BRODIE BATCH NUMBERS

[GRANVILLE]

In a previous thread I started concerning Brodie dimentions, paddy60th supplied some very helpful information concerning his own collection of Brodies:

Hello Dave

Here are measurements from a selection of my Brodies - the ones that are easily accessible !

They are in millimetres - length/width/depth followed by the batch stamps

Raw edge with type 2 liner 310/295/115 HS 32

Rimmed with type 3 doughnut liner 305/293/120 HS 77

Raw edge shell only 306/290/120 no visible markings

Raw edge shell - early one -magnetic steel 302/285/123 MS55 and part of possibly Miras stamp

next to chinstrap bracket

Rimmed - shell only 310/293/120 no visible markings

Raw edge - shell with part liner 306/295/119 FS 227

Rimmed with type 2 liner 305/295/119 FS 47

Raw edge - shell only 308/290/118 no visible markings

Raw edge with type 2 liner 302/293/118 FKS 29

Rimmed - shell only 305/295/121 HS 90

Raw edge with part liner 305/288/125 No visible markings

Raw edge - shell only 305/296/118 Faint and illegible

Rimmed - shell only 307/295/119 HS 361

Rimmed - shell only 305/292/120 HS 687

Rimmed - shell only 306/295/120 HS 479

Raw edge - battle damaged shell only 304/294/118 FKS 17

Raw edge with first type liner 314/288/115 Faint and illegible

Rimmed with type 2 liner 306/294/123 HV 309

Raw edge - shell only 304/286/118 HS 427

Most of these have unit markings to the outside of the shell

Hope this is of some help

Best regards, Roger

I recently purchased a Brodie which is stamped HS 28 (Hadfield Sheffield). Referring back to Roger's information, I noted he has HS 38 which is a Raw Edge version. This got me thinking that if presumably the lower number represents an earlier date of manufacture then clearly HS 28 must have had the folded metal rim (which it has), added some time after it was originally pressed? Indeed my metal rim is now quite rusty and a portion is missing. I believe it could easily be removed and the appearance of it always having been a Raw Edge version would be hard to disprove.

In Rogers case I also note HS 30 has a Type 2 liner, whereas mine has the later doughnut ring type. To me this strongly suggests that what possibly started out as one of the very first helmets to be made, has, as one might imagine, been upgraded as opportunity presented itself for such upgrades to be made i.e. folded metal rim applied, and upgraded liner inserted. Any such liner change would be very simple, only requiring the rivet to be removed and a new one hammered in place.

I believe that what this illustrates is just how likely it is that the helmet(s) we have in our collections may well have much more to say for themselves if they could speak? Just because a helmet has a later liner inside, and it appears genuine, does not mean that it did not start out life much earlier and in a different form.

These ponderings also lead me to ask the obvious and that is if anyone out there has a HS batch number lower than 28 (photo if poss).

Dave

[Michael Haselgrove]

Hello Dave,

This is my first contribution to Great War Forum. If I may say so, you have chosen a fascinating subject. I have long wondered about "raw edge" helmets with later liners fitted and, in particular, whether in some cases they were manufactured with later pattern liners fitted or whether the later liners are all replacements. I had formed the view that perhaps large numbers of "raw edge" shells were manufactured and fitted with the second pattern liner before the rims were available to that manufacturer. I confess it had not occured to me that a "raw edge" helmet might be up-graded by the fitting of a rim as well as a replacement liner.

In any event, one of my "raw edge" helmets has a shell marked H/S 15. It has the second pattern (without doughnut) liner fitted. However, it is definately an original "raw edge" helmet as, apart from there being no trace that a rim was ever fitted, it has the early, narrow chin strap attachments.

I hope this is of interest.

Regards,

Michael.

[Wardog]

My HS 82 and HS 90 both have grey felt doughnut liners. Cheers, Paul.

[calibre792x57.y]

Hello Dave,

This is my first contribution to Great War Forum. If I may say so, you have chosen a fascinating subject. I have long wondered about "raw edge" helmets with later liners fitted and, in particular, whether in some cases they were manufactured with later pattern liners fitted or whether the later liners are all replacements. I had formed the view that perhaps large numbers of "raw edge" shells were manufactured and fitted with the second pattern liner before the rims were available to that manufacturer. I confess it had not occured to me that a "raw edge" helmet might be up-graded by the fitting of a rim as well as a replacement liner.

