TRAJAN, on 05 August 2012 - 06:40 PM, said:
Thanks LF - isn't the frog stud also the wrong shape?
Yes Trajan, the frog stud is the "wrong shape" because P1903 Land scabbards never had any frog studs at all.!! (see illustration in post #16)
I just remembered that Dean posted some very good photos of his damaged scabbard in this thread HERE
that would make a perfect example.
As you can see from the photos it is an original British P1903 scabbard because it is Broad Arrow marked, Birmingham inspected and dated '03.?
The second photo shows the internal chape which 'plugged' the bottom tip of the leather scabbard, and also the type of damage which can occur.
In cases where this damage needed repair they would install the external chape of the P'07 type in its place in accordance with LOC para #14866.
While the chape may have been replaced, the rest of the scabbard remained unchanged and would still have all the British inspection markings etc.
You would expect ALL period
scabbards (even those produced in India) to have all the regular markings in place (and dates) even after any repair.
EDIT. Upon closer inspection Dean's scabbard is actually a better example for discussion than I first thought - especially if you look closely at the tip.
This is an example of the earlier 'plug type' internal chape which was found on the P1888 Mk.II Land
scabbards - the P'03 being much less prominent.
So that means even though it is dated with the '03 and was found together with a P1903 bayonet, it is actually a P1888 Mk.II Land version made in '03.!!
The fact that it is without its slide-on frog does make it more difficult to identify ... but there it is ... so never make assumptions & always look to the clues.