Cleaning an Original Enfield Bayonet

[lthull3rdla]

I am the proud father of a Enfield Bayonet that I bought in 1978 from the Francis Lord Collection. Battlefield pickup from Antietam. Yes I use it at events. You don't have to worry about bending it if you fall on it, just breaking a bone! Anyway, its kinda dull and has some pitting. The pitting is not bad at all, but the finish is kinda dark grey. This morning I coated it liberally with mothers mag polish and rubbed until my fingers were sore and it made no diff at all. So, out comes the dremil tool with a polishing wheel. It made some difference but not a great deal.
I'm not looking to make this old veteran look shiny new, just clean her up a little.
How would YOU do it?
I DID uncover some heretofore unseen markings. JD on the shank, and a D on the socket. I had previously found the numbers 23 stamped on the underside of the blade. No broad arrows.. :)

Ronnie

[John-Owen Kline]

Re: Cleaning an Original Enfield Bayonet

Battlefield pickup from Antietam.

...just clean her up a little. How would YOU do it?

You are not going to like my answer.

If it had an untouched patina then aesthetically you just ruined it. In the future I recommend that you ask the “what would you do” questions prior to any mechanical cleaning, polishing or chemical treatment.

Additionally, if you removed that original age patina then you have also diminished the monetary value of the bayonet considerably.

[Richmond Depot]

Re: Cleaning an Original Enfield Bayonet

Mr. Kline is unfortunately correct. As a side note, if you could have documented the bayonet as to coming from the Francis Lord collection then you would have had a collectible in itself.

As to determining what the markings mean, I remember some discussion here on the forum a few years ago. If they were not lost for the ages, you may be able to decode the markings from them.

Best,

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Cleaning an Original Enfield Bayonet

Hallo!

As shared, the monetary value and subsequent "collectability" value of "antiques" are determined by their "unaltered" condition. And that unaltered condition is measured by both undisturbed patina as well as no evidence of "patina" (for iron or steel often, typically, a brown coating of "rust") having been chemically removed or removed with abrasives.

The "living history" or "authentic" value of an original item is often determined by the item appearing as it did when in use, and not with the "patina" of the last 140 plus years on it. Meaning, a rust patined and worn bayonet, although an original, tends to be "unauthentic" or even "Farby" if in a patinaed or relic condition.

And so it goes...

But I would also add that some lads Mental Pictures call for them to take original antique and relic items and RESTORE them to their actual 1860's appearance.
Yes, it decreases their resale value. Yes, it decreases and limits their collectability/collectibility unless sold to another like-minded pard.
However, some lads who may have purchased an original to resore for less money than a bad Italian, Indian, or Pakistani repro costs may feel ahead of the game both financially and authenticity-wise... and what damage that is done to dollar value and resale potential is more than well worth having the use of the restored original for their impression.

Pitting can only be removed by reducing the surrounding metal height by progressive abrasion (filing or sanding) and polishing until the pits are gone. So depending upon the depth and extent of the pitting, that is a minor chore or a major to impossible chore depending upon the pits, what tools and materials are available, and what knowledge and skills the user possesses.

And as they left the factory/arsenal, Enfield bayonets had blued sockets and elbows and bright blades (and I will skip the discussion of "factory" versus "struck bright" Enfields...)

In the past I used a number of original items, including an original canteen, etc. Now, I am older and more "preservation" minded. Meaning, we have a diminishing pool of Civil War artifacts as well as a overall population with declining interest in history. Each and every artifact tells a story and connects us to the Past. And that we do not really "own" originals, we just purchase the right and privilege to protect them, care for them, and preserve/conserve them for the Future.

IMHO, using original items hastens their demise and loss.

Others' mileage will vary...

Curt

And the original canteen?
Loaned out and return squished flat by a lad who "took a hit" and fell on it... "I'm sorry." he said...

[Vuhginyuh]

Re: Cleaning an Original Enfield Bayonet

Ok Ronnie, you have had the Bad and the Ugly. Here is the Good; if you* have additional artifacts that may require conservation attention my company can assist with the process and usually free of charge.

John-Owens has proven to be a valuable asset to our firm. He has a good eye for solving conservation problems and a steady hand as well.

&&&&&&&&&&&&

*Or any AC member.

[nick19thind]

Re: Cleaning an Original Enfield Bayonet

If there's rust on it scrape it off with a dental tool or steel wool (only in the rusted area). Then wipe the bayonet with an oil-soaked rag.
It's best to leave the pitting as it is.
Whatever you do don't remove the blueing or burnish it bright, you'll ruin it.
If the ring is stiff carefully loosen the screw, remove the ring, clean all the dirt off with a rag, apply oil (WD 40), put the ring back on and tighten the screw.

[Bummer]

Re: Cleaning an Original Enfield Bayonet

[Warning this is a long one--but germaine to many arguments]

This is an old debate--how to treat an artifact--to use or not to use (this applies more to functional items like clocks, firearms, musical instruments, and vehicles, but can be equally applied to potential reenactment objects too). Usage itself is not always a sin.