In any event, one of my "raw edge" helmets has a shell marked H/S 15. It has the second pattern (without doughnut) liner fitted. However, it is definately an original "raw edge" helmet as, apart from there being no trace that a rim was ever fitted, it has the early, narrow chin strap attachments.

I hope this is of interest.

Regards,

Michael.

Congratulations on breaking your 'duck' Michael! See you soon. S.W.

[GRANVILLE]

Hello Dave,

This is my first contribution to Great War Forum. If I may say so, you have chosen a fascinating subject. I have long wondered about "raw edge" helmets with later liners fitted and, in particular, whether in some cases they were manufactured with later pattern liners fitted or whether the later liners are all replacements. I had formed the view that perhaps large numbers of "raw edge" shells were manufactured and fitted with the second pattern liner before the rims were available to that manufacturer. I confess it had not occured to me that a "raw edge" helmet might be up-graded by the fitting of a rim as well as a replacement liner.

In any event, one of my "raw edge" helmets has a shell marked H/S 15. It has the second pattern (without doughnut) liner fitted. However, it is definately an original "raw edge" helmet as, apart from there being no trace that a rim was ever fitted, it has the early, narrow chin strap attachments.

I hope this is of interest.

Regards,

Michael.

Congratulations Michael on your first contribution & I agree the development of the Brodie helmet in general is quite fascinating when you begin to look a little deeper into the subject. HS 15 is clearly going to have been produced before my HS 28 and again it beggars the question has any member got an even lower number? This reminds me of the quest to find the first Land Rover. If someone can produce an authentic HS 1 (or FS 1 or whatever), then in the world of the Brodie helmet I would predict you've just struck gold!

Concerning HS 15. You describe it as having the without doughnut liner. It's my understanding the doughnut rubber ring was an upgrade to help protect the top of the head from downward forces, so to have a raw edge with such a liner as you have seems to me to be perfectly correct for its batch number. Note that by my HS 28 a doughnut ring has been added and one of the first versions folded steel rim protectors has also been attached.

It's my belief that these first rim protectors were more than likely fitted 'in the field' by engineers or farrier's or whoever. They are generally quite crude affairs, and simply held on with a single spot of weld in most cases, being a quick & effective solution to a problem. They will have rusted quickly and no doubt became detached from time to time. I've owned two very similar aged helmets and both have had their rim protectors heavily rusted with portions missing.

Once this kind of modification became necessary, I imagine the factories started turning them out prompto with rims attached, what would be interesting to know is, when did the folded aluminum rim come into being? My background has been with the police and back in the '80's when constructive riot training became necessary, you saw this sort of helmet adaption and upgrading taking place in a similar way to how I imagine Brodies will have developed. My first police helmet was made of pressed cork, which offered a modicum of protection but became distinctly soft in heavy rain! They then introduced a hard shell version and to protect the eyes, we tried a clip-on Perspex visor, which was utterly useless. Before long the NATO helmet was introduced and I think very much the same sort of thing will have happened with Brodies.

Now who's got the elusive No 1??

Dave

[calibre792x57.y]

I'm not sure how much you can rely on the batch numbers to date helmets. My raw edge with a War Office 1915 liner which appears to be completely original has a batch number HS 161 which doesn't seem to fit with the case you are attempting to build. S.W.

[GRANVILLE]

I'm not sure how much you can rely on the batch numbers to date helmets. My raw edge with a War Office 1915 liner which appears to be completely original has a batch number HS 161 which doesn't seem to fit with the case you are attempting to build. S.W.

There's no easy answer. Common sense dictates that the higher the number under the rim, the later its prodction must have been. I can't imagine the presses rolling and a completely random number being applied. The batch number will be the only way the maker can do a recall in the event of any of the helmets throwing up a problem. Unfortunately we all know many raw edges have lost their protective edging along the way for one reason or another.

Dave

[trajan]

Just as well to be aware that with regard to bayonets, some countries would number these up to 999 (or another 'useful' round number) and then start numbering the next batch at 001. This might also apply to helmets?

Ttajan

[calibre792x57.y]

There's no easy answer. Common sense dictates that the higher the number under the rim, the later its prodction must have been. I can't imagine the presses rolling and a completely random number being applied. The batch number will be the only way the maker can do a recall in the event of any of the helmets throwing up a problem. Unfortunately we all know many raw edges have lost their protective edging along the way for one reason or another.

