Pattern ‘88, Mk.1, type 2, 2/91, well stamped

[Nutting]

Fresh acquisition: P’88 Mk.I, type II, February 1891.

 

Clear VR cypher, 2’91 and crown/B/63.  Also ‘.99’ (I seem to remember that a dot was used to acknowledge corrosion, etc. but not enough to put out of service?)

 

On other face of ricasso: broad arrow over WD, crown/45/E inspection stamp, bend test, back-to-back R ‘reduced in service status’ stamp and double broad arrow ‘sold out of service’ stamp.

 

On spine: (correction) crown/16/E; on edge of tang: (Update) crown/BR/12 and on opposite edge of tang: crown/9/M.

 

On pommel: 10 and either a ‘+’ or a struck-through 1.

 

Scabbard (poor) and frog questionable) - photos follow.

 

Comments welcome,

Nigel.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 4 May , 2019 by Nutting
Corrections, additions, updates

[Dave66]

Hello Nigel,

nice honest example, the tang stamp looks like crown/BR/12...Birmingham repair.

Is the frog of the period?

 

Dave.

[Nutting]

21 minutes ago, Dave66 said:

Hello Nigel,

nice honest example, the tang stamp looks like crown/BR/12...Birmingham repair.

Is the frog of the period?

 

Dave.

Dave,  

 

You’re right: crown/BR/12 (looked at in sunlight with magnifier).

 

Collection coming along nicely: P’88 Mk.I, P’88 Mk.II, P’03.

 

Frog is a dog, I suspect (poor quality and ? restitched, looks homemade).  Scabbard has issues (internal chape visible, but also evidence of (absent) external chape and (absent) laces.  All painted black (no indication of Navy issue).

 

N.

 

 

[JMB1943]

Nigel,

 

As per Dave’s comments.

Also, I think that crown / 16 / L is actually 16 / E.

The back-to-back R is not seen that often (in my limited experience) and I was not aware of the 

significance of the .99 as indicating a problem.

Looking at the photos, it’s not easy to spot any issues.

Is the release stud frozen?

 

Regards,

JMB

[Dave66]

Frog looks colonial from the roller buckle and rivets, but certainly been altered.

With regard the 9/M on the tang, I have four with 10/M and another with 2/M.....often wondered if they were regripped at mole?

 

Dave.

[Nutting]

16 minutes ago, JMB1943 said:

Nigel,

 

As per Dave’s comments.

Also, I think that crown / 16 / L is actually 16 / E.

The back-to-back R is not seen that often (in my limited experience) and I was not aware of the 

significance of the .99 as indicating a problem.

Looking at the photos, it’s not easy to spot any issues.

Is the release stud frozen?

 

Regards,

JMB

JMB,

 

Yes, I should look more closely, crown/16/L is indeed crown/16/E. 

 

I was very pleased to see the back-to-back Rs and it was one of the reasons I grabbed his bayonet as soon as I saw it. That particular stamp appears to have been struck with a single punch, but I have seen a photo where two, separate mirror image punches appeared to have been used.

 

With regard the dot, I had read somewhere on this forum that armourers used a dot stamp to indicate that they had noted corrosion or other light damage, but that it was not sufficient to withdraw the item from service. If I can find the reference again, I’ll quote it directly. If anyone reading this can point me in the right direction, it would be appreciated.

 

The release stud was stiff, but just needed a dose of WD-40 and light manipulation. It’s now fully functional. 

 

All in all, I’m very pleased with my new acquisition. 

 

N. 

[Nutting]

14 minutes ago, Dave66 said:

Frog looks colonial from the roller buckle and rivets, but certainly been altered.

With regard the 9/M on the tang, I have four with 10/M and another with 2/M.....often wondered if they were regripped at mole?

 

Dave.

 Dave,

 

The frog certainly isn’t recent, or it has been made to look non-recent, in the light of the copper rivets. I wonder whether it was something “made in the field“. 

 

It would be nice if the 9/M were a Mole-related stamp and it’s certainly the only M stamp on any of my three ‘88/‘03 bayonets.   I clearly should buy more bayonets just to check… 😉

 

It just gets betterer  and betterer !

 

N. 

