PRINCESS Mary christmas gift

[Medaler]

17 minutes ago, Gunner Bailey said:

Pretty good for something put together in a couple of weeks. Not designed to be a masterpiece just a fund raiser.

 

I had thought of buying one of these at one time, and then it completely slipped my mind. A very illustrious list of contributors, and I do like that style of illustration. I will look out for one - until I forget again!

 

Just ordered one - complete bargain - £3.96 incl postage!

 

Regards,

Mike

Edited 8 June , 2017 by Medaler
Updated......

[daggers]

GT

Thanks for posting the contents and other pages of the book.  I notice that one of the illustrators was R.B. Talbot Kelly, a Gunner officer and author of a WW1 memoir, who has been discussed elswhere on the Forum, I think.  He was later better known for his paintings of birds, but did not have much success in teaching me drawing!.

Others on the list of contributors must have had war connections but I have not looked far enough.

D

[Gunner Bailey]

Many are bought for the Arthur Rackham print - extracted, framed and the book ditched. Or so an antique dealer told me once.

[trajan]

And I would guess that the book with the print in it would sell for far more than the print itself...

[Medaler]

4 hours ago, trajan said:

And I would guess that the book with the print in it would sell for far more than the print itself...

 

You would be surprised. I've just ordered a copy of the book for £3.96 including postage. Checking the BIN prices on a "well known auction site" would demonstrate that nobody really seems to have much of a clue about how much the books are worth. Looking at one of the specialist book dealer sites certainly leads me to believe that they either never sell any, or deal with a clientele that don't understand the value of money. Go have a look Julian, it's an education - well, it was for me! I found one with a similar condition report to the one I have just invested in for 25x the price. I am now wondering if they want to buy any...............

 

Years ago I had a little "sideline" going as a picture framer. One of my regular customers actually used to make a living from buying old books of maps, splitting them out, and mounting them as prints. I used to do commission framing work for him on a regular basis.

 

Oh, and on the tin front, I think I have just identified a version 7. If I'm right I will add details later.

 

Regards,

Mike

[GWF1967]

Two tins, both with a full stop after the 14. Different heads and M's.  

Edited 9 June , 2017 by GWF1967

[Medaler]

Hi GWF1967,

 

I was actually just about to update this with a 7th version when your posting "landed".

 

Yes, the head is interesting, but look at some of the other bits too...........they are food for thought.

 

Your top tin is a "6 lattice" and your bottom a "7 lattice"

Your bottom tin has the wide spacing between the 2 letter "N"s like tins featured earlier.

Completely different leaf formations around the bayonets between your two tins.

Your bottom tin clearly has a teardrop shaped frog stud on the bayonet - the first clear photo we have of that!!!!

They are both "18 pairs of leaves" versions.

Both have the lower flower central petal pointing downwards.

They both have crossed Laurel stalks.

 

Many thanks for adding the pictures. I will try to evaluate where they sit with the different versions I think I have already identified. My mind is now moving towards a different way of sorting them all out. It's only tentative at this stage, but they might be best split into 6 lattice and 7 lattice types as the first stage of identification.

 

Regards,

Mike

[GWF1967]

3 minutes ago, Medaler said:

Hi GWF1967,

 

I was actually just about to update this with a 7th version when your posting "landed".

 

Yes, the head is interesting, but look at some of the other bits too...........they are food for thought.

 

Your top tin is a "6 lattice" and your bottom a "7 lattice"

Your bottom tin has the wide spacing between the 2 letter "N"s like tins featured earlier.

Completely different leaf formations around the bayonets between your two tins.

Your bottom tin clearly has a teardrop shaped frog stud on the bayonet - the first clear photo we have of that!!!!

They are both "18 pairs of leaves" versions.

Both have the lower flower central petal pointing downwards.

They both have crossed Laurel stalks.

 

Many thanks for adding the pictures. I will try to evaluate where they sit with the different versions I think I have already identified. My mind is now moving towards a different way of sorting them all out. It's only tentative at this stage, but they might be best split into 6 lattice and 7 lattice types as the first stage of identification.

 

Regards,

Mike

Happy to add to the mix Mike. I was following with interest. 

 

[Medaler]

I think I have identified a 7th version.