Dave

Mmm. Well there is certainly no indication that my helmet ever had a rim and it beggars belief that it could lose it's rim and somehow gain a very rare early War Office Pattern liner!

[calibre792x57.y]

There's no easy answer. Common sense dictates that the higher the number under the rim, the later its prodction must have been. I can't imagine the presses rolling and a completely random number being applied. The batch number will be the only way the maker can do a recall in the event of any of the helmets throwing up a problem. Unfortunately we all know many raw edges have lost their protective edging along the way for one reason or another.

Dave

Mmm. Well there is certainly no indication that my helmet ever had a rim and it beggars belief that it could lose it's rim and somehow gain a very rare early War Office Pattern liner! It is possible that many shells were made and then stored. Some being fitted up immediately with whatever liner was current and some being modified much later to Mark 1 standard, so negating a low shell batch number necessarily indicating early production of the whole helmet. Still,interesting to muse upon. SW

[GRANVILLE]

Mmm. Well there is certainly no indication that my helmet ever had a rim and it beggars belief that it could lose it's rim and somehow gain a very rare early War Office Pattern liner! It is possible that many shells were made and then stored. Some being fitted up immediately with whatever liner was current and some being modified much later to Mark 1 standard, so negating a low shell batch number necessarily indicating early production of the whole helmet. Still,interesting to muse upon. SW

S.W. I think from what you post above we are on similar wavelengths over this. From what I put forward earlier, I was trying to highlight the possibility that a helmet shell may be much older than it appears from the type of liner in it, this being on account of it having possibly been upgraded along the way and is best demonstrated by the way you can certainly pick up WW1 pattern shells (stamped by HS etc) fitted with WW2 liners and invariably being used by Wardens, and emergency services in WW2 (one of my first came to me via exactly this route).

I think it very unlikely the batch numbers will be taken to 999 and then started over because if you had to do a recall, which 89 (for example) will you be recalling? Has anyone ever seen a four digit HS or FS batch number, I must admit I've not? If, as I am putting forward, the lower the batch number, the earlier the shell was made, then I believe this is borne out by the difficulty members reading this thread must be having in spotting a batch number below the HS 15 we have so far turned up. Again, it stands to reason that the earlier the helmet, the more likely it is to have disintegrated long ago for one reason or another, bearing in mind when the helmets were first issued they came out in such limited numbers they had to be shared and handed over from one relief to another. Again, this was exactly my experience in the police when the NATO helmets first came out. Because they were shared, we were actually issued with white cotton skull caps to try and guard against nasties being passed around! I bet that since this topic cropped up, there's never been so much checking of helmet batch numbers to see how low they might be.

Dave

[trenchtrotter]

Interseting thread chaps.....

Checked my raw edge and it is ?S / 29. It has first pattern lining with tongues in american cloth and is named to a RAMC officer attached to 36th Ulster Div Sanitary Section 1916 on one of the tongues underside. It also has the smaller squared attachments for the chin strap bales.

I have a helmet that is raw edged but has traces of where the rim was and also the second pattern lining but has a chin strap with buckle and prong. I cannot read the batch number through the paint but interestingly the inner bowl has the typical early apple green paint finish...a modified helmet? It does have the later attachments for the bales though and no do nut!

How can tin hats be sooooo interesting.

T"tin hat anorak"T

[GRANVILLE]

Interseting thread chaps.....

Checked my raw edge and it is ?S / 29. It has first pattern lining with tongues in american cloth and is named to a RAMC officer attached to 36th Ulster Div Sanitary Section 1916 on one of the tongues underside. It also has the smaller squared attachments for the chin strap bales.

I have a helmet that is raw edged but has traces of where the rim was and also the second pattern lining but has a chin strap with buckle and prong. I cannot read the batch number through the paint but interestingly the inner bowl has the typical early apple green paint finish...a modified helmet? It does have the later attachments for the bales though and no do nut!

How can tin hats be sooooo interesting.

T"tin hat anorak"T

Personally I would say almost certainly modified along the way, as the Apple Green was the first shade of 'green' that they applied as far as I am aware. Having such an interest in the helmet does seem a bit anorakish, but for a long time I've felt that one of the most vital pieces of kit has tended to be rather overlooked. As a youth I recall comparing photographs from both WW1 & 2 and realising that for some reason the tin hat of WW1 always seemed so much larger on the heads of the boys wearing them, and for a good while I couldn't figure why it was. Older & now more enlightened it becomes fairly clear why, but I still felt there was some more to discover which was why I ran the thread on Brodie Dimensions some time ago. From this some collated measurements of genuine Brodies were quickly gathered, and serve well to demonstrate why the earlier Brodies are so noticeably different from later versions.