[JMB1943]

The 9/M stamp probably is for Mole, by analogy to 49/W, S/54 and 45/E for known Wilkinson, Sanderson and Enfield, respectively.

I haves usually seen crown/B/35 or crown/B/55 for Mole P. 88’s, but these are the main acceptance stamp on the ricasso, not markings on the tang.

The Mole P.07’s are usually stamped crown/Mx/italic B, where x = 5, 9, 13.

 

Regards,

JMB

[edit: yes it does...!]

Edited 4 May , 2019 by JMB1943
Add comment

[Dave66]

11 minutes ago, JMB1943 said:

The 9/M stamp probably is for Mole, by analogy to 49/W, S/54 and 45/E for known Wilkinson, Sanderson and Enfield, respectively.

I haves usually seen crown/B/35 or crown/B/55 for Mole P. 88’s, but these are the main acceptance stamp on the ricasso, not markings on the tang.

The Mole P.07’s are usually stamped crown/Mx/italic B, where x = 5, 9, 13.

 

Regards,

JMB

[edit: yes it does...!]

Thanks JMB, I have 6 of mine that show that mark....all Enfield produced. So either regripped, or mole subcontracted and gripped new 1888’s  for Enfield.

 

Dave.

[Nutting]

On 04/05/2019 at 14:12, Nutting said:

JMB,

 

Yes, I should look more closely, crown/16/L is indeed crown/16/E. 

 

I was very pleased to see the back-to-back Rs and it was one of the reasons I grabbed his bayonet as soon as I saw it. That particular stamp appears to have been struck with a single punch, but I have seen a photo where two, separate mirror image punches appeared to have been used.

 

With regard the dot, I had read somewhere on this forum that armourers used a dot stamp to indicate that they had noted corrosion or other light damage, but that it was not sufficient to withdraw the item from service. If I can find the reference again, I’ll quote it directly. If anyone reading this can point me in the right direction, it would be appreciated.

 

The release stud was stiff, but just needed a dose of WD-40 and light manipulation. It’s now fully functional. 

 

All in all, I’m very pleased with my new acquisition. 

 

N. 

JMB,

 

 Back to the dot issue, Michael Rose in his excellent “12 inches…“ book states “Sword bayonets marks I, II and III which went through repair at Ordnance Factories were to be stamped on the pommel with a star if they had blemishes that could not be removed but which did not affect the serviceability of the bayonet.”

 

So it is not entirely as I recalled (not unusual these days). As you were!

 

That still leaves the question, however, of the meaning/relevance of the.99 on this bayonet  (it’s definitely a dot, not an apostrophe, i.e. it’s not a re-issue date of ‘99).

 

Nigel

[Dave66]

I think the .99 must be the repair date.

one of mine has a BR/80 on the tang and along with other inspection stamps there is the same .99 (the dot's worn but there.

It would make sense, at the start of the boer war when the army would push through and repair any serviceable bayonets due to the increased demand.

pic below for comparison.

 

Dave.

[Nutting]

5 minutes ago, Dave66 said:

I think the .99 must be the repair date.

one of mine has a BR/80 on the tang and along with other inspection stamps there is the same .99 (the dot's worn but there.

It would make sense, at the start of the boer war when the army would push through and repair any serviceable bayonets due to the increased demand.

pic below for comparison.

 

Dave.

 

Dave,

 

Yes, that’s the same ‘.99’ stamp.  I did wonder about it being the repair date.

 

Thanks,

N.

[JMB1943]

Nigel,

 

I think that your original supposition about the significance of the .99 is correct.

It is probably not a coincidence that the only .xx that I have ever seen is on a bayonet marked with the double R symbol.

At first glance, the 8-yr gap from inspection at manufacture (91) to re-inspection (99) does seem unusual, but checking my notes 

turns up several others with such a gap.

 

Regards,

JMB

 

 

[Dave66]

Intrigued I did a bit of searching and found this old thread.....

Trajan posted the link here...http://www.bayonetsplus.com/f_MH_art_carbine.html where at the bottom bayonet has a BR repair and a .00 “reissue date”

An interesting little stamp that I hadn’t paid much attention to before, but may still have something to do with the reversed R....we need to find more examples to confirm either theory.

