PRINCESS Mary christmas gift

[GWF1967]

23 hours ago, Medaler said:

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. 

I used to hand cast Aluminium  Landrover sumps.  120/10hr shift, from 2 dies, 8 dies of the type in the plant.  2 operators working back to back shifts. 

 My work code and date were etched into the nonstick coating daily. It was removed during final finish, after QC. 

 Due to minor repairs to the steel die core blocks, myself and my die buddy could identify our castings amongst those ready for dispatch. 

 

[Medaler]

Sorry all, I have been a bit restricted for time so far this week.

 

I have decided it is time for me to consolidate a bit on what seems to have come out of this so far. I am particularly looking at "quick identifiers" for each version of tin that has so far been identified. I am also trying to consider if these different "types" already identified really are down to different dies, or dies that have been repaired. I consider this to be important as, If a known "type" endured a dye repair, then it is not really a "stand alone type", but a variant of an existing "type". In a way, those die repairs could be quite useful in determining if the example being studied comes from early or later production runs. Some of these differences however can be very subtle despite my best efforts to differentiate between "new die" and "repaired die". The signs I am looking for are sometimes a bit difficult to quantify with 100% certainty, so this is still a "work in progress".

 

So far I am claiming that we have identified 4 dies that clearly show 7 or more lattice intersections below the bayonet scabbard that is portrayed in the upper left hand panel of the tins. It seems natural therefore to view a "primary split" as one that differentiates between these "6 lattice" and "7 or more lattice" versions. Because the lattice structure is so complex, I don't see it as an area likely to be subject to die repairs that would be anything other than glaringly obvious in the finished product. So far, I have not noticed any visible indications on any tin that demonstrate a repair to that part of any die.

 

I should again stress here that I am absolutely not professing any expertise at this so, if I'm being an eejut, please be kind enough to let me know!!

 

I have only looked in depth at the "7 or more" lattice types so far, but here are my conclusions on the "quick identifiers" that I think I have recognised. To be identified as a "type", any "unknown" tin should be compared to the listed critera for each type listed. The tin being compared MUST match ALL of the critera listed under a "type" to be considered a match. This is important as, if it does not match ALL of those critera, it may be an example of a new and unknown "type".

 

The 4 different versions of the 7 (or more) lattice types identified so far are as follows :-

 

TYPE 6. Illustrated - My tin 1 on #27

FULL STOP AFTER "1914"

LOWER FLOWER – CENTRAL PETAL LOWERMOST

WIDE SPACE BETWEEN “N”s OF “BRITANNICUM”

 

TYPE 7. Illustrated - 19 leaf on #36

FULL STOP AFTER "1914"

LOWER FLOWER – CENTRAL PETAL UPPERMOST

19 PAIRS OF LEAVES ON RIGHT SIDE OF BUST

 

TYPE 8. Illustrated - My tin 2 on #27

NO FULL STOP AFTER "1914"

LOWER FLOWER – CENTRAL PETAL UPPERMOST

NO  LAUREL STALKS "CROSSING" BEHIND LOWER FLOWER

8TH LATTICE INTERSECTION JUST VISIBLE BETWEEN THE LEAVES BELOW THE SCABBARD CHAPE

 

TYPE 9. Illustrated - Don’s tin on #21

NO FULL STOP AFTER "1914"

LOWER FLOWER – CENTRAL PETAL LOWERMOST

SWEPT FORWARD QUILLONS ON BAYONET GUARD

SMALL BUST OF PRINCESS MARY

 

Regards,

Mike

Edited 15 June , 2017 by Medaler
Added a bit more!

[johnboy]

Ref post #121 pic 2

Observations

The left arm of the M is longer than the one on the right of the bust

Waves at bottom are very indistinct

No full stop after 1914

Christmas 1914 is not central in the panel.

 

I don't think any of the above are due to die repair/ wear? I think that the die used were just inferior

[Medaler]

16 minutes ago, johnboy said:

Ref post #121 pic 2

Observations

The left arm of the M is longer than the one on the right of the bust

Waves at bottom are very indistinct

No full stop after 1914

em

 

I don't think any of the above are due to die repair/ wear? I think that the die used were just inferior

 

Hi Johnboy,

 

I have started work on your 4 pictures, and have actually been concentrating on your Tin 2 because its a "7 or more lattice" version.  It's a bit worn, but so far it looks like a dead match for the type I'm calling "Type 9" in my table at #127. The original table for type identification (from that other website) actually notes "small head" against its "type 6". It see this small head as a "unique identifier", but its not easy to use if you don't have 2 tins side by side.

 

My own view on this tin is that it looks like the work of a manufacturer that really showed a flair for their own interpretation of the design that they had been asked to produce. As all the other tins have a different look to them, I think this may indicate a maker who just used this one die for all of their production. There are several other differences concerning this design that show a unique approach when compared with all the others - like the much flatter wave forms under the ships, and those decidedly "non matching" letter "M"s that you point out.