 

So far we have 4 x 7 lattice versions and 2 x 6 lattice versions (the "19 leaf" is a 7 lattice). The 7th version is another 6 lattice, like my tin 3 and Bob's tin (please see #45). Below is a picture of this "new" tin, together with the detail shots of my tin 3, Bob's tin, and a close up of the same area on this "new" tin. The difference is in the position of the intersection of the lattice at the left side of the upper cartouche. In simple terms, where the 2 bits of lattice cross is much nearer to the edge of the tin. A kind of "crossing high" lattice. There may be other differences too, but this is (IMHO) enough to prove that it was made with a different die. Please note the thistles on this tin too. I think they are different to anything we have seen before, but have not checked that in any great detail.

 

So few tins seen, and so many variations - I am convinced now that there are likely to be many more than just 7.

 

I am adding to my experience all the time as this thread evolves, and am beginning to perhaps come up with a concept for a recognition chart of our own. I'm hooked now!

 

Thoughts and opinions always most welcome - I am learning "on the job" here!

 

Biffo - If you are still following this thread, sorry if I seem to have stolen it. All I set out to do was try and answer your question, but it's turned into something bigger than I every thought it would.

 

Regards,

Mike

 

 

 

[Medaler]

46 minutes ago, GWF1967 said:

Happy to add to the mix Mike. I was following with interest. 

 

 

Just picked up on your mention of the "M"s as different.

 

I have noticed this too as we have been going along. The original table of "7 types" mentions a "large" M and a "small" M. The problem I have is that they all look the same size to me, on every tin we have seen so far. The differences seem (to me) to be more in the way they slope. I have also wondered if what I thought I could see as differences in the "M" might just be down to distortion in the pictures. As you have the 2 tins side by side in real life, I am grateful for that observation.

 

I will take a closer look at your 2 tomorrow. We might have an 8 and a 9 here!

 

Warmest regards,

Mike

[johnboy]

The contents seem more variable than the tins themselves. They were originally brass, no mention of guilding.

 

http://www.iwm.org.uk/history/first-world-war-princess-mary-gift-box

[Medaler]

1 hour ago, johnboy said:

The contents seem more variable than the tins themselves. They were originally brass, no mention of guilding.

 

http://www.iwm.org.uk/history/first-world-war-princess-mary-gift-box

 

Hiya Johnboy,

 

Long time no speak! - Hope you are keeping well.

 

Your right the contents are highly variable, but I'm going to leave those to somebody else - I'm having too much fun with the tins. Ref the IWM not mentioning the gilding, its an omission on their part. The one they use in their illustration is actually an example of a gilded one. According to the table of 7 variations, some were gilded and some were not, but its not an area that I have looked at in much detail. I did however determine that some of the tins coming up on here did not match those defined on that table. It is also very difficult to determine in some cases if the examples we are seeing here are gilded or not. I made that spectacular mistake with John's tin earlier in the thread.

 

It is probably a good time however to ask if anyone out there has an example that shows no trace of having ever been gilded. Where it was applied it tends to make the surface look ever-so-slightly frosted.

 

Warmest regards,

Mike

 

[Medaler]

3 hours ago, GWF1967 said:

Happy to add to the mix Mike. I was following with interest. 

 

 

Well, I reckon your "top tin" (6 lattice) is a match with Bob's tin (at #42). I have gone all over it and matched everything I can see. Tell me what you think! I would say that the frog stud on your scabbard looks slightly different, but all the major features seem to match. I have checked.....

 

Wave forms under the Dreadnought - 4 to the left and 4 1/2 to the right

Lattice cross-over positions

Bayonet cross-guard shape and detail. The grips on yours lack definition, but I think that's down to wear. The pommel looks identical.

Details of upper cartouche - scrolls and connecting ribs

Shape, size and positioning of "CHRISTMAS 1914"

Leaf forms around bayonet and scabbard

Thistle heads and their relative spaceings

The "M"s look to have the same size, shape and "lean"

 

I will try your "bottom tin" (7 lattice) later, but please feel free to disagree with me - I'm learning as I go along here!

 

Regards,

Mike

[chaz]

regarding the waves in #56, they seem different shaped/curls or is it condition?

 

now Im getting hooked on this!!!

same applies to the anchors, being as these are raised they dont seem high enough to have had that much wear compared to a newish one.

