Gunboards Forums banner

1 - 8 of 8 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
214 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Greetings all. I recently purchased this bayonet for a fairly large sum. I have been looking for a Mk III for a few years and thought this one would fill the gap in my collection. Now that I have it I am not 100% it is correct. Over-stamps obscure the year of manufacture. It is either a Mk III or a Mk II that was upgraded to a Mk III. I cannot tell.

Would someone please give me his opinion as to its correctness?

Many thanks,

Ed


Ebay 012.jpg Ebay 011.jpg Ebay 010.jpg Ebay 013.jpg Ebay 014.jpg
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,700 Posts
Concur with JB. The "00" is plainly visible under the other markings in pics 2 & 3 when blown up to full size.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
I beg to differ. Beneath the markings I see what could appear to be '00. Can't say for certain.
Besides, if it were manufactured in '05 I don't think it likely to have an '03 view mark.[/QUOT

The blade of Pattern-1903 Bayonet was originally that of the Pattern-1888. The original pattern designation is stamped over with the new pattern = 1903. The later re-worked date is stamped in the same position as this examples '05'. I've attached a pic of an '03' example with an '07' mark.
untitled.png
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,188 Posts
The blade of Pattern-1903 Bayonet was originally that of the Pattern-1888. The original pattern designation is stamped over with the new pattern = 1903. The later re-worked date is stamped in the same position as this examples '05'. I've attached a pic of an '03' example with an '07' mark.
View attachment 618510
But we aren't talking about a P03 bayonet. Some P88's were converted to the '03 pattern but not this one, therefore it wouldn't be marked 1903...which it isn't. All my '03's are clearly marked 1903 whether conversion or not.
The bayonet in the op is clearly a P88 and not a P03. The question remains as to whether it's an in-service MkIII upgrade or a later one. So many so-called 1888 MkIII's have been done by people trying to fill a slot in their collections it's sometimes hard to tell.

If it's a 1900 production it's likely a converted MkII. It's unlikely new ordnance P88's were made in fiscal 1905 because the Patt 03 had already been adopted and was in production.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
2,700 Posts
The first thing I looked at in the OP's pics was the little bit of pommel visible in the last pic.

(edited to remove the confusing quote mix up as suggested, thanks JB.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,188 Posts
The orientation of the mortise slot. I looked for that too. :)

Without more photos it's too difficult to tell much more. We'll need to see the entire bayonet if there's a chance to find out more here on the board. It's one of those thing which might take a hands-on inspection to be absolutely certain if possible.

Sometimes little things like the shape of the screw head, cut of the slots, machining of the nuts, fit of the grips and identifying the species of wood used can tell an outright fake. It looks as though there are markings on the tang which is a good sign, and it may have been browned per MkIII specs.
At this point though, just to set Ed's mind at ease a little, it looks like a plausible correct version so far.

*edit* Hey Brad.....For the sake of clarity on this thread I went back and cleaned up my #6 post. The double quotations and mistaken credits from the previous formatting error were starting to muddle up who said what. You may want to clean yours up just a little...or perhaps not if you think folks are smart enough to get it. ;)
 
1 - 8 of 8 Posts
Top