In the museum field artifacts are ultimately classified into roughly six brackets in order to determine the amount of cleaning usage etc. to be given to the piece. These museum guidlines are often helpful to the reenactor and others in the decision as to how to 'restore', or even whether to use at all, objects for 'show & tell' or other forms of reenactment. There is nothing inherently wrong with using certain original things--look at the old lady sliding those drawers on her 18th century Chippendale highboy that no one thinks about (worth considerably more and rarer than anything we are likely to encounter).

Basicly a commodity (objects) are used and eventually undergo use, wear, decay, changes of fashion, obsolescence, etc. and quit being used. They are either destroyed or are relagated to some sort of limbo--lost, stored, etc.
When found, discovered, or recovered its 'use value' assesment should be made as to how the artifact should be treated. The general catagories are thus:

*Recycled commodity
*Useful antique
*Functional document
*Exhibit document
*Historical document
*Evocatative ruin

Certain things have been discovered to be in the 'recycled commodity' catagory and end up back in the 'commodity' area to begin the cycle again--sometime two or more times around (that artillery shell used as a gate weight). Other things are of such common enough form as to be lovingly (and consciously) used as a 'useful antique'. Many reenactors feel that much closer to the 'original boys' if they are carrying something 'that was there', and there are many other reasons why someone might prefer using an original--such as the strength of the original bayonet vs. reproduction in this case. Many shooters find that original muskets are generally much better than the new reproductions.

Now when an artifact begins to lean toward 'collector quality', different considerations come into play. If the object is an unusual example, or an example of something unusual; if the object is in unusually good condition etc. then if such a thing is to be used at all it must be used ve-ery sparingly--and with very high maintainance, and even then only to show or experience what using the real thing is like.These are the Functional Documents.

In between this catagory and the next is where the real decision is made.

If it is pristine, or very unusual, then it becomes an Exhibit document and that is the line into strict non-use. And only the strictest of conservation--with an active resistance to any changes.
Take it a step further and add on a historical connection (with a personage, place, or incident) and it becomes an Historical Document and should hardly even be handled and the least change as possible.

The last catagory is the one that confuses some people. The Evocative Ruin. This is where much of the excavated Civil War material comes in. If it is picturesque, or attached to some important incident or otherwise shows unique use--usually battle damage--then nothing is done at all and is allowed to gently continue to (slowly) deteriorate on it's own.
Many people consider excavation corrosion as patina or 'history' and would let otherwise conservable objects continue to decay in the name of not disturbing the 'history' of age. Nuts, this is often very active corrosion that exacerbates deterioration with every Relative Humidity change.

In order to illustrate (quickly if you have read this far) how this works I will use a talk on this very subject I presented to a Museum Studies graduate school class at NC State University.
In order to show this more effectively I used different examples of the same kind of object--in this case a series of original standard oval US belt plates. They were as follows:

Recycled commodity--one that had been reworked during the centennial where the hooks were filed off and a bar welded in to take a modern cowboy type belt. It is just a belt buckle for someone.

Useful antique--my reenactment buckle on its repro belt--it was a very beat (and not very valuable) shell that I cleaned and melted the lead to put a new set of stud hooks in...looks great, but not much collector value.

Functional document--a typical 'wearing' original. Nice on jeans once in a while, or those special Living History events. Seldom and judiciously used.

Exhibit document--a beautiful example--no dents, and still on it's original waist belt with an inspectors mark. A strict shelf sitter.

Historical document--one that was found at a well known Valley Campaign site in supurb used shape, showing every scratch and dent was definitely war time, soldier ID scratched on back, and you could even see where he let his bayonet always slip forward and peened down one edge as he marched--you could see thousands of tiny dents showing each step...a real museum piece! Never to even be handled much, and left in a mount.

Evocative ruin--recovered from Wilderness V corps area, shell struck, badly bent, still had the red dirt on it...just as it came out of the ground. Good battle damage. Left alone.

So using these museum professional guidelines it can be seen that cleaning and using certain objects is no real sin--is actually beneficial in many cases. But saying that, one must be quite careful in analysing just what the object is, what it represents, its condition, rarity, and many other ramifications regarding it's usage--or non usage.

I must apologize for taking so much room here with all of this, but it is something which has come up before and I feel needed to be discussed and took this opportunity to do so.

Spence Waldron
Objects Conservator
NC Museum of History

(And a tip of the hat to John Watson of Colonial Williamsburg for some of these concepts.)

[Vuhginyuh]

Re: Cleaning an Original Enfield Bayonet

You are correct, it's no sin, but more often than not it’s a crying shame.

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Cleaning an Original Enfield Bayonet

I understand both sides of this argument, but hands down the original bayonets are better implements. I have an original for my Enfield made by Geo Salter and marked SALTER and BSAT with a crown. It looks good, it fits good and does not bend like a pipe cleaner. I am generally careful with it as I try to be with all my equipment, and for the use we give the bayonet in living histories (it won't come out of the scabbard if done on NPS land), and battle enactments (it comes out of the scabbard to stack arms), how much damage is being done in "using it" versus sticking it in my closet in the scabbard?