Dave

[wainfleet]

I have 2 raw edge helmets with the 1st patt liner and narrow strap-guide plates. One is HS 7, the other is HS 19. Not sure if this makes any difference one way or another, but there you are. Add: HS 7 is all in the apple-green colour. HS 19 has been repainted a brownish khaki and has a regimental badge brazed to the front. Hard to tell what the original colour was without pulling the liner out, which I am not keen to do! but it may have been a bluish-green over a curry-yellow undercoat.

Rgds,

W.

[trajan]

Wainfleet, I think that HS 7 is going to make a few people jealous... Lock it up and Insure it now!!!

Trajan

[GRANVILLE]

I have 2 raw edge helmets with the 1st patt liner and narrow strap-guide plates. One is HS 7, the other is HS 19. Not sure if this makes any difference one way or another, but there you are. Add: HS 7 is all in the apple-green colour. HS 19 has been repainted a brownish khaki and has a regimental badge brazed to the front. Hard to tell what the original colour was without pulling the liner out, which I am not keen to do! but it may have been a bluish-green over a curry-yellow undercoat.

Rgds,

W.

I would say the two helmets bear out what I have been saying. The HS 7 shell has to be older than the HS 19, and both will be older than the HS 28 which I have and which has been fitted with the 2nd pattern dougnut liner. I predict much more emphais will from hereon be put on the batch numbers stamped under the rims, with the lower numbers attracting much more interest than previously. Untill such time as someone can verify one lower than HS 7, I speculate that you may have the oldest shell in the land?

Dave

[Joe Sweeney]

The number on the helmet is a heat number and not a batch number.

The heat number denotes the furnace burning (that is the time the furnace was on to the time it was off in a single occurance--many batches could have come out of a single heat) that produced the metal for Quality control reasons.

Of course the smaller the number the earlier the heat, if the same furnace. However, since the metal manufacturer and helmet manufacturer were not necessarily the same--earlier heat numbers could have come out on later produced helmets.

Joe Sweeney

[GRANVILLE]

The number on the helmet is a heat number and not a batch number.

The heat number denotes the furnace burning (that is the time the furnace was on to the time it was off in a single occurance--many batches could have come out of a single heat) that produced the metal for Quality control reasons.

Of course the smaller the number the earlier the heat, if the same furnace. However, since the metal manufacturer and helmet manufacturer were not necessarily the same--earlier heat numbers could have come out on later produced helmets.

Joe Sweeney

Joe. It has to be asked where this information comes from. With regards to Hadfield’s & Firth, who were two of the largest suppliers of helmets, these were also two of the largest manufacturers of steel not only in Sheffield, but worldwide at that time, so they will have been producing both the steel and the pressed shells from their own sites.

Dave

[133.R]

The number on the helmet is a heat number and not a batch number.

The heat number denotes the furnace burning (that is the time the furnace was on to the time it was off in a single occurance--many batches could have come out of a single heat) that produced the metal for Quality control reasons.

Of course the smaller the number the earlier the heat, if the same furnace. However, since the metal manufacturer and helmet manufacturer were not necessarily the same--earlier heat numbers could have come out on later produced helmets.

Joe Sweeney

[trajan]

Hi Joe Sweeny,

It really would help all of us if you can back that assertation up with a reference that we call all check on! Too often on GWF we get 'statements of fact' with no supporting evidence. This is not to doubt that what you say might well be true - just need supporting evidence!

Trajan

[wainfleet]

Hi Joe Sweeny,

It really would help all of us if you can back that assertation up with a reference that we call all check on! Too often on GWF we get 'statements of fact' with no supporting evidence. This is not to doubt that what you say might well be true - just need supporting evidence!

Trajan

I don't know what Joe's source for this particular info is, and maybe he doesn't have the reference material to hand right now, but in 30+ years of serious collecting I've never met anyone whose statements have been better supported. 100-1 on this being correct!

[GRANVILLE]

The number on the helmet is a heat number and not a batch number.

The heat number denotes the furnace burning (that is the time the furnace was on to the time it was off in a single occurance--many batches could have come out of a single heat) that produced the metal for Quality control reasons.

