Lancashire Fusilier Posted 21 January , 2016 Share Posted 21 January , 2016 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 I too have seen other items such as musical instruments, clothing etc., etc., marked ' C & M ', the fact remains, that within the Leather Trade circa WW1, Curriers & Manufacturers existed and there were those manufacturers who wished to describe and identify themselves as ' Curriers & Manufacturers ', so in the context of leather goods, not metal lamps, it is possible that the marking ' C. & M. ' was also used to denote those Curriers & Manufacturers. I accept, there are those who disagree, however, until such time as someone comes up with an official document such as a List of Changes specification for ' C & M ', as far as I am concerned, ' C. & M. ' on leather goods continues to stand for Currier & Manufacturer. Regards, LF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave1418 Posted 22 January , 2016 Share Posted 22 January , 2016 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 Hi the leather straps for the cradle are .75 inch wide, the shoulder strap is .50 inch wide, the canvas V twill is 2 inches wide by 12 inches long to the ends of the v. The leather that attaches to the canvas is 1.5 inches in length and has two tin plated copper hose rivets attaching them together. I hope this helps Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 31 January , 2016 Share Posted 31 January , 2016 Dave, Thanks for the info....I tried to make a guess...but this gives me all I need. Regards Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 31 October , 2016 Share Posted 31 October , 2016 Found yet another good item that adds weight to the argument that the C&M marking relates to something other than Curriers and Manufactures, and most likely Civil and Military. The following punch was listed on Ebay a little while ago: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Victorian-British-Army-039-Wad-Punch-039-Tool-1885-by-Buck-amp-Hickman-London-/131929970758?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&nma=true&si=CF9Fgjv%2BteE63qw9U2d2FCAgaBk%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc https://postimg.org/image/rstvluppf/ https://postimg.org/image/96yvpeq9h/ https://postimg.org/image/5obe60bcx/ Made by Buck and Hickman, clearly dated 1885 and with the WD mark surmounted by the broad arrow (with later cancelling arrow above for sold-out-of-service). Buck and Hickman only ever made metal tools, for both the civilian and military market, and never had anything to do with the leather industry (except for making tools for those that did). I cannot see any logic in any manufacturer using the same marking in a virtually interchangeable context and expect it to be interpreted differently, especially when examples that demonstrably disprove the Currier and Manufacturer interpretation keep appearing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wainfleet Posted 1 November , 2016 Share Posted 1 November , 2016 (edited) This one again..... It should be pretty clear that C&M isn't Currier and Manufacturer, the sole "evidence" for that being the independent existence of the phrase and the presence of C&M on some leather items. As mentioned by me way back in August 2012 (now Post 18 in this thread after its extensive editing), it also appears on items which are nothing to do with the leather trade. Currier and Manufacturer was thus comprehensively dismissed from all rational consideration quite some time ago. The real question is, what does it stand for? I was inclined to agree with Civil and Military, but I had a conversation with Grovetown about this a few months ago and I think he may have something new to say on the subject. Edited 1 November , 2016 by wainfleet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 14 January , 2017 Share Posted 14 January , 2017 (edited) Found another good one to disprove the leather based interpretation of C&M - an online dealer currently has the following item for sale: https://postimg.org/image/4dg9whpq9/ https://postimg.org/image/7x6xmn0bb/ https://postimg.org/image/6rlyi0pc3/ A 1902 military spade made by Bedford of Sheffield, and stamped with the C&M mark. Bedford had a long history with all aspects of steel and tool manufacture, and nothing to do with leather: http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/John_Bedford_and_Sons Edited 14 January , 2017 by Andrew Upton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wainfleet Posted 14 January , 2017 Share Posted 14 January , 2017 It wasn't GT who mentioned this to me some time ago after all; it was someone else who doesn't post here much anymore who found a specific reference to this abbreviation as "Contractor and Manufacturer". I can't provide chapter and verse but it makes sense to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gew88/05 Posted 14 January , 2017 Share Posted 14 January , 2017 On 10/31/2016 at 15:03, Andrew Upton said: Found yet another good item that adds weight to the argument that the C&M marking relates to something other than Curriers and Manufactures, and most likely Civil and Military. The following punch was listed on Ebay a little while ago: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Victorian-British-Army-039-Wad-Punch-039-Tool-1885-by-Buck-amp-Hickman-London-/131929970758?