Water bottle patterns

[Joe Sweeney]

Ref post 42. Great to see an image of your 1915 dated water bottle 133. R.

Is this a list of change citation for the same aluminium water bottle?

Joe, is there a 1913 reference?

Chris,

The reference comes out of the "The Pattern 1908 Web Infantry Equipment, 1913" Fitting instructions. It was also brought-up by Roj Dennis and J Bodsworth in the Armouror series of articles.

I haven't found a LoC for the kidney shaped aluminum waterbottle although my access to the LoC is very limited and usually through you:-)

I believe that your LoC reference is to the flask shaped Aluminum Water-bottle that seems to have been made in Canada and issued to British troops. See the far right bottle-dated 1915:

Take care,

Joe Sweeney

[Andrew Upton]

I've just dug out my aluminium water bottle from store. It's got 'Hancock & Sheffield 1915' (sic) on the neck and doesn't have any hook for a cork string.

Smells a bit as well! I won't be taking it on any picknicks.

I have a 1915 dated one as well, by a maker not mentioned so far - Hague & McKenzie. I do WW1 living history, and after thorough and repeated cleaning, new cork, new cover, it is now still doing the exact same job it was originally intended for 98 years later...

As I recall one of the reasons they were not widely adopted was because of the cost/scarcity of aluminium during the war. A standard enamelled bottle cost 3 shillings something (edited from 4 in light of TE's post below), the same version in aluminium was about twice the price, 8 shillings something.

[ServiceRumDiluted]

I found this in a farmers barn today - a literal barn find! After some ridicule for being a scrap metal dealer in disguise and some exchange of goods and services I acquired it. It looks to me like a medical waterbottle with the extra wide neck for dual use as an eyebath or allowing the facially wounded to drink. It is pretty solid with original enamel poking through an overpainting. Can anyone confirm my hunch and provide any further information? I've not seen any other examples.

[wainfleet]

Hi SRD

What you have is an early water bottle, standard issue but only for a shot while and superseded (I think in 1903) by the usually-seen narrow neck version. These carried on in use for quite a time and some are seen in early Great War photos. Quite a rare find.

Rgds, W.

[Andrew Upton]

Hi SRD

What you have is an early water bottle, standard issue but only for a shot while and superseded (I think in 1903) by the usually-seen narrow neck version. These carried on in use for quite a time and some are seen in early Great War photos. Quite a rare find.

Rgds, W.

I did wonder if the "fluted neck" referenced below as the earlier MkV type referred to the style illustrated above, since fluted seems an odd word to describe what I would describe as funneled:

"Some history: The blue enamelled Mark V1 was approved in 1903. The earliest & original specifications called for a lipped bottom, & a pressed top, as in the left hand bottle. This followed on from the mark V, basically the same but with a fluted neck, again specified with a lipped bottom, & a pressed top."

http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=142164&st=0&p=1357473&hl=waterbottles&fromsearch=1entry1357473

[ServiceRumDiluted]

Thanks guys, it does indeed look like a Mk V, pretty chuffed to find it.

SRD

[canteenmanUSA]

Whoa!! Sven, REFERENCE ILLUSTRATION 50 You just caught my attention! Your last photo no. one of three shows four canteens,three flasks and one the aluminum drum that I have been searching for information about like the proverbial voice in the wilderness. Picture 2 seems to show it pressed seam side out and maybe a British stamp on the cover right under the spout! Or do my eyes deceive me?I have five examples right next to me on the desk and have been fruitlessly searching for five years to try and find specific information about these were issued to. Mine came out of Canada and some are marked(stamped cover) C -arrow One strap is stamped 1916. One strap stamped manufacturer Ottawa, another Montreal. One has a man's name on the inside of the strap and he went in during 1916. Can you please tell me who used these mand were they exclusive to Canada and more specifically stay in Canada troops(militia-provincals)I have my examples posted in another forum for the last month, but can't seem to get a rise out of anybody. Can you help? Canteens are all I do! Mostly American Civil War. Max mjzurko@yahoo.com

[Jerry B]

Hi SRD

What you have is an early water bottle, standard issue but only for a shot while and superseded (I think in 1903) by the usually-seen narrow neck version. These carried on in use for quite a time and some are seen in early Great War photos. Quite a rare find.

