JMB1943 Posted 19 July , 2018 Share Posted 19 July , 2018 Here are some photos of a recently-acquired specimen. 1. No frog button on scabbard, which is of the internal-chape first type. 2. No markings on left ricasso, so not dated 3. No unit markings on pommel 4. No maker markings on locket Because of 2, not known explicitly if this was made as a P. '03 or is a converted P.88, although I believe that conversions made at EFD carry an "E" stamp on the end of the pommel. What it does have is an inscription (Arabic/Farsi/Turkish) on both tangs, different each side. Translations gratefully accepted! Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 19 July , 2018 Share Posted 19 July , 2018 Hello JMB, like the new addition, but unusual the lack of markings. I have two, one newly manufactured and one converted. The converted one is the one on the left, and has J. A. C. (Chapman) Stamped on the end of the pommel...pictures purely to show comparisons. Sorry, struggle with the English language at times soon help on the inscription. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 19 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 19 July , 2018 Dave, Thanks for posting your two examples. I think that possibly the lack of markings may be due to either an overseas contract or over-zealous polishing. Have previously recorded the crown/49/W on a 1 ‘91 WILK P. 88, and now yours and mine here. Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 19 July , 2018 Share Posted 19 July , 2018 5 minutes ago, JMB1943 said: Dave, Thanks for posting your two examples. I think that possibly the lack of markings may be due to either an overseas contract or over-zealous polishing. Have previously recorded the crown/49/W on a 1 ‘91 WILK P. 88, and now yours and mine here. Regards, JMB Overseas contract is certainly a possibility, or, were any p1888 converted in India? Scabbards nice, such a shame it's missing it's frog though, I have one similar..any feint British markings on the leather? Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWK Posted 19 July , 2018 Share Posted 19 July , 2018 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 19 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 19 July , 2018 JWK, Thank you for that reminder, but as you can all see it petered out with no absolutely definitive answer other than Urdu. Dave, Not a single mark on the scabbard! Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 20 July , 2018 Share Posted 20 July , 2018 This unmarked P1903 appears to be a Wilkinson 'contract bayonet' that was never UK Govt accepted (no Broad Arrow, Royal cypher or Acceptance date) so possibly an overseas contract or simply sale of surplus by Wilkinson into the weapons market at some stage. There would have been a lot of P1903 bayonets left over, unwanted and without a home when the British Army went with the P1907 bayonet instead (for the SMLE rifle) Regarding the Arabic script, I do believe it is Urdu but hard to say which language it is because it's just a 'string code' of letters and numbers, which possibly designates a soldier within a military unit (as in regiment, battalion, company, platoon & weapon number, etc etc) You need to remember that this language reads from right to left so this one above reads as follows 22 (shorthand word) 1 B 1 T 3 K 2 G 1 L This one from the other thread also follows the same 'string code' and reads as below 116 (shorthand word) 3 B 5 T 2 K 1 G 1 L The other tang which I haven't yet translated seems to be more letters but I need a better focused photo to make it out properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 21 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 21 July , 2018 S>S, Thanks for your input on those two sets of markings. With those being string codes of numbers & letters, I’m looking forward to seeing what meaning the different markings on the other tang will have. A clearer photo will follow later. Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 21 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 21 July , 2018 (edited) s>s, Here is a better photo of the other marking to have a crack at. Regards, JMB 1st pass is: 22 w/ unknown 2T B L D M 1 K Edited 21 July , 2018 by JMB1943 Add info Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shippingsteel Posted 21 July , 2018 Share Posted 21 July , 2018 (edited) More gibberish I'm afraid, looks to be more single letters and a number. However I think I have nailed down that 'shorthand word' next to the numerals at the end. As you can see, on this tang we have been ''treated'' with the full script rendering of that word which appears to translate as number or the like (there is a definite 'nmbr' string in there) As for the individual letters in the main string I read them as follows (I have no idea what they all stand for) 22 NUMBER 2 T H L D ?R? A K Edited 21 July , 2018 by shippingsteel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 22 July , 2018 Author Share Posted 22 July , 2018 S>S, Thanks again for your input. Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navydoc16 Posted 29 December , 2023 Share Posted 29 December , 2023 On 20/07/2018 at 02:27, JMB1943 said: Here are some photos of a recently-acquired specimen. 