_trksid=p2047675.l2557&ssPageName=STRK%3AMEBIDX%3AIT&nma=true&si=CF9Fgjv%2BteE63qw9U2d2FCAgaBk%3D&orig_cvip=true&rt=nc https://postimg.org/image/rstvluppf/ https://postimg.org/image/96yvpeq9h/ https://postimg.org/image/5obe60bcx/ Made by Buck and Hickman, clearly dated 1885 and with the WD mark surmounted by the broad arrow (with later cancelling arrow above for sold-out-of-service). Buck and Hickman only ever made metal tools, for both the civilian and military market, and never had anything to do with the leather industry (except for making tools for those that did). I cannot see any logic in any manufacturer using the same marking in a virtually interchangeable context and expect it to be interpreted differently, especially when examples that demonstrably disprove the Currier and Manufacturer interpretation keep appearing. It is a leather punch. That offers no support to either of the translation for the translation of the title, it is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 14 January , 2017 Share Posted 14 January , 2017 2 hours ago, Gew88/05 said: It is a leather punch. That offers no support to either of the translation for the translation of the title, it is what it is. That reply makes no sense - the C&M mark on it is being used relating to the MAKER, who only made metal tools. Ergo, it must have a non-leather related meaning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 14 January , 2017 Share Posted 14 January , 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, wainfleet said: It wasn't GT who mentioned this to me some time ago after all; it was someone else who doesn't post here much anymore who found a specific reference to this abbreviation as "Contractor and Manufacturer". I can't provide chapter and verse but it makes sense to me. I have had the same information passed onto me, and it does indeed seem by far the most logical explanation, and fits perfectly in the frame of the examples I have been listing above where the makers were clearly specialists in their own non-leather related fields. Edited 14 January , 2017 by Andrew Upton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wainfleet Posted 18 January , 2017 Share Posted 18 January , 2017 Perhaps this storm in a teacup can finally be laid to rest. There will always be the odd one shouting angrily in the wilderness, but for most of us the mystery is surely cleared up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ypres1915 Posted 22 February , 2017 Share Posted 22 February , 2017 (edited) Here is another interesting bottle that was worn with the P14 equipment. It looks very much like a US water bottle but these are made in Hamilton Ontario Canada and have a cork stopper. Ypres1915 Edited 24 February , 2017 by Ypres1915 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ypres1915 Posted 24 February , 2017 Share Posted 24 February , 2017 I was watching TV last night and a series called "Apocalypse World War 1" was on. Near the end of the program there was a scene at a casualty clearing station and the soldiers waiting were passing around a water bottle of the pattern I described above. I managed to get two screen shots of the bottle. In the first the Soldier has the cork between his fingers. The second shows the bottle being passed back to the owner. Ypres1915 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wainfleet Posted 24 February , 2017 Share Posted 24 February , 2017 These bottles were an emergency purchase by the British government early on in the war and can often be seen in photos, especially around the Somme period and worn with 14 leather. They didn't fit very well into either that or the 08 web. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 27 June , 2017 Share Posted 27 June , 2017 (edited) Sorry if I appear to be harking on about the C&M thing, but once I've got my eye in on something I can't stop spotting new examples! Two pairs of triple jawed wire cutters on Ebay at the same time. Both maker marked Wynn Timmins, both /I\ marked, one clearly 1914 dated (the other date illegible, but a Google search tends to suggest 1914 was a key year for them making these), both clearly C&M marked. The following website has a description of the firm in 1914 as follows: http://www.gracesguide.co.uk/Wynn,_Timmins_and_Co "1914 - Manufacturers of hand tools for all trades, iron and steel stampers, die sinkers, press work in sheet and metal. Employees 200." (Reference taken from Whitaker's Red Book of Commerce or Who's Who in Business. Published in 1914). Once again, not a hint of any leather related activities... https://postimg.org/image/nz80pt2fj https://postimg.org/image/vj41gabsl/ Edited 27 June , 2017 by Andrew Upton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 8 January , 2019 Share Posted 8 January , 2019 (edited) On 27/06/2017 at 17:18, Andrew Upton said: Sorry if I appear to be harking on about the C&M thing, but once I've got my eye in on something I can't stop spotting new examples! A few more examples I've spotted since. First is a WD marked Wallace Patent combined pick/shovel, dated to the 1880's, and made by Edward Lucas & Son Sheffield. Another clear C&M mark from a firm that sold