![]() |
|
![]() |
#1 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,658
|
![]()
I recently contact the Lancer Museum requesting information on the various markings and they have kindly replied
![]() "....... Thank you for your email. It seems to us that the '17' is a Regimental mark and would refer to the 17th Lancers. The small letters could be SQN and refer to Squadron. '05' & '90' could be dates when repairs were undertaken. 'T.P.' could be TP for Troop and would be with a letter such as 'A' or 'B', etc. ....." Link to 17th Lancers ....... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/17th_Lancers It would seem that these Lances may have seen / been at several historical battles ![]() ![]() Best David |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#2 | |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Wirral
Posts: 1,204
|
![]() Quote:
Hi there .. I hate to ruin the theory of the number between the Crown & E as being the date , but it is not. It is the Enfield Inspectors number . Each Inspector at Enfield had a personal number and when he was satisfied as to the serviceability of of piece of equipment , his number the plus crown & E ( for Enfield ) was stamped on it. It is possible to identify the names of the individual inspectors provided one has a date of manufacture of the item . British weapons of this period were always dated in the following fashion : '6/79' for June 1879 for example. Enfield Inspectors also checked equipment made by private contractors & forign manufacturers for Service use and indeed if the output was large enough would actually be based at the factory ... in this case although the Inspectors number would remain the same there would be no 'E' .. instead there would be another designated code letter for the factory eg 'B' BSA , 'X' London Small Arms, 'S' Solingen , 'L' Liege etc Hope this helps . |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#3 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,658
|
![]() Quote:
Thanks Richmond, no other clear markings are legible ![]() ![]() Kind Regards David PS sorry for the late reply. |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#4 | |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Wirral
Posts: 1,204
|
![]() Quote:
|
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#5 |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,658
|
![]()
Hi Richmond,
thank you for the suggestion. Would you know if each inspector had his own 'number' specific to each individual person .....that was subsequently not used by anyone else ....ever. I'm just wondering whether some sort of dating could be discovered by checking inspector marks to their dates of employment ....obviously if the 'mark number' is 'transferrable' then it would be likely that several inspectors would have the same number and would make this more problematic. Best David |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#6 | |
Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Wirral
Posts: 1,204
|
![]() Quote:
Yes the no. was assigned to a particular inspector, but sadly only for the duration of his employment .. it was then reissued to the new incumbent. So no help there I am afraid . Richmond |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#7 | |
Member
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Kent
Posts: 2,658
|
![]() Quote:
Hi Richmond, thanks for the clarification, a little disappointing when the wear, tear and age (read, rust pitting) has hidden the markings/clues I seek Kind Regards David |
|
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|