johnboy Posted 11 June , 2017 Share Posted 11 June , 2017 I tried the site but no info on manufacturers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 11 June , 2017 Share Posted 11 June , 2017 53 minutes ago, redbarchetta said: Mike, Yes, my first image is a 'Don'-type, but nowhere near as crisp as Don's. But I'm concerned by this bit on mine: There does not appear to be any trace of the patch of three ropes between the bottom of the flagpoles on the lefthand side, other than the bottom line - very odd if this bit has been polished away all on its own... On Don's this does look a bit less well defined, so I wonder whether mine is a very late stamping, when some elements of the detail had become very worn... Hiya, Many thanks for that confirmation. I am glad that I managed to at least narrow it down and eliminate the other options that have been identified so far. That missing rope work is actually a "big deal" and, I'm not sure how to admit this, but I had missed it. Worn die or different die? Now I am out on a limb, and need your help again! If you have checked the other bits I mentioned, and are 100% sure that they match perfectly, I am going for the "same die but worn" option. Like you, I can't see that bit being polished away on the tin. That doesn't fit with even wear through polishing. I have "done" you second one too now. I reckon its a match for my third picture on #27 - a "my tin 3" type. I will add more detail as to why later, but take a look and see what you think. Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 11 June , 2017 Share Posted 11 June , 2017 1 hour ago, trench whistle said: Harewood House might be worth contacting, home of Princess Mary, as the have an impressive number of tins on display. Most of which look to be pristine from the maker examples, presumably unused stock. They might have further in resuation regarding them in their archive. Might be worth an email enquiry? I have a three or four tins somewhere I will try to dig them out and photo them to add to this thread, Jim That has got to be worth a go Jim - many thanks for that. I will email them when I get chance and post the results here. Oh, and many thanks for volunteering with the camera too. Warmest regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 11 June , 2017 Share Posted 11 June , 2017 1 hour ago, chaz said: yes, but small pieces get broken or worn off especially if small section. QA and design would have to agree with the customer what would be acceptable before die is rejected. you could loose a leaf, likewise, the toolroom could get something welded on then re-machine to correct which could alter the shape of an M instead of going to the expense of completely replacing the die. Im just pointing out the possibilities for those not fully aware of machining and press shop protocol.r My technical knowledge will be nowhere near as great as yours. Trust me, it won't! This point you make here is what I was thinking to explain that difference in James' tin and Dons. Difficult call between "damaged die" and "new die lacking detail". That is why I have asked if we it can be sure that it is identical to Don's in every other respect. Thanks for that welcome insight. Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 11 June , 2017 Share Posted 11 June , 2017 Hiya James, Again, with your "tin 2", I am going to need you to check over your tin against my tin 3 at #27. I think they are the same. Here are the things I have checked...... 6 lattice 18 leaf pairs to right of bust Wide gap between 1st and 2nd leaf pairs on rhs of bust - Something new that I have only just noticed. Cluster of leaves below bayonet Central Petal lowermost - can't tell for sure Full stop Crossed laurel stalks - can't tell for sure As a 6 lattice, to fit with existing identified types, here are the options and the reasons for eliminating them............. Bob’s tin at #46– Eliminated – lattice work in the rhs Dreadnought panel is a different patten – positons of end of A turret gun barrel and flag on bow relative to the lattice are completely different. Tin at #59 – Eliminated – foliage around bayonet configured differently in relation to the lattice Tin at #69 – Eliminated – The bottom cross guard on the bayonet on your tin finishes almost mid lattice. On the tin at #69 it is snuggled right beside where the lattice intersects. Please check your real tin against my bottom photo on #27 and let me know what you think. Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 11 June , 2017 Share Posted 11 June , 2017 Hi James - Tins 3 & 4 sorted - You have found me an "A" version of the 19 leaf model !!! I thought this was going to be easy as your 3 and 4 are both 19 leaf versions. I have seen 2 of these before and they were identical. I therefore expected your 2 to be identical too – but they are not !! First, let me draw your attention to the similarities between the example at #36 and both of your tins. The first thing to note is the lattice detail in the flag panels on both sides. It seems to be a feature of these “19 leafers” that the lattice here is much more faintly impressed than it is on all of the other types. It was the same on the tin on Ebay too. This is not caused by polishing the tins (IMHO), but because the detail was not so crisp on the die that made them. I have checked relative positions of lattice crossing points against other design features on every panel on each of the 3 tins – your 2 and #36. I reckon they are identical in every way. The foliage around the upper cartouche – identical. The waves in the Dreadnought panels – identical. The thistle heads – identical. All tins have the full stop. Font size, shape, and positioning of “Christmas 1914” – Identical Lower flower central petal uppermost – All 3 tins Bayonet cross guards – Identical The difference? – The raised rib shape in the upper cartouche – see pictures for clarity. On your tin 4 it’s a completely different shaped rib at the right side!!!!!! My theory is that it’s the same die, but it has been repaired at some point. It even looks like a repair, the execution of the rib on your tin 4 looks much more crude than your tin 3 and #36. Chaz – If your about, cast your eye over it. Check it over James, and give me your thoughts after comparing both your tins to #36. All comments welcome. If you can spot any more differences, please let me know. Warmest regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted 11 June , 2017 Share Posted 11 June , 2017 different... top one good, middle a bit broke off or blocked , bottom, possibly damaged went back to have dressed flat. time and cost rule out making a new set of dies during hostilities also if not making a lot of money, die shop have to cover the repair cost, not customer. now the next issue is was it a die in relief pressed into the brass onto a soft plate from the inside out, or was it a plate stamped onto a die in relief pressed onto the outside.. confused? male into female or female into male. both with the brass plate as the meat in the sandwich. you then have the possibility of a breakage to the relief or a blockage to the recessed, the latter being a build up of 'swarf'/dust/trimmings. I suppose we could add the possibility of press tonnage, a 2 ton, like I use at work against a flypress style that I use at my unit. surprised , or not, there may even be one double pressed. normally a scrap item, but look at the recent troubles the Royal Mint has had with the new £1 bi-metal coins that got into use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 11 June , 2017 Share Posted 11 June , 2017 24 minutes ago, chaz said: different... top one good, middle a bit broke off or blocked , bottom, possibly damaged went back to have dressed flat. time and cost rule out making a new set of dies during hostilities also if not making a lot of money, die shop have to cover the repair cost, not customer. now the next issue is was it a die in relief pressed into the brass onto a soft plate from the inside out, or was it a plate stamped onto a die in relief pressed onto the outside.. confused? male into female or female into male. both with the brass plate as the meat in the sandwich. you then have the possibility of a breakage to the relief or a blockage to the recessed, the latter being a build up of 'swarf'/dust/trimmings. I suppose we could add the possibility of press tonnage, a 2 ton, like I use at work against a flypress style that I use at my unit. surprised , or not, there may even be one double pressed. normally a scrap item, but look at the recent troubles the Royal Mint has had with the new £1 bi-metal coins that got into use. Grand! - Many thanks Chaz for seeing what I saw in that. I suddenly got visions the bloke in charge of the Pattern Shop having his day made 100 years ago when they dropped that die on his desk and told him they needed to get 2,000 out before midnight. I could almost hear him sucking the air in over is teeth. Ref male die or female die - Interesting point. I had presumed female, to get faithful reproductions of the head on the outside of the lid. You have made me think now, and I have now decided, absolutely and for certain, that I don't know ! Thanks again Chaz, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 12 June , 2017 Share Posted 12 June , 2017 Post #35. Shame it doesn't expand on it http://www.warrelics.eu/forum/ww1-allies-great-britain-france-usa-etc-1914-1918/princess-marys-gift-tin-1914-a-1553-4/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trajan Posted 12 June , 2017 Share Posted 12 June , 2017 For what it is worth, and perhaps not very much, but by way of getting to - what's the phrase, a 'ball-park figure?' - modern experiments with replica Roman coin dies of bronze (normally) suggest that they might produce between 7,000- 15,000 coins before being discarded through being too worn. Of course, Roman coins were hand-struck, not made by machine presses, and were made of differing metals with different depths to the relief imagery. But if there is no other available data to work from, then this figure of 7-15,000 for each PM die might just be useable for assessing numbers made from each PM die type? Julian, who is fully prepared to be shot down in flames for offering this looney analogy... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 12 June , 2017 Share Posted 12 June , 2017 14 hours ago, Medaler said: My vote goes for each maker producing his own die/dies. Regards, Mike I would agree with that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted 12 June , 2017 Share Posted 12 June , 2017 don't know if anyone has access to the following, might shed some light. A gift for Christmas: the story of Princess Mary’s Gift Fund, 1914 by Diana Condell in IWM Review (No. 4–1989) p 69–78. Great War Medal Collectors Companion by Howard Williamson, (Anne Williamson, Harwich, Essex, 2011), Includes details and illustrations on p564–570. Modern reproductions are made of the boxes, though not to the same standard as the originals – typically the brass plate is thinner, and they are not airtight. The records of the Gift Fund are held by IWM, as part of its Women’s Work Collection and you can consult the records by booking an appointment at the IWM London Research Room. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted 12 June , 2017 Share Posted 12 June , 2017 9 hours ago, Gunner Bailey said: I would agree with that. not so sure... maybe the main design would be from central office, then the design shop would maintain dies to as near as possible correcting small flaws as and when, otherwise they would be different in many ways and probably sizes. carte blanche, definitely not. we sub-contract work out and they all 99.99% as each other, might be slight variation in supplied plating colour, helicoil colour, and supplier code marking otherwise final assembly would have no idea who supplied each item. each tin Ive seen fit the 99%+ identical , with only minor design differences, I would term as corrected die changes. 1 or 2 differences between them all. the other factor, a single company producing 7 or 8 dies would be cheaper than 4 or 5 making their own, not only manufacture to design but the makers would have had the OK on a first off sample and would be tooled up to produce more. In todays world, mass production either from a single or multiple supplier is easy to reproduce with CAD files on any machine that can convert CAD into its machine coding BUT 100 years ago it was mainly manual, and replication would not be as close as 90%. the next check would be to run a digital caliper or my CMM around a few to find out dimensional differences before ruling out multiple die manufacture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 12 June , 2017 Share Posted 12 June , 2017 (edited) Hiya James, At long last - Your tin 5 First of all, a burning question. You stated that your tin 5 had no full stop after "1914" - Are you sure? The reason I ask is that your tin is a 6 lattice, and ALL of the other 6 lattice versions that I have defined as distinct "types" all have the full stop. Your picture seems to show a full stop, but it is quite indistinct, and it could be my eyesight. All of the 6 lattice tins - including your tin 5 - share the following.......... Central petal of lower flower lowermost Crossed laurel stalks The 4 distinct "6 lattice" types identified so far are :- My tin 3 at #27 Bob’s tin at #44 Type 7 at #59 Peters Tin at #69 There are a couple of "identifiers" that rule 3 of these out. Here they are.................. Low lattice crosses glimpsed through the sides of the upper cartouche (See the detail shots at #59 to see the area I'm talking about) Eliminated – My tin 3 – 1 x low (left) and 1 x high (right) Eliminated - Type 7 – High lattice crosses both sides Your tin has the bayonet cross guard in line with upper and lower lattice crosses Eliminated – Peter’s tin – bayonet guard not in line with lattice crosses above it and below it That leaves us with Bob's tin. Take a look at the foliage to the left of the upper cartouche, and compare this area on #59 with your tin - They are different - completely different shapes and proportions. Yours has 2 leaves laid on top of the scabbard, Bob's has 3 ! - and those thistle heads look different shapes. I think you have found a 5th type of 6 lattice tin. Regards, Mike Edited 12 June , 2017 by Medaler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 12 June , 2017 Share Posted 12 June , 2017 (edited) And now to highlight a MAJOR difference on the type 7 tin shown on #59 that I missed first time around. Just goes to show I'm seeing new stuff all the time! Take a look at the bows on BOTH ships..................... Not only no flags on the Jackstaffs - But no Jackstaffs either - How on earth did I miss that! - The laughs are on me - Maybe I will not get that job in QC after all ! Regards, Mike Edited 12 June , 2017 by Medaler Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chaz Posted 12 June , 2017 Share Posted 12 June , 2017 post #59... can I read FRANSE on left, or is it playing with my eyes?? sorry if its been noticed before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 12 June , 2017 Share Posted 12 June , 2017 After looking at numerous pics on the web I have noticed differences in the hair of PM and also the cutoff angles for the her neck from straight to about 45 degrees. Neither of these differences can be put down to damaged or worn dies, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 12 June , 2017 Share