themselves as the "malleable iron foundry" and had no connection with leather making. Second is a 1940 dated dixie, made by F. Francis & Sons Ltd. of London. Another clear C&M mark from a firm that in 1914 were described as "Manufacturers of metallic casks and tin boxes; tinplate printers; hollow ware stampers; sheet metal workers. Specialities: iron drums and kegs for oils, chemicals etc., steel barrels, fancy tins, advertising tablets and trays, stamped retinned hollow ware, tuns and cans for paints, varnishes, enamels etc". No leather making connections again. Lastly is an 1883 dated Police lamp, made by Bulpitt & Sons of Birmingham. Yet another clear C&M mark from a firm that in 1937 were described as makers of "Cooking Utensils in aluminium and Tin. Lamps - oil, ship, railway. Domestic Sheet Metal Work of every description. Teapots, Kettles, Stewpans, Stockpots, Percolators, Fish Fryers, Urns, Steamers, Colanders, Frypans, Fish Kettles." No leather making connections once again. Edited 8 January , 2019 by Andrew Upton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wainfleet Posted 9 January , 2019 Share Posted 9 January , 2019 I think the whole C&M "mystery" has been nailed. The logical explanation is pretty well established and its shoutiest opponent is long gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 10 January , 2019 Share Posted 10 January , 2019 5 hours ago, wainfleet said: I think the whole C&M "mystery" has been nailed. The logical explanation is pretty well established and its shoutiest opponent is long gone. I know, but like I said before, when I've got my eye in I keep seeing them... plus I am still trying to correlate any one of these makers I come across with an advert or similar that repeats the correct meaning of C&M in full, which would really put the final nail in the "debate". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 31 October , 2022 Share Posted 31 October , 2022 So with thanks to Michael Skriletz who posted the following on Facebook - after 10 years the answer to the C&M marking "debate" is answered with 100% certainty. The "Regulations for the Volunteer Force", dated 18th September, 1863 categorically states it is a reference to "Contractor and Manufacturer". So despite a lot of insistence otherwise, absolutely nothing leather related or specific: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10112851115997428&set=gm.1982049498660251&idorvanity=1347775918754282 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chasemuseum Posted 31 October , 2022 Share Posted 31 October , 2022 Thank-you and congratulations Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrEd Posted 23 May , 2023 Share Posted 23 May , 2023 (edited) On 31/10/2022 at 15:49, Andrew Upton said: So with thanks to Michael Skriletz who posted the following on Facebook - after 10 years the answer to the C&M marking "debate" is answered with 100% certainty. The "Regulations for the Volunteer Force", dated 18th September, 1863 categorically states it is a reference to "Contractor and Manufacturer". So despite a lot of insistence otherwise, absolutely nothing leather related or specific: https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=10112851115997428&set=gm.1982049498660251&idorvanity=1347775918754282 Great find that. regarding aluminium water bottles, one on eBay sold recently manufactured by ‘P&C London, 1915’ and clearly stamped as such. It was in a damaged leather carrier. So 3 possible manufacturers listed in this thread - does anyone know of any others? ed Edited 23 May , 2023 by MrEd Added photo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Upton Posted 23 May , 2023 Share Posted 23 May , 2023 (edited) On 09/08/2013 at 18:47, 133.R said: On 11/08/2013 at 11:56, 133.R said: Another bottle , water, aluminium. Made by Hancock and Corfield Ltd.1915 Regards Sven On 12/08/2013 at 00:45, Andrew Upton said: 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. 2 hours ago, MrEd said: ...regarding aluminium water bottles, one on eBay sold recently manufactured by ‘P&C London, 1915’ and clearly stamped as such. It was in a damaged leather carrier. So 3 possible manufacturers listed in this thread - does anyone know of any others?... I make it at least four different known makers listed in this thread, including yours - see above. Edited 23 May , 2023 by Andrew Upton Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrEd Posted 23 May , 2023 Share Posted 23 May , 2023 (edited) 2 hours ago, Andrew Upton said: I make it at least four different known makers listed in this thread, including yours - see above. Sorry yes, The Hague and Mackenzie and the Hancock and Corfield blended into one manufacturer in my mind, apologies! all the same date to. I wonder how many different makers of Ali bottles there were, and is the number made known? Edited 23 May , 2023 by MrEd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrEd Posted 3 September , 2023 Share Posted 3 September , 2023 Sorry late to the party re: C&M - this popped up on EBay on a 5 picket bandolier - what is G&M? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chasemuseum Posted 6 September , 2023 Share Posted 6 September , 2023 Not seen that before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now