I have enjoyed years of service from that bayonet and it looks just like it did when I bought it for $75 (from an ebay auction, I think). This is rationalizing to be sure, but philosophically I consider dis-associated single "bayonets" in the same category as other dis-associated parts like the original Tower lock I built for my "put together" P-53. I wouldn't remove an original Tower lock from one of my intact 140+ year old Birmingham P-53s to use in a repro, but the use of the separate parts that I fit into that Tower lock represent no loss to history as such. Now if the bayonet was rack numbered to match an identified firearm in a collection or as part of a set of accoutrements, I would consider it a valuable collectible antique.

Most available original bayonets do not fall in the category of valuable antiques. The majority of the originals I have seen lately are condemned Brit Army bayonets out of some far eastern stock pile in Nepal or Afghanistan. They have no likely US Civil War provenance, and if one of those is lost so what?

[nick19thind]

Re: Cleaning an Original Enfield Bayonet

Craig, even if they weren't used in the civil war, chances are they saw action with the redcoats in the Crimea or the Indian Mutiny, which would make them of interest to the British militaria collector.

[Vuhginyuh]

Re: Cleaning an Original Enfield Bayonet

…the Francis Lord Collection. Battlefield pickup from Antietam…

...mothers mag polish and…the dremil tool...

...original bayonets are better implements...

The argument was not the age or quality of a bayonet but the altering of an historic artifact with a fine provenance. Huge difference.

[wmkane]

Re: Cleaning an Original Enfield Bayonet

The argument was not the age or quality of a bayonet but the altering of an historic artifact with a fine provenance. Huge difference.

I thought the topic of this thread was how to clean up an original bayonet. The author of the article prefaced his question with the fact that he was aware of the pro's and con's of cleaning an original. I for one am interested in the techniques that will be shared on this topic.

[Bummer]

Re: Cleaning an Original Enfield Bayonet

Okay, as Curt said, the reason it has that dull look is the way light reflects off the uneveness of the pitting in the metal. There is nothing can be done no matter how 'clean'--the light will still reflect off the pits and give the 'dull' appearance. The effect is much as brushing shoes puts parallel grooves in the wax to effect a shine (but because these are irregular they DON'T shine). It's all in the way the light reflects.
There are two ways you can effect a shinier appearance...the first is, as Curt pointed out, to abrade down the surrounding metal to take the pits out...this is the most effective--but also the most invasive, and unless these pits are very, very small (shallow) I most definitely would not do that. The other way--which is also invasive--meaning cannot be reversible--which is a number one requirement in conservation as opposed to 'restoration' or just plain 'fixing up' (see 'recycled commodity' in my post above)-- that other method, which would take some skill and prectice--if it can be done really effectively in this case at all, is to use some tool like a wire wheel to overlay some parallel 'scratches' (very small, almost micro) over the top of the pitting...a dremel tool might be best for this. We use this method in archaeological conservation on some bead blasted metal...when it comes out of the blast chamber it is totally clean, but looks like cast plastic because of the entire surface being covered with micro craters. An overbrushing with a Dremel puts the metalic sheen back on.
This is assuming I read correctly an that there is no rust yet in the bottom of the pits. If there are still dark spots or areas, these would need to be cleaned out. Probably the most effective way would be a Mangenesed Phospholene bath--which will get everything out...but I don't know if you have such laboratory chemicals at your disposal, another way would be either bead blasting or electrolysis either of which involves some apparatus.
One other way to totally clean ferrous metals--and works very well on plated iron like tinned stuff, is very easy but slow acting. However in the interest of not starting a big ruckus here I will ask you to PM me if you need that one.
Actually if it were me I would find another bayonet that you liked the looks of better, or live with what you have. My own 'user' Springfield bayonet has some pretty deep pitting down by the point of the blade (and a cracked socket, been bent and straightened, no provenance--a definite 'user'), but cleaned out it doesn't look that bad so I just leave them...no one has ever remarked that my bayonet looks funny.

Sorry I helped stray from this original subject before, but just saw the opportunity to mention a few things.

[Curt Schmidt]

Re: Cleaning an Original Enfield Bayonet

Hallo!

Run the bayonet under some hot water, and use a soft bristle brush to remove the dried mud and dirt and wash it away. Then cloth or paper towel the bayonet and set it aside to dry- which the warming effect of the hot water will accelerate. When dry, lightly oil with a light oil (but only when completely dry so as not to trap under under a film of oil- oil floats on water...)

Well, he did say "clean" afterall... ;) :) :) :)

Just a-funnin'... :)

Curt

[Craig L Barry]

Re: Cleaning an Original Enfield Bayonet

Ha! That is a funny thought. Yes that will clean it. Or you can use a little Ballistol and steel wool on the blade. Cleans the surface tarnish right off. The socket is supposed to be "blued" to the shoulder so leave that part "dark". I have not done much cleaning to mine, it still looks pretty good as-is.


[IMG]cwbayonet7[1][/IMG]