 

Dave.

 

[Nutting]

1 hour ago, Dave66 said:

Intrigued I did a bit of searching and found this old thread.....

Trajan posted the link here...http://www.bayonetsplus.com/f_MH_art_carbine.html where at the bottom bayonet has a BR repair and a .00 “reissue date”

An interesting little stamp that I hadn’t paid much attention to before, but may still have something to do with the reversed R....we need to find more examples to confirm either theory.

 

Dave.

 

Dave,

 

Many thanks. Looks like a possible link between .xx dates and double R stamps or between .xx dates and repair stamps.  Another small piece in the jigsaw!  Do you have any bayonets with all three?

 

N.

[Dave66]

11 minutes ago, Nutting said:

Do you have any bayonets with all three?

No, and what confuses things even more is Richards in the link has 2 BR stamps, reversed R but no .XX

May just be one of those things that we never truly get to the bottom of though.

 

Dave.

 

[shippingsteel]

I think you will find that these "dotted dates" are nothing more than common 'reissue marks' that are peculiar to RSAF Sparkbrook (Birmingham). All 'reissue marks' are associated with an inspectors view mark which is stamped alongside or nearby. These "dotted dates" are the same, with the .99 clearly associated with the inspector 63/B. Two examples are provided with this same date and viewer mark. Another example with the .00 date is also noted, this with the inspectors view mark of BR/4 stamped alongside. All these examples show the characteristics of regular 'reissue marks' stamped in the date and inspection mark format.

 

It should also be noted that the BR inspection marks DO NOT necessarily indicate that any REPAIR has been undertaken at Birmingham. The BR letters show that this particular inspector was based at the Birmingham Repair workshop which was once located in Bagot Street but later moved to Sparkbrook. So the BR letters can indicate viewing of any production steps or regular inspections that were undertaken either at the Birmingham repair shop or by inspectors who were based in that area at Sparkbrook. My take is that the vast majority of BR markings would have been stamped during regular production or the inspection/reissue process and NOT due to any repair work done.

[Dave66]

9 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

I think you will find that these "dotted dates" are nothing more than common 'reissue marks' that are peculiar to RSAF Sparkbrook (Birmingham). All 'reissue marks' are associated with an inspectors view mark which is stamped alongside or nearby. These "dotted dates" are the same, with the .99 clearly associated with the inspector 63/B. Two examples are provided with this same date and viewer mark. Another example with the .00 date is also noted, this with the inspectors view mark of BR/4 stamped alongside. All these examples show the characteristics of regular 'reissue marks' stamped in the date and inspection mark format.

 

It should also be noted that the BR inspection marks DO NOT necessarily indicate that any REPAIR has been undertaken at Birmingham. The BR letters show that this particular inspector was based at the Birmingham Repair workshop which was once located in Bagot Street but later moved to Sparkbrook. So the BR letters can indicate viewing of any production steps or regular inspections that were undertaken either at the Birmingham repair shop or by inspectors who were based in that area at Sparkbrook. My take is that the vast majority of BR markings would have been stamped during regular production or the inspection/reissue process and NOT due to any repair work done.

Thanks for shedding light on this shippingsteel,

very usefull

 

Dave.

 

[Nutting]

11 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

I think you will find that these "dotted dates" are nothing more than common 'reissue marks' that are peculiar to RSAF Sparkbrook (Birmingham). All 'reissue marks' are associated with an inspectors view mark which is stamped alongside or nearby. These "dotted dates" are the same, with the .99 clearly associated with the inspector 63/B. Two examples are provided with this same date and viewer mark. Another example with the .00 date is also noted, this with the inspectors view mark of BR/4 stamped alongside. All these examples show the characteristics of regular 'reissue marks' stamped in the date and inspection mark format.

 

It should also be noted that the BR inspection marks DO NOT necessarily indicate that any REPAIR has been undertaken at Birmingham. The BR letters show that this particular inspector was based at the Birmingham Repair workshop which was once located in Bagot Street but later moved to Sparkbrook. So the BR letters can indicate viewing of any production steps or regular inspections that were undertaken either at the Birmingham repair shop or by inspectors who were based in that area at Sparkbrook. My take is that the vast majority of BR markings would have been stamped during regular production or the inspection/reissue process and NOT due to any repair work done.