 

Interestingly, that original table of variations also seems to describe this tin as "Narrow M" and "Squashed Roundel" - assuming that there is not another "small head" version that we haven't seen yet. I wouldn't say the "M"s were "narrow" as such, just "unbalanced". I also wouldn't describe the roundels as "squashed". I presume that this refers to the circular cartouches either side of the bust that contain the words "France" and "Russia" respectively - and they look round to me. If that really is an "identifier", it is so subtle that, in my opinion, it can't readily be used.

 

I'm going to "follow through" next with the identifiers for the "6 lattice" types. It may take a wee while as things have evolved as this thread has progressed, and I want to consolidate what we have found so far.

 

Regards,

Mike

 

[chaz]

just to add to the confusion, the one I noticed before with FRANSE, Im wondering if some tins could have been produced overseas? eg India.

or , like many 'trench art' items post war, were copied and made in Belgium or France.

when you look at some post war trenchart, the patterns are too precise, not random enough to be done 'in the field;. so, possible to manufacture dies, likewise the Eastern Europeans are producing copied WW2 German medals and badges. look at the confusion of WW2 Air Crew Europe stars, positions of W, big/small loops, dimples etc. were they done here in one mint or more than one?

[johnboy]

just to add to the confusion, the one I noticed before with FRANSE, Im wondering if some tins could have been produced overseas? eg India.

 

 

Do you mean latter day copies/fakes?

I doubt originals would have been made abroad for the UK forces. the shipping cost and  time to arrive here would have been too great? I suppose those tins for distribution in India could have been made locally. Unfortunately, at the moment we don't seem to have any way of dating tins as they all have the same date on them regardless of the year they were given.

It would be interesting if anyone had a broken tin and could look on the inside of the double skinned lid.  

[Medaler]

7 minutes ago, chaz said:

just to add to the confusion, the one I noticed before with FRANSE, Im wondering if some tins could have been produced overseas? eg India.

or , like many 'trench art' items post war, were copied and made in Belgium or France.

when you look at some post war trenchart, the patterns are too precise, not random enough to be done 'in the field;. so, possible to manufacture dies, likewise the Eastern Europeans are producing copied WW2 German medals and badges. look at the confusion of WW2 Air Crew Europe stars, positions of W, big/small loops, dimples etc. were they done here in one mint or more than one?

 

Hiya,

I don't think they were copied until that version with "1914" in the centre instead of the bust came out of India in the 1980's. That one is particularly crude in many respects with a "pull off" rather than hinged lid - Its not even the same size. I can't rule out copies though as I don't know. I am kind of relying on my medal collectors gut about copies, and looking at signs of age. I am confident enough however to offer my own personal opinion that all types seen on here so far, except for the examples that have been put up to show reproductions, are of pukka tins.

 

I don't think there was enough money in these tins until recently to make it worthwhile for the fakers to go into serious production. That's the point about the ACE Stars, they were always "expensive" compared to the other (then) 7 varieties. It amuses me that the jury is still out on the new Arctic Star. One dealer was trying to flog one at 1.25K recently, others reckon £17.00 !!!! The problem is that very few have hit the market yet. I eventually bought a real ACE for the collection when they hit £35.00. If I remember correctly, all the others could be bought for under a tenner at the time, and any copies made of those other stars were very easy to identify.

 

Trench art is a bit different. I'm pretty sure that it became something of an interior design / decorating fad in the post war years - and there were perhaps millions of empty shell cases lying about in Europe. I think that they represented an opportunity for the areas of France and Belgium that had been blighted by the war to begin a bit of an economic recovery. I reckon a lot came out of those areas post 1918.

 

All that however is pure supposition on my part - so you shouldn't take it too seriously - It's just me guessing - pure conjecture.

 

The one with "Franse" on it does however present a real conundrum. I might now more when I have sorted the 6 lattice versions. We may have other examples of that tin where the spelling is correct. It might just be a very limited - and very rare - die variation before the gaffa spotted it! It definitely needs a closer look does that one.

 

Warmest regards,

Mike

[Medaler]

Having started to go through my "6 lattice" types, I have made the startling discovery that some of them are actually "7 lattice" types. The 7th lattice intersection is seen just poking out between the leaves under the scabbard chape - just like the 8th lattice intersection on Type 8 as defined at #127. Peters tin at #69 shows this quite clearly on what I had previously defined as a "6 lattice", whilst my tin 2 on #27 shows that 8th lattice.

 

Oh bu@@er!! - (sorry mods).

 

Back to the beginning for me then!

 

Regards,

Mike

[johnboy]

Should've gone to SpecSavers!

 

Without having the tins and having to rely on pics of different sizes and lighting I find it hard comparing them.

Edited 15 June , 2017 by johnboy

[Medaler]

17 minutes ago, johnboy said:

Without having the tins and having to rely on pics of different sizes and lighting I find it hard comparing them.

 

Me too - apparently!

 

There are some great pictures on here contributed by members but, even so, when you get to the "nitty-gritty", it is really hard to judge sometimes. I don't think it will change things too much, its just that I am going to end up with fewer "6 lattice" types. Where it appears, that 7th lattice intersection is (I think) different to everything I