2 Victorian Lances

[thinreadline]

Originally Posted by katana

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

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 .

[katana]

Originally Posted by thinreadline

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 . Hope this helps .

Thanks Richmond,
no other clear markings are legible . However the fact that the "17" could indeed signify the 17th Lancers is It seems that conclusive dates are going to be difficult.

Kind Regards David

PS sorry for the late reply.

[thinreadline]

Originally Posted by katana

Thanks Richmond,
no other clear markings are legible . However the fact that the "17" could indeed signify the 17th Lancers is It seems that conclusive dates are going to be difficult.

Kind Regards David

PS sorry for the late reply.

Hi David.. a really useful book to have re such markings is 'THE BROAD ARROW' by Ian Skennerton .. it deals comprehensively with markings on weapons from Britain & the Commonwealth .

[katana]

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

[thinreadline]

Originally Posted by katana

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

Hi David
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

[katana]

Originally Posted by thinreadline

Hi David
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

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

[Norman McCormick]

Hi David,
Not mine I'm afraid, old auction catalogue but I thought they would be of interest. The male part of the joint looks to have a sprung retaining piece so that it locks into the other so might not be such a weak joint as first appears.
My Regards,
Norman.