P1888 bayonet - no Royal Cypher

[Guest]

Hi All,

 

I recently added a Sanderson P1888 bayonet to my collection. The bayonet is in pretty good condition, and the markings are crisp and clear, see photo's attached. What I find odd, is that there is no Royal Cypher. I've followed some threads in the past that mention missing cyphers, but my bayonet has a War Dept acceptance mark, an acceptance date of 12  '93, a bend test mark and a number of inspectors marks. 

Is this very uncommon, and what might the reason be?

Many thanks in advance,

Mike Loverock

 

[JMB1943]

Mike,

 

Welcome to the Forum!

 

I would say that it was there and has been polished (almost) away.

If you blow up the top photo, you can clearly? see the crown over VR cypher.

So nothing at all strange.

edit: BTW, a very nice-looking example.

Note that crown / S / 76 denotes manufactured by Sanderson, even if the full maker’s name was not visible.

 

Regards,

JMB

Edited 22 March , 2020 by JMB1943

[Michael Haselgrove]

JMB,

I'm afraid I can't actually see any trace of the markings in question on Mike's bayonet, although it is possible it is there.  However, I have a Pattern 1888 without that marking and attach photos.  I also have a Pattern 1888 MkII made by Sanderson and that, too, is without the cypher.  I'm wondering whether the private contractors omitted the marking?

Regards,

Michael.    

[JMB1943]

Michael,

 

Thanks for your reply.

I have a 2 95 WILK that clearly shows the crown / VR, although the crown is very lightly struck and has been half-polished away.

That has been my experience with seeing many photos of these; I cannot imagine that the manufacturers were allowed to omit required markings.

I think that yours have also fallen victim to the polish fiends.

 

BTW, I would value your opinion on numbering of the RAF-marked bayonet that I posted yesterday.

 

Regards,

JMB

[4thGordons]

I wonder if bayonets purchased for Volunteer Battalions (and even later TF Battalions) which were funded by local VB orTF Associations, might have not had the royal cypher? If the orders were placed directly with the manufacturers from the VB association the marking may not have been required (or even allowed)

In earlier days there were "Volunteer Pattern" bayonets which did not conform fully to the standard regular army issue equipment. Differences in specification (for example the TF pattern 1908 web gear) continued after the replacement of the volunteer associations with the TF.

I believe somewhere I have a P1888 without a cypher, I will look it out.

Chris

[Michael Haselgrove]

JMB & Chris,

Thanks for your interesting comments.  Having thought about this I have no explanation for the missing cyphers but don't believe that the examples where the cypher is missing have all been very lightly marked and had that mark polished away.  In that respect, in case it is of interest, I attach photos of the MkII in my collection which has a blade in excellent condition and which I don't think has been re-polished.  I have a P1907 HQ which is, I think, a volunteer example and which has a bend test cross, one inspector's mark and "Wilkinson" marks but no WD/broad arrow marks so that doesn't really help. 

Regards,

Michael.

P.S.  JMB.  I'm afraid the RAF numbering is beyond my area of interest and I confess my knowledge on the subject of bayonets generally is limited to say the least!   

[Guest]

Hi JMB et al,

 

Many thanks for your comments, and sharing your collective expertise, it is most appreciated.

 

I have re-examined the bayonet, including under magnification, and I must confess that I can't find any compelling evidence of the crown and VR  that should have been there. It also strikes me that if it had been polished off, the top (at least) of the acceptance date would probably show signs of wear, which it doesn't appear to do.

 

 

Regards, 

Mike

[trajan]

All of my Queen Vic P.1888's are lightly marked, and I too can see the head of the crown as JMB indicated in post 2.

 

Julian

[MikeyH]

I have a Sanderson P1888 dated February 1901 in pretty good condition.  There is

no sign it has ever had a royal cypher, as Michael's example. The makers mark and date are very crisp, with

no signs of over polishing present.  The pommel is unmarked.

I also have a P1888 in not very good condition, the date is clear, January 1901, but no makers mark under the date.

The VR cypher is present but lightly struck, the opposite side of the ricasso has the wide broad arrow with EFD

for Enfield, the pommel is marked for the Royal Welsh Fusiliers, with a T for Territorial.

 

Mike.

Edited 23 March , 2020 by MikeyH

[JMB1943]

10 hours ago, 4thGordons said:

I wonder if bayonets purchased for Volunteer Battalions (and even later TF Battalions) which were funded by local VB orTF Associations, might have not had the royal cypher? If the orders were placed directly with the manufacturers from the VB association the marking may not have been required (or even allowed)

In earlier days there were "Volunteer Pattern" bayonets which did not conform fully to the standard regular army issue equipment. Differences in specification (for example the TF pattern 1908 web gear) continued after the replacement of the volunteer associations with the TF.

