Pattern 1888 Enfield bayonet with interesting markings

[mcb9022]

Hi everyone.

I have recently acquired a P1888 Enfield bayonet. It came with a pattern 14 leather frog. Would this have been a possible correct combination? I have no idea of the provenance of the bayonet, scabbard or frog so they may have been put together at a later stage but with what I have I'm guessing it's a possibility that it was used during WW1 and therefore relevant to this forum.

Then there's the question of the markings or rather obliteration of most of them. Someone has clearly used a letter "H" stamp to obliterate the manufacturer's name, date, control stamp and some other marking on the pommel and have then stamped "THH" on the pommel. The EFD stamp on the ricasso can still be read. This seems rather strange to me as to why these markings, apart from the one on the pommel, would have been obliterated. One can understand the original stamp on the pommel being overstamped if the bayonet was reissued but not the other stamps. The Queen's Crown and VR are carefully left intact as well as several other control stamps. Has anyone any theory as to why this may have happened and also what "THH" could stand for? 

The frog has a clear manufacturer's stamp "A.L.GAMBA 1915" and 100 and the broard arrow. The scabbard has a EFD stamp, a control stamp and as far as I can see a '99 stamp as well as control stamps on the locket and chape. I couldn't find any information about A.L.Gamba on the internett.

If anyone on this forum has a theory that may help clear up this mystery I'd love to hear it. Thanks very much.

Cheers

Mark    

[JMB1943]

Mark,

This is a VERY curious case.

The only example of obliteration of inspector stamps and date-of-acceptance marking that I have seen.

Elimination of these two markings means that the final inspector who accepted the bayonet into Govt service cannot be readily identified. The inspection markings on the spine of the blade and the tang are only intermediate stampings that are applied during the manufacturing process and are not applied by the final viewer.

Obliteration of the “rifle/rack” number on the pommel means that the soldier to whom the bayo was issued cannot also be readily identified.

Having said that, it’s difficult to imagine a scenario in which one or both of these results would be desired.

Regards,

JMB

 

[mcb9022]

Hi JMB

Thank you for your input.

Yes, it's a strange one. While it would have been nice to have a bayonet with nice clear markings I am actually fascinated by this one "warts and all". Personally I prefer a bayonet that is not perfect, that has had a life and obviously been used and abused. If only they could talk, they would all have a story to tell.

Why anyone would go to the trouble of obliterating certain markings on this bayonet will probably always remain a mystery. It seems to be rather pointless information that the "perpetrator" wanted to hide. He (I'm assuming it was a "he") obviously respected the Queens crown and VR, good for him, but everything else wasn't safe. I really don't see him, whoever he was, as being an armourer, an armourer, I think, would have done a more professional job on the over stamping and also would not have just used a letter H stamp and being very messy about it. Even the THH isn't stamped very well, an armourer I think would have known just how hard to hit the stamp to make a good impression and not have to stamp it twice. 

One possible scenario may have been that the soldier, for some reason, received a very general instruction "over stamp the markings and replace with a THH" Without supervision he may have thought that markings meant every marking he could see and not just the one on the pommel. He obviously missed a couple of them. His respect for Queen or King and country precluded him from obliterating the crown and then by the time his handiwork was inspected it was too late to do anything about it. I wonder if he received some sort of reprimand?

Anyway all very mysterious and intriguing.

Cheers

Mark

 

 

[Dave66]

Doesn’t look like anything the military would have done to me….i am wondering it someone has “borrowed” it and taken out all the main distinguishing marks….pommel number, mfr date etc??

Pure speculation on my part!

Dave

[mcb9022]

Hallo Dave 

Yes, I agree, it looks like very un-military handiwork. If we knew what the THH stands for it would help. Obliterating other identifying features and then deliberately stamping the pommel with THH to indicate some form of ownership is weird. 

Another scenario..to "confuse the enemy". Unit markings removed in case the bayonet fell into enemy hands. A spurious unit marking is applied to give the enemy something to wonder about. The armourers didn't have time to restamp all the bayonets so left it up to the individual soldier. I seem to remember reading somewhere about unit markings being removed from bayonets for that very reason. Also, just total conjecture on my part. 

Cheers

Mark