Rgds, W.

A few of this type in use, though not totally certain of the date but after 1903 and probably after 1908 when the TF was formed.

[canteenmanUSA]

Sven, The middle aluminum drum waterbottle in post 50 has never been positively id'd as far as I can discover. Several that I have have Canadian markings. Do you know anything about them? I have looked for years and have never seen a word or another picture. Sincerely interested. one that I have is iid'd to Canadian 1916 Max

[Oz Ubique]

Post #13 asked about RAMC water bottles. I think I may have one in my attached picture. I could not spot any markings. It is also missing the little cup that also acts as a lid (seeking a replacement). These are roughly twice the volume of the standard water bottle. Can anyone give a date range to the second bottle behind please? This one has a twin pin spring loaded stopper and green enamel.

Cheers,

Oz.

[canteenmanUSA]

Oz, Canteens (waterbottles)are my primary collecting interest,mostly American Civil War. While actively beating the bushes for any information referencing British Commonwealth bottles I have found one reference to the enameled(Green or Blue) bayonet-twin pin spring loaded stopper cup capped waterbottle. This reference I found in "Canadian Military Collectors" forum. There is a wonderfully informative set of "back and forths" about canteens -waterbottles there. Within that forum your bottle and my example matching yours is spoken of as "Australian-smaller varant waterbottle most likely (manufactured) in the interwar years with a metal bayonet mount stopper"The example they show is blue, not green like yours and mine.That's all I got, hope it helps! Max

[Gew88/05]

It may relate just to leather goods, as on the base of my Water Bottle Carrier, there is an oval impressed Maker's Mark and their location " London ", and the manufacture date of 1918.

Within the oval is the mark " C & M ", and it is this mark put on the leather, which I am told by Karkee, shows this maker to be a Currier and Manufacturer of leather goods

i.e. a firm that prepares and dresses leather, rather than just fabricates from pre-tanned hides.

LF

Lancashire Fusilier, I am sure I have mentioned the answer to my question somewhere but I can't seem to find it. The "C&M" (Currier & Manufacturer) is only part of the maker's label as I am sure you are aware, it describes their business, so what is the name of the company? It is shown at the top of the oval marking above "C&M" over "London". It's there but due to the impression being uneven, I can't quite make it out. It almost appears to be "Kinkead" but I may be wrong.

[Oz Ubique]

Max, thank you for that information.

Cheers,

Oz.

[wainfleet]

Hi Gew88/05

C&M isn't Currier and Manufacturer - see Posts 19 and 40 on this thread. My best guess is Civil & Military but nobody really knows.

Regards, W.

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Hi Gew88/05

C&M isn't Currier and Manufacturer - see Posts 19 and 40 on this thread. My best guess is Civil & Military but nobody really knows.

Regards, W.

Wainfleet,

There is absolutely no point whatsoever your digging up this old argument, which has been well and truly aired in this Thread, as there are many facts which support that in the context of ' Leather Goods ' the WW1 marking ' C & M ' does mean Currier & Manufacturer.

For those who think otherwise, that is also respected.

Regards,

LF

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Lancashire Fusilier, I am sure I have mentioned the answer to my question somewhere but I can't seem to find it. The "C&M" (Currier & Manufacturer) is only part of the maker's label as I am sure you are aware, it describes their business, so what is the name of the company? It is shown at the top of the oval marking above "C&M" over "London". It's there but due to the impression being uneven, I can't quite make it out. It almost appears to be "Kinkead" but I may be wrong.

I still have that water bottle, and as you say, the marking is very unclear as to the maker's name, and it could certainly read ' Kinkead ' ?

Regards,

LF

[Grovetown]

There is absolutely no point whatsoever your digging up this old argument, which has been well and truly aired in this Thread.

Wainfleet may have been prompted by a recent conversation with me.

there are many facts which support that in the context of ' Leather Goods ' the WW1 marking ' C & M ' does mean Currier & Manufacturer.

For those who think otherwise, that is also respected.

Among those who think otherwise is the Leather Museum in Walsall, the historic centre of leather processing/ making in the UK, and especially during WW1

The museum "favours" 'Civil & Military'.