Of course the smaller the number the earlier the heat, if the same furnace. However, since the metal manufacturer and helmet manufacturer were not necessarily the same--earlier heat numbers could have come out on later produced helmets.

Joe Sweeney

Likewise; despite never having met Joe you have to have great respect for his knowledge on a range of WW1 related subjects. All I would say is I too have had an on/off interest in kit and equipment from the period for some 30yrs and in any conversation I've ever had with any other fellow enthusiast, if Brodie rim numbers ever came up, it was generally understood these referred to batches of production, however I appreciate an assumption is no grounds on which to base an assertion.

From what Joe says above, it reads to me that in just the same way I was suggesting the lower the number the earlier the shell's manufacture (batch); Joe appears to saying virtually the same thing, but for 'batch' read 'furnace firing', and the same still applies, the lower the number, the earlier the shell. I don't know too much about steel making, but I can only assume the furnaces must have gone down for one reason or another at some point in time, although one tends to imagine that with the outbreak of the war, the furnaces; which I imagine were already operated 24/7, will almost certainly have been so operating by the time the helmet was being produced.

Unless I'm completely misreading what Joe has said, it still sounds to me that the lower the number stamp, the earlier the date it was made.

The picture post is No 10 by my reading (which is a cracking helmet to have), but not No 1 just in case you were hoping!

Dave

[GRANVILLE]

Thought I'd try and identify the maker JD&S as per the picture post, but in the process of trawling the Net I came across the following. You may have seen this already, but some won't so I thought it best to lighten up on things for a while..........

Could I use a Brodie helmet as a crash hat?

As the weather's getting better, I was to start cycling everywhere again, but I dread the thought of getting my bicycle helmet on!

Do you think it would be possible to use an old Brodie helmet or other tin helmet as a replacement for a cycle helmet? Would it give the same amount of protection?

Best Answer -

No. A Brodie Helmet is designed to protect the head and neck from low-velocity shrapnel. It is not designed to protect against falls from a bicycle. A Brodie's chinstrap and liner are not designed to keep the helmet secure during a fall - or even during movement (the helmet tends to wobble back and forth). Also, the padding of a Brodie is not designed to cushion the skull or reduce acceleration during an impact. In terms of design, the brim might even impede forward vision and would even tend to INCREASE rotational forces during an impact.

In short, a Brodie helmet would be completely useless as a bicycle helmet. You can use it, but don't expect it to help in a crash.

Source(s):

I'm a keen cyclist and I also own a few WW1 Brodie helmets. I've worn them, I've researched the helmet extensively and I've manufactured reproduction liners for them.

PS: JD&S: James Dixon & Sons of Sheffield

[GRANVILLE]

Continuing the theme of being a Brodie anorak, here's another head scratcher? I've never seen a WD Arrow stamp on a steel helmet and yet they are on most everything else you care to name - even the mess tins. Anyone know why this is?

Dave

[GRANVILLE]

Tocemma

Thanks for your input on the subject, but lets not get too dismissive of what is actually genuine enquiry into a fuller appreciation of what was vital equipment for those who served, even if it does come across as a bit anorakish. Plenty of other items of kit get discussed in minute detail elsewhere.

The helmet you've illustrated is a superb example and one of its fellows can be viewed here: http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/helmets/ww1-brodie-helmet-16128/ As can be read, FKS seems to stubbornly evade positive identification, whilst Firth is universally recognized by their FS stamp. The fact that the maker may not be absolutely clear is irrelevant in as much as it is obviously a genuine early Brodie, very probably pressed using steel supplied by Firth. If yours bears No 3 and the one in the posting No 8, what does that tell you? Yours must have been produced before No 8. Excited, you may not be, but it is a fairly interesting exercise to try and fully understand its history. Furnace Firings I have to say I've never heard of, but I'm all ears if someone can absolutely claify. If FKS had been a steel producer, I think it stands to reason their moniker would have been properly recognized a long time ago. If on the other hand they (like many others) were pressing shells out of steel supplied by manufacturers such as Firth, then surely if furnace firing applied, it would need to have a code recognised across the board and not just unique to FKS whoever they were?

All the other points you raise about helmets being refurbished along the way, echo the point I made in the beginning of this thread, which has rather become sidelined for the search for the lowest numbers. I'd be just as interested to see some WW2 issued helmets (often to wardens and the emergency services), the shells of which are clearly much earlier Brodies in origin. For all you know No 1 could be lurking amongst them?

Dave