I believe somewhere I have a P1888 without a cypher, I will look it out.

Chris

 

Chris,

 

I take your points, but surely such private purchases as you mention would not have the broad arrow denoting Govnmnt. ownership?

The two examples shown (posts #3 &#6) both clearly carry these, as well as EFD-appointed inspector stamps.

By way of an analogy, the smiling tiger bayonets supplied by BSA to Siam in 1920 (a private purchase) were bought by BSA from Govnmnt. stores and all indications of British Govnmnt ownership were ground off; however, the X-bend test mark was left intact, at least on my single example.

To add further confusion, I have a P.1903 marked ONLY with crown / 49 / W and WILKINSON LONDON on the left ricasso; the right ricasso is totally unmarked.

Both sides of the tang are marked with an arabic-type script, indicating use in the Middle East.

Was this single inspection stamp left on to assure the purchaser that the bayonets met official British specs?

 

This is overall an interesting & somewhat confusing topic.

I wonder if it is mentioned in the Rose book, "12 inches of Imperial Steel".

 

Regards,

JMB

 

[4thGordons]

The broad arrow acceptance/inspection stamp could presumably have been added later if/when the bayonet was accepted into the main supply chain? (same with the inspection stamp?) It is even conceivable to me that the broad arrow might have been required (as the alternate patterns had to be compatible with standard issue items and meet with official standards.)

I too have a very plain 1903 with a dulled/blackened blade which I believe was an Indian refinish.

 

My 4 Siamese bayonets (from memory) all conform to the pattern you describe (although vestiges of the markings remain in some places)

I really must dig mine out and look when I get a moment unfortunately I am swamped at the moment (teaching remotely is a significant challenge!)

 

Cheers

Chris

 

I dimly recalled a discussion from the past on this -- in respect of 1903 Bayonets (in this thread) Shipping Steel mentions unmarked blades.

Edited 23 March , 2020 by 4thGordons

[4thGordons]

OK so I dug a couple out

Mole and Sanderson

 

The Mole on *may* have a shadow of a partial marking...perhaps

The Sanderson I am certain has never had a marking.

 

 

 

The Sanderson was also discussed (a long time ago in this thread)

Apologies about the poor photos.

 

Chris

[shippingsteel]

Having handled quite a few of these Patt.88 bayonets the first thing that struck me with the photos in the OP is the inspection marking. While it is obviously a Sanderson manufactured blade the Crown/B/35 inspection mark stamped on the ricasso is definitely a Birmingham inspection and NOT seen on the everyday Sanderson bayonet from that period. The Sanderson inspections in my experience were commonly denoted with the S and numerals as seen on the spine of the bayonet shown in the OP. I don't believe this particular Sanderson bayonet was ever stamped with the VR cypher.

 

Going to my collection to compare with similar examples from the period I have a Sanderson 5/92 and Sanderson 4/94 with the cypher clearly stamped immediately above the date. Both of these bayonets with the cypher have the common Sanderson inspection marking on the ricasso denoted with the S. I do also have a Mole bayonet dated 10/93 and its Crown/B/35 inspection marking is an exact match for the marking in the OP. Interestingly this Mole bayonet has NO cypher applied but has certainly been issued into regular service with a plethora of reissue marks stamped across the ricasso.

 

So given all this information I am going to theorise that this particular Sanderson bayonet in the OP has for some reason been finally inspected at Birmingham (Crown/B/35) where at that time they were not involved in the practice of stamping the cypher on the ricasso. Obviously more data from further examples of both Sanderson and Mole bayonets from that close period would be helpful in confirming any trend or pattern.

 

Cheers, SS 

 

 

[trajan]

12 hours ago, JMB1943 said:

... I wonder if it is mentioned in the Rose book, "12 inches of Imperial Steel". ...

 

 According to Rose, p. 19:

 

"Pattern 1888 sword bayonets Mk.I are stamped with a number of marks not listed in the specifications, These were: On the left flat, was the Royal cypher over the initials "VR" (Victoria Regina". This is not always the case and this is probably caused by wear and tear." - my emphasis. From my own collection I would point to the very light stamping of all the VR ones that I have as suggestive of the mark being easily removed through refurbishment..

 

In this particular case the 'WD' mark indicating production at Enfield seems pretty conclusive as to this being an officially-made and issued bayonet 

 

PS: sorry for slow response - as with 4G I am finding adapting to on-line teaching a challenge!

Edited 24 March , 2020 by trajan
add PS