According to the Leather Museum, the reason is that a number of major WW1 manufacturers known to use C&M as part of their markings - Heath Machin, Matthew Harvey, Harvey & Co, Sheldon & Sons, for example - were NOT curriers.

That is to say, they did not possess the in-house facilities - known in the industry as 'currying shops' - in which to process/ cure/ 'curry' their own leather, and had to source it externally.

Consequently, it would be illogical of them to use a C&M mark meaning Currier, when they weren't!

Walsall MBC has published extensive lists, going back to the 18th century, of those involved in the leather trade by nature of firm/ profession (e.g. cutters, curriers, saddlers etc); for those actually interested in proper source materials.

Cheers,

GT.

[wainfleet]

Wainfleet,

There is absolutely no point whatsoever your digging up this old argument, which has been well and truly aired in this Thread, as there are many facts which support that in the context of ' Leather Goods ' the WW1 marking ' C & M ' does mean Currier & Manufacturer.

For those who think otherwise, that is also respected.

Regards,

LF

If you wish to believe that the same abbreviation would be used by HMG to mean different things on different items of military equipment at the same time when the alphabet contains an ample supply of alternatives, you are perfectly entitled to do so. I believe I'm also entitled to draw attention to the flawed nature of that argument.

[Lancashire Fusilier]

I believe I'm also entitled to draw attention to the flawed nature of that argument.

Likewise, I am entitled to draw attention to the flawed nature of your argument.

Regards,

LF

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Wainfleet may have been prompted by a recent conversation with me.

GT,

just because one small shop in Walsall may or may not have been also a Currier, and you have produced no firm evidence that they were not, does not alter the fact that the majority of those producing leather goods for the military during WW1 were in fact Curriers & Manufacturers, hence the ' C & M ' stamp on military leather goods.

Myself and many other collectors I have discussed this matter with, are of the firm opinion that the C & M mark on WW1 military leather goods stands for Currier & Manufacturer.

Whatever you and Wainfleet choose to do or think, is a private matter between you both.

Regards,

LF

Edited 22 August , 2015 by Keith Roberts
Forum rules - personal comment

[Lancashire Fusilier]

Thank you for my new name LF. Returning to topic, you'll see that in Post 19 there is an 1888 side drum made by Henry Potter, who were never curriers and manufacturers. I note that you haven't addressed that beyond stating that the Army must have used C&M to mean different things depending on what they stamped it on, which as I have pointed out in Post 68 is highly unlikely. Civil and Military may not agree with your opinion, but from a logical standpoint it makes a great deal more sense. Perhaps in the grand scheme of things this isn't hugely important, but nevertheless I prefer people not to be fed misleading information, even with obviously the best of intentions.

Wainfleet,

If you prefer people not be fed misleading information, then stop doing exactly that.

Regards,

LF

[Wardog]

This is starting to get nasty. Shame a very interesting thread could end up getting shut down. Regards, Paul.

[keithmroberts]

OK I have edited a couple of posts and hidden others. Personal comment will not be tolerated. There is scope for5 a debate here - all concerned must consuct it courteously and with respect.

Keith Roberts

[wpwww1]

Hi

I would like to get the measurements for the leather and the cloth portion of the 1903 mdl canteen.

I'm making the ICM Anzacs and want to place a canteen on the figure. I couldn't find anything as to the sizes of the straps.

Regards

Bill W

[Andrew Upton]

_{To bump this one up and add some more evidence to the "C & M" marking being (more likely, as I have always understood it) Civil and Military, and very unlikely Curriers and Manufacturers - there is for sale on Ebay at the moment a copper lamp marked "G. POLKEY, C&M, 1898, BIRMINGHAM":}

_{http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/1898-Antique-Copper-Fortress-Lantern-G-Polkey-Birmingham-/191141133082?hash=item2c80e63b1a}

_{This is fully W/I\D marked, so definitely military issue. A Google search of the web on the maker Polkey shows them to have been prolific manufacturers of lamps and lamp related accessories in the period spanning the end of the 19th century up until the end of WW1, with nothing to indicate any sort of specialist leather related activities at all...}