Posted 12 June , 2017 14 hours ago, trajan said: For what it is worth, and perhaps not very much, but by way of getting to - what's the phrase, a 'ball-park figure?' - modern experiments with replica Roman coin dies of bronze (normally) suggest that they might produce between 7,000- 15,000 coins before being discarded through being too worn. Of course, Roman coins were hand-struck, not made by machine presses, and were made of differing metals with different depths to the relief imagery. But if there is no other available data to work from, then this figure of 7-15,000 for each PM die might just be useable for assessing numbers made from each PM die type? Julian, who is fully prepared to be shot down in flames for offering this looney analogy... I think the big issue is comparing bronze dies with (I think) steel ones. In the days when we made things in this country there was a tin factory 10 miles away from me in Mansfield. I could have gone and asked them. They were around for years and it wouldn't surprise me if they had made some of the originals. Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 12 June , 2017 Share Posted 12 June , 2017 6 minutes ago, chaz said: post #59... can I read FRANSE on left, or is it playing with my eyes?? sorry if its been noticed before. Hiya, My goodness - I think your right !! - And I hadn't noticed before. That is the thing mind, as good as some of the pictures are on here, I do spend an amount of time wondering what it is that I'm seeing. Personally, I loved that rib drama at #106 with what seems to be clear cut evidence of "die tinkering". We do seem to be entering territory here where die repairs might be more to blame for some of the differences rather than completely different dies. Some of them look easy to call, but others are getting "grey". Stick close please! - and keep looking over my shoulder. My "looking" skills are still evolving and I may well have missed lots of stuff early on. My approach is evolving too. I started of with "found a difference, great, next tin please" but I'm now trying to compare every panel to spot all the differences. As my "lack of flag" discovery shows, I'm still missing stuff. I am also trying to get my head around "quick identifiers" that enable me to look at a tin and spot the "type" instantly. A few seem to be coming out as I go along. The other thing I am mindful of is having identifiers that will be easy to invoke despite the effects of polishing and wear. So far I think we have 9 "types" and one or two variations due to changes to a die - like #106. I'm still too busy comparing stuff to think about organising it all, and the rules may change yet as more is discovered. All good fun mind! Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 12 June , 2017 Share Posted 12 June , 2017 30 minutes ago, johnboy said: After looking at numerous pics on the web I have noticed differences in the hair of PM and also the cutoff angles for the her neck from straight to about 45 degrees. Neither of these differences can be put down to damaged or worn dies, The bust itself is not something I have concentrated on. The original list of "7 types" made mention of a "large bust" and a "small bust" but I couldn't tell the difference. That original list of types was sadly not illustrated, which would have helped a great deal. I need to go back and revisit them. Regards, Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 12 June , 2017 Share Posted 12 June , 2017 Bust types so far Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Medaler Posted 12 June , 2017 Share Posted 12 June , 2017 (edited) Hi Johnboy, I need to check those out for other differences too. 4 of them are "6 lattice" and one "7 or more". All are "18 pairs of leaves" One has no "full stop" - maybe 2 - I'm not sure about No3 That No2 looks like a "small bust" -The first one I have noticed with a clear size difference - but it may already exist amongst our identified types for other reasons. Despite the "ding" in No1, that hairline is completely different to No2 As you said, the neck "cut-off's" look different. All that just first observations. Ooooh - and No2 has that swept forward quillion distinctive to the version Don submitted. I will get busy with these as soon as time allows. Tomorrow and Wednesday are going to be a bit hectic here mind! Regards, Mike Edited 12 June , 2017 by Medaler Spelling - AGAIN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 12 June , 2017 Share Posted 12 June , 2017 Rather than confuse myself I am just looking at the busts. Next step is the variation in hair style. In the pics there might be 3 different versions of hairstyle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnboy Posted 13 June , 2017 Share Posted 13 June , 2017 I still have not found the ref to 4 firms but this from Manchester Evening News 26/11/1914 and gives four centres of manufacture Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gunner Bailey Posted 13 June , 2017 Share Posted 13 June , 2017 I've just found a reference that the tins were packed at Deptford, which I would take to be the Supply Reserve Depot (SRD). John 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