Shippingsteel,

 

Many thanks for a comprehensive reply.  Given the rigid and hierarchical nature of Victorian working life - double that for anything military- I’m surprised that an inspector would use an R stamp (presumably repair/refurbishment) during initial production, but I suppose there’s always room for originality!

 

Thanks again,

Nigel

 

(My great grandfather was in the Birmingham gun trade, with a workshop immediately behind the Greener factory).

[shippingsteel]

Just to clarify, there are a vast array of different markings that were applied to these bayonets over the course of their service life. They range from initial production stages to acceptance, inspection/reissue, repair and/or conversion through to final rejection and/or sale from service, and then even on to life after regular service with Cadets/OTC or foreign countries armed forces. Obviously most of these markings would get applied at different times in the weapons "life-cycle". When looked at overall, these markings can help string together some of the history of the particular piece.

 

There is always ample room for confusion of course. And there is always some variation in style of markings between the various manufacturers, whether they be contractors or Government arms factories. So given the example in the OP, the first things to gain our attention are the Reversed R mark and Sale mark on the ricasso. These are both "end of service life" marks, the Reversed R signifying rejection by the Inspector as no longer being "fit for purpose". So then the item may be relegated to Drill Purpose only, handed on to the likes of Cadets, or entirely Sold from Service.

 

Getting back to the BR markings (in the form Crown/BR/xx) these Inspection marks were applied at the Birmingham Repair workshop at either Bagot Street (up until 1894) or later at Sparkbrook itself (from 1894-1906). RSAF Sparkbrook was then sold to BSA in 1906. These Inspection marks can indicate either View and/or Repair. When the Repair workshop was incorporated into Sparkbrook they also undertook Conversions. So when I earlier mentioned the BR markings could also be applied in production, I didn't mean initial production as such, but rather work and processes undertaken in the production of new Patterns of weaponry by way of conversions. 

 

So you really need to look hard at each particular piece to see if it has been upgraded/converted to a newer Pattern, or whether it has indeed been Repaired (in the case of bayonets, re-gripping would be a common repair) or if it has simply passed through the workshop during a regular maintenance program and being deemed OK has been stamped by the Inspector/Viewer with his mark.

[shippingsteel]

On 04/05/2019 at 22:58, Dave66 said:

With regard the 9/M on the tang, I have four with 10/M and another with 2/M.....often wondered if they were regripped at mole?

 

With this Crown/x/M marking, this appears to be a manufacturing process inspection stamp from RSAF Enfield, as it is always to my knowledge found on Enfield produced bayonets, and over quite a number of years. I have these in my collection as well. I have theorised on the forum before that this M is a throwback to an earlier time at Enfield when the RSAF was known as the Royal Manufactory, but the exact meaning of this letter remains unknown. 

[shippingsteel]

Whilst dredging through my collection looking at inspection markings, it appears that I also have found one of these "dotted dates".! I have posted this photo on the forum previously so that is why it has the highlights added. This is what I called a good example of a "regular inspection program" with 'reissue' dates of 96, 99, 02 and 05 shown. And these were all inspected through Sparkbrook. Now it is the 96 to the right which has the dot but it is a little hard to see, the 99 may also have a dot but it has overstamped the acceptance date so making it illegible. So again more evidence the "dotted dates" are associated with Birmingham inspection during the 'reissue' process. 

 

[trajan]

Always good to see the way our "hobby" continues to develop!

[Nutting]

12 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

Just to clarify, there are a vast array of different markings that were applied to these bayonets over the course of their service life. They range from initial production stages to acceptance, inspection/reissue, repair and/or conversion ......

Shippingsteel,

 

Thanks for another informative reply. This is all fascinating.

 

Nigel

10 hours ago, shippingsteel said:

Whilst dredging through my collection looking at inspection markings, it appears that I also have found one of these "dotted dates".! I have posted this photo on the forum previously so that is why it has the highlights added. This is what I called a good example of a "regular inspection program" with 'reissue' dates of 96, 99, 02 and 05 shown. .....

 

 

And again!

 

Nigel

[Dave66]

Thanks again shippingsteel,

 

Dave.