Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

Captain White

1888 Pattern Bayonet

Recommended Posts

Captain White

Given the level of knowledge and expertise, asking for help on the forum seems like the best place to be. The Bayonet itself has seen much service, is badly pitted and corroded in places and there are a number if deep marks in some of the surfaces, I have had this for many years and cannot remember where I got it from and when.

 

I cannot read the possible makers mark, the stamp itself is not very clear and has been obscured heavily with later date stamps and makes it difficult to interpret, any input into the origin would be gratefully received as I am not an expert in this field. I can make out the following dates;

 

[19]00, [19]03, [19]04, [19]05, [19]07, [19]09 (possibly?) and at least three inspection stamps. Reverse shows the War Department stamp, another inspection stamp and the 'X' stiffness test. 

 

The other marks further down are visible, No 68 but no idea what this means and the mark on the reverse is clear but again I do not know what this is.

 

Looking forward to any replies, should be interesting!

1888 Pattern Bayonet dates1 sf.jpg

1888 Pattern Bayonet dates2 sf.jpg

1888 Pattern Bayonet dates3 sf.jpg

1888 Pattern Bayonet dates4 sf.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave66

Welcome Captain White,

 

Manufacturers stamp looks to be “Wilkinson London”, the 68 on the pommel would be the rack number and the CC stamp indicates issue to the county cadets....this thread here has another example of that stamp...

 

 

Dave.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain White
8 minutes ago, Dave66 said:

Welcome Captain White,

 

Manufacturers stamp looks to be “Wilkinson London”, the 68 on the pommel would be the rack number and the CC stamp indicates issue to the county cadets....this thread here has another example of that stamp...

 

 

Dave.

 

Thank you Dave! The maker of 'Wilkinson London' is just visible, or at least some of the characters are and that is more than enough. Am I right in saying that the bayonet would have been sold to the County Cadets from around 1910 onwards? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave66
Posted (edited)

Yes, post 1909 but when it was issued to the cadets is anyone’s guess as these could have gone back to stores for a while....hopefully someone else may have some more detailed info on the issue to them.

Sadly the initial manufacture dates have been well and truly obscured, but would been between 1890 and 1899....a piece that has seen plenty of service.

 

Dave.

Edited by Dave66

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan

That one has been around....!!! I can just see what looks to be an '8 99' - can't swear to the last number but I confident on the first two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain White
1 hour ago, trajan said:

That one has been around....!!! I can just see what looks to be an '8 99' - can't swear to the last number but I confident on the first two.

Had to go back and have another look! Ironically its the rust that leaves the stamp marks more visible....... The one mark I can't quite see properly is on the far right or top when the image is inverted to show the dates the right way up, is this the one that you are referring to?

 

The clearest stamp is '03 (bottom or left side) and is with an inspection stamp No 56, I think that same stamp No appears at the top next to the date that is hard to make out but it is the same way up, courtesy of the apostrophe. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan

No. The makers mark is WILKINSON LONDON. if you look above the wilkinSON part you will see the '8', followed by the '99' over the LON donpart. They are horizontal, parallel to the Wilkinson mark. Well, that's just my analysis!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave66
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, trajan said:

No. The makers mark is WILKINSON LONDON. if you look above the wilkinSON part you will see the '8', followed by the '99' over the LON donpart. They are horizontal, parallel to the Wilkinson mark. Well, that's just my analysis!

Didn’t see that first time around...good spot, can make out the 8 and 9 definitely but last one not so clear.

expanded pic below.

 

8A9A799D-4AA2-4F9C-9145-F172FC3053B5.jpeg

Edited by Dave66
Enhanced photo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain White
57 minutes ago, Dave66 said:

Didn’t see that first time around...good spot, can make out the 8 and 9 definitely but last one not so clear.

expanded pic below.

 

8A9A799D-4AA2-4F9C-9145-F172FC3053B5.jpeg

That was well spotted! Not certain about the 8 though, now looking at it again I can see an apostrophe in front of the first 9 (overlaid with the 05) so it does appear to read as '99? Its the same orientation as some of the other date stamps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trajan

I think the angle of the photograph OR the overstamp makes the '8' look rather squashed-up when compared to the '9'. Just my thoughts, though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
N White

Wow, I thought mine was bad, (with regards to a lot of reissue stamps) but that one takes the cake.

 

What would be the highest reissue date one would expect to find?

post-38182-1223933019.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...