Edited 10 June , 2017 by chaz
dunno

[chaz]

according to hs description   .. Nice Condition and Original condition!!

make your minds up

 

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/NICE-CONDITION-ORIGINAL-WWI-PRINCESS-MARY-1914-BRASS-CHRISTMAS-GIFT-TIN-/192208264371?hash=item2cc0815cb3:g:VEQAAOSwfpVZNTnc

[Medaler]

4 hours ago, chaz said:

according to hs description   .. Nice Condition and Original condition!!

make your minds up

 

 

Think that must be one made shortly after the Zeppelin raid on the tin factory! Please don't ask me to try and determine what version it is.

 

#64 - Lets see if this helps...............If I put them side by side.

 

Thanks for sticking with the thread chaz. It's not easy, even from such good photo's. Comparing the wave forms on the various tins we have seen so far has been an interesting exercise. At first glance I assumed that they were all the same, but they aren't.

 

One of the biggest areas of difference between the different types is in the leaves around the bayonet. They are "all over the shop". The differences there however are difficult to describe, as its a combination of how the leaves are arranged and either stiff of florid styles of portraying them.. Have a look at the tins we have pictures of on here, and I think you will see what I mean straight away.

 

It's certainly keeping me entertained. Despite having gathered 3 of these myself over the years, I had never compared them until this thread came along. True, the wife is now muttering things about buying me an Anorak, but I'm ignoring her for the moment.

 

Warmest regards,

Mike

 

 

 

 

[Medaler]

Hiya GWF1967,

 

Moving on to your “bottom tin” (7 lattice)……….

 

So far, according to my reckoning, we have 4 different versions of a 7 lattice type. These are as follows:-

 

1. 19 pairs of leaves to the right of the bust on #36

2. My tin 1 on #27

3. My tin 2 on #27

4. Don’s tin on #21

 

You tin has 18 pairs of leaves, so it’s not like No1.

The cross guard on the bayonet does not have swept forward quillons, so it’s not like No4.

 

The devil seems to be in the detail of the upper right portion of the tin where several identifying elements can be found. This makes it look like my tin1. These are as follows……

 

Close proximity of thistle heads to left of cartouche

Shape of connecting rib to LH swirl

Wide gap between the “N”s in Britanicum”

Lack of definition / missing left leg of the letter “N”

Uppermost part of bayonet guard shorter than lower most guard.

 

I will check over the rest of your tin and my No1 later, but I think it looks like a match and has certainly ruled out the other 3 x 7 lattice versions. I have added pictures of the area I am talking about for clarity. The first pic is your tin, the second is my tin 1.

 

Warmest regards,

Mike

[Medaler]

Hiya GWF1967,

 

Just got back in from the weekly shopping and run further comparisons between you "bottom tin" and my Tin 1.

 

I'm happy that they are the same.........

 

4 waves on each side under the ship, and they take the same form on both tins.

Furls of flags match

Lower flower has central petal lowermost

lattice cross-over points match everywhere

legend "Christmas 1914" matches for style of lettering and its positioning within the cartouche.

Both have laurel stalks that cross behind the lower flower.

 

That frog stud does look a little different, but I'm putting that down to wear as everything else seems spot on.

 

See what you think and let me know.

 

Just noticed another difference between your 2 tins. Hardly unexpected because they are different, but worth mentioning as another potential identifier. Look at what I will call the Acanthus leaves either side of the cartouche with the "Christmas 1914" wording. Your top tin has 7 fronds either side, you bottom tin has what I would best describe as 5 1/2.

 

Regards,

Mike

Edited 10 June , 2017 by Medaler
Added a bit more!

[P.Rhodes]

This is a very interesting subject, my tin was inherited from my Uncle Reg [Waide Reginald Worrall 2nd Lt West Yorkshire Reg]. The detail looks a lot finer/sharper but, unless I'm not looking close enough it is different from all the others in this post, the word 'Christmas 1914.' appears lower within the cartouche and the ships guns look more defined etc. I'm looking forward to being proved wrong.

 

Peter

[Gunner Bailey]

19 hours ago, johnboy said:

The contents seem more variable than the tins themselves. They were originally brass, no mention of guilding.

 

http://www.iwm.org.uk/history/first-world-war-princess-mary-gift-box

 

All the tins were made of brass and all were gilded. However, as soon as you start to polish them the gilding goes rapidly. The Edwardian passion for polishing brass has destroyed the gilding on many of the tins.

[Medaler]

Hi Peter,

 

I hope I don't prove you wrong - I am really keen to find a version 8 !! Other than that, please note that I still have "L" plates on here,and they are still red rather than green.

