparently a few days before the majority of the battery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 21 February , 2018 Share Posted 21 February , 2018 33 minutes ago, Bombadier said: My grandfather was in 4sb and he landed in France in August 1914, apparently a few days before the majority of the battery. My error sorry, it was officially the 17th September according to the long long trail....working from poor memory this morning! i researched them a few years ago and most of the data now lost after malfunctioning hard drive, so having to start from scratch as time allows, but, I must admit, artillery is not easy to pin down. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 22 February , 2018 Share Posted 22 February , 2018 On 2/19/2018 at 20:07, JMB1943 said: Can I presume that this is a WILKINSON-made bayonet ? On 2/19/2018 at 20:44, Dave66 said: ... they were only made at enfield, up until early 1890 but not totally sure of the exact dates but mine is 12-89. The W must be part of an inspection stamp, certainly had some official repairs. I would be perfectly - in fact, very - happy with it! Been through the mill and back again a few times to judge from all that re-grinding and re-shaping! And those well worn rivets! WD and not EFD so made evidently before 1897. And anyway, the new version Mk. I (without three rivets) was described for manufacture by RSAF 1212, issued 16 March 1889, amended 18 February 1890, so has to be befoe 1890,,.The 'W' is in the right place for a Wilkinson inspection stamp, so perhaps refurbished by them in 1894 - the latest visible 're-issue' mark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 22 February , 2018 Share Posted 22 February , 2018 21 minutes ago, trajan said: I would be perfectly - in fact, very - happy with it! Been through the mill and back again a few times to judge from all that re-grinding and re-shaping! And those well worn rivets! WD and not EFD so made evidently before 1897. And anyway, the new version Mk. I (without three rivets) was described for manufacture by RSAF 1212, issued 16 March 1889, amended 18 February 1890, so has to be befoe 1890,,.The 'W' is in the right place for a Wilkinson inspection stamp, so perhaps refurbished by them in 1894 - the latest visible 're-issue' mark? http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/topic/200429-1888-lee-metford-bayonet-scabbard/?tab=comments#comment-2549135 Theres one on this thread 2-90, can't recall seeing another with a later stamp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 22 February , 2018 Share Posted 22 February , 2018 30 minutes ago, Dave66 said: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/topic/200429-1888-lee-metford-bayonet-scabbard/?tab=comments#comment-2549135 Theres one on this thread 2-90, can't recall seeing another with a later stamp. Well remembered Dave - you must be a P.1888 man?! Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 22 February , 2018 Share Posted 22 February , 2018 3 minutes ago, trajan said: Well remembered Dave - you must be a P.1888 man?! Julian Julian, Absolutley...haw can one resist all that history that can span so many conflicts. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 22 February , 2018 Author Share Posted 22 February , 2018 Trajan & Dave, Thank you both for your insights. By the way, has a conversion of a 3-rivet P. 88 to a P.1903 ever been recorded. Does the Michael Rose book discuss this ? Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 22 February , 2018 Share Posted 22 February , 2018 32 minutes ago, JMB1943 said: Trajan & Dave, Thank you both for your insights. By the way, has a conversion of a 3-rivet P. 88 to a P.1903 ever been recorded. Does the Michael Rose book discuss this ? Regards, JMB JMB, Sadly no Michael Rose on my bookshelf I'm afraid. Interesting question though. Over to you Trajan... All the best, Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 23 February , 2018 Share Posted 23 February , 2018 20 hours ago, Dave66 said: Absolutley...haw can one resist all that history that can span so many conflicts. And a very attractive bayonet! One of the three or so bayonets I rate as absolutely tops in design and - one assumes ! - functionality... 19 hours ago, JMB1943 said: By the way, has a conversion of a 3-rivet P. 88 to a P.1903 ever been recorded. ... Does the Michael Rose book discuss this ? 18 hours ago, Dave66 said: Sadly no Michael Rose on my bookshelf I'm afraid. ... Interesting question though. Never seen a three rivet job blade made into a 1903, but anything is possible. Michael Rose does not reference one. I haven't been in touch with him for a while (he is busy with a young family and his work on P.1907's) and so I might send an alert to him on this matter. Julian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 23 February , 2018 Share Posted 23 February , 2018 2 hours ago, trajan said: And a very attractive bayonet! One of the three or so bayonets I rate as absolutely tops in design and - one assumes ! - functionality... Never seen a three rivet job blade made into a 1903, but anything is possible. Michael Rose does not reference one. I haven't been in touch with him for a while (he is busy with a young family and his work on P.1907's) and so I might send an alert to him on this matter. Julian I would have thought it possible to convert any p1888, but probably much simpler and cheaper to convert Mk2 or Mk3 as only a simple pommel and grip change due to the position of the top rivet. As you say, extremely attractive and well made bayonets with good quality materials...true antiques that have stood the test of time. Dave. 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