1. No frog button on scabbard, which is of the internal-chape first type. 2. No markings on left ricasso, so not dated 3. No unit markings on pommel 4. No maker markings on locket Because of 2, not known explicitly if this was made as a P. '03 or is a converted P.88, although I believe that conversions made at EFD carry an "E" stamp on the end of the pommel. What it does have is an inscription (Arabic/Farsi/Turkish) on both tangs, different each side. Translations gratefully accepted! Regards, JMB Dear mate, I have an identical bayonet, same markings if you ever found out more information? Mine is identical in markings, inspector proof one set of Arabic script Kind regards, G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navydoc16 Posted 29 December , 2023 Share Posted 29 December , 2023 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navydoc16 Posted 29 December , 2023 Share Posted 29 December , 2023 My deduction is that they are a private contract of newly made 1903. My understanding is that very early in the interwar period there was still signifiant amount of 1903 parts in Wilkinson stores that was completed and sold off. Of note is how crisp the markings are, the dies are very fresh and care has been taken in the stamping process, nicer markings than any converted or fresh 1903's in my collection, also there is not history of scrubbed unit markings on the pommel, which are normally set quite deep and would have been very obvious if ground out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Higgs Posted 29 December , 2023 Share Posted 29 December , 2023 I have a similar bayonet!… no frog stud on scabbard… there’s more of these about than I thought there would be! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 29 December , 2023 Author Share Posted 29 December , 2023 Navydoc16 & Driver Higgs, Thanks for posting your examples of this unusually-marked Patt. 1903. I take the points made regarding a private contract, sharp stampings, new dies etc. Who would have thought that such simple inscriptions would have given us so much trouble!! The inscriptions do seem, to my eyes, to be slightly different on each of the three. So possibly three different units or serials?? Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 30 December , 2023 Author Share Posted 30 December , 2023 If you go to this Trench Club post, you will find that it morphs into yet another Patt. 1903 bayo made by Wilkinson, with arabic script. It summarizes some of the earlier discussions, and adds some info from my playing with the "Google Translate" app about a month ago. I could not initially find that result earlier today, because it is listed under Trench Club. You will see that we still don't have any meaningful translation. Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navydoc16 Posted 30 December , 2023 Share Posted 30 December , 2023 (edited) Very curious indeed, I will have to see if other of my arabic 1907's have similar markings. I was stuffing around and found a reference to "Afghan 1903" in google that brought me to the "World Bayonets" page. Referencing a very similar article, 49 inspectors mark. Classified as as being in David Ottobres book as a referenced example. I didn't want to pull any photos for fear of copyright. Kind regards, G Edited 30 December , 2023 by navydoc16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMB1943 Posted 30 December , 2023 Author Share Posted 30 December , 2023 Navydoc, Must admit that I had never done a Google search, will run that later today. I was also thinking about the apparently strange absence of a frog button from the scabbard. Thinking of the movie “Lawrence of….” reminds me that the arab tribesmen wore their long robes bound by a sash into which they pushed their daggers. No belt, hence no belt frog hence no frog stud…..Does that sound reasonable? Regards, JMB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave66 Posted 30 December , 2023 Share Posted 30 December , 2023 The scabbard is of the type that had an internal chape and leather frog as one, it’s missing the leather frog….see the thread below. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 31 December , 2023 Share Posted 31 December , 2023 There are 'Arabic' type numbers there - but is it Arabic lettering and not Urdu? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navydoc16 Posted 1 January Share Posted 1 January On 31/12/2023 at 01:24, JMB1943 said: Navydoc, Must admit that I had never done a Google search, will run that later today. I was also thinking about the apparently strange absence of a frog button from the scabbard. Thinking of the movie “Lawrence of….” reminds me that the arab tribesmen wore their long robes bound by a sash into which they pushed their daggers. No belt, hence no belt frog hence no frog stud…..Does that sound reasonable? Regards, JMB Should just be missing the leather frog I believe Kind regards, g 8 hours ago, trajan said: There are 'Arabic' type numbers there - but is it Arabic lettering and not Urdu? Unsure, I have a friend who reads arabic, so now I have gone down the rabbit hole I figure I must continue. Kind regard, g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navydoc16 Posted 1 January Share Posted 1 January Managed to pull out my other Afghan, locally produced 1907, they built 1907s and 1913s. I have three but I can’t find the third one. Bought all three from a bloke that was in Afghanistan on tour and brought them back. they brought lots of old knives and bayonets to the markets, when they worked out the this particular “digger” liked bayonets, this local came back the next day with a old crate with a handful of these from god knows where. kind regards g Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navydoc16 Posted 7 April Share Posted 7 April (edited) On 31/12/2023 at 04:24, JMB1943 said: Navydoc, Must admit that I had never done a Google search, will run that later today. I was also thinking about the apparently strange absence of a frog button from the scabbard. Thinking of the movie “Lawrence of….” reminds me that the arab tribesmen wore their long robes bound by a sash into which they pushed their daggers. No belt, hence no belt frog hence no frog stud…..Does that sound reasonable? Regards, JMB Here are some that were just sold, all in Australia from the same guy hopefully we can get some language guys in here to update Edited 7 April by navydoc16 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
navydoc16 Posted 7 April Share Posted 7 April 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