          
You are absolutely right about the crisp pressing, and the gilding is lovely. I suspect it has never seen a pot of polish in 100 years! Perhaps that could all be down to it being one of the first off the press, when the dies were new? Everything is beautifully clear in that grand picture you have posted too.

 

For starters, its a "6 lattice" - and (so far) we only have 3 options for those. The options therefore (unless it is version 8) are.........

1. My tin 3 at #27

2. Bob's tin at #46

3. Illustrated at #59

 

After a long tustle, I have ruled out #59. Your thistle heads are wider apart, your bayonet pommel is straight sided rather than "swelled". The clincher seems to be in the leaf pattern near the bayonet hilt which, on close examination, looks quite different. The "I" in your "Imperium" sits straight above the high point of the "R" in your "Brittanicum", on #59 it looks to be further left. If you look at the RH Dreadnought, the gun barrel on your "B" turret ends in a different place relative to the lattice. On the left hand Dreadnought panel, the gun barrel on your "A" turret stops just short of the centre of a flower where the lattice intersects, on #59 the end of the barrel passes that point. I think all that proves that yours is a different die, but the differences are VERY subtle. The final proof comes from the lattice intersections that are glimpsed either side of the central Acanthus leaf in the upper cartouche. They cross high on #59, near the rim of the tin. They are definitely different on you example.

 

Fortunately, my tin 3 has those "cranked" ribs connecting to the swirls in the upper cartouche. Your example has lovely sweeping curves - EASY!! Mine also has completely different thistle shapes to the right of the upper cartouche.

 

That leaves us with Bob's tin at #46 - EASY - Left hand Dreadnought - His has 4 waves, yours has 5!

 

Thanks Peter - I reckon you have found me version 8 - Brilliant!!!!

 

Anyone care to add anything? - Don't be shy! - I need the help.

 

Regards,

Mike

[johnboy]

Just some thoughts

The dot after 1914 might indicate when made ?

None so far seem to have a makers mark. I read somewhere that contracts were awarded to 4 firms. Between them these firms made 2.6 million tins. roughly 600,000 each.

How many dies would each firm get through?

No wonder there are variations!

The strange thing is though, the variations are not seen as being due to die slip/ misalignment but a complete difference in pattern. Number of stalks,waves , letter spacing etc.

 

 

 

  

[GWF1967]

41 minutes ago, Medaler said:

Thanks Peter - I reckon you have found me version 8 - Brilliant!!!!

 

Anyone care to add anything? - Don't be shy! - I need the help.

 

Regards,

Mike

New head on Peter's  tin as well?

[Medaler]

17 minutes ago, johnboy said:

Just some thoughts

The dot after 1914 might indicate when made ?

None so far seem to have a makers mark. I read somewhere that contracts were awarded to 4 firms. Between them these firms made 2.6 million tins. roughly 600,000 each.

How many dies would each firm get through?

No wonder there are variations!

The strange thing is though, the variations are not seen as being due to die slip/ misalignment but a complete difference in pattern. Number of stalks,waves , letter spacing etc.

 

 

 

  

 

Hiya Johnboy,

 

As usual you are on the money with all these observations, or at least so far as raising them. All I am actually doing at this end is casting my eye over them and playing "spot the difference". As you should be able to tell from how this has evolved so far, it took me while to "get my eye in", and I could still so easily be missing stuff. Regarding the history of these I actually know very little, and your memory of their being 4 firms involved is the first time I have come across a figure for that.

 

It does open up a whole load of questions. One of the most obvious ones to me being, if these were being made on a press, surely they would stamp more than one out at once? If that is a valid point, then how many would they stamp at one "drop"? Each firm may therefore have had several sets of dies in use at any one given time. That dicovery (thanks to Peter) of what looks like a version 8 made me start making all sorts of theories. It is so close to #59 that I suspect it might be the work of the same pattern maker. All theory and conjecture - not a shred of evidence!

 

The question you raise about variations through mis-alignment is a good point. I would have tried to rule those out, but I don't think I have seen any yet. As you say, it's all subtle variations in the die rather than alignment issues. That leads me to believe that we might at least have evidence that the whole design was carried on one die, rather than different bits of the design being carried on a set of dies.

 

Do know any of this for sure? - nope, just guessing!!

 

Regards,

Mike

 

 

[johnboy]

I'll try and find the reference to 4 manufacturers. Not having any tins myself. my comments are based on the pics posted. I think that one die contained the whole lid design. If it was made up of several dies I would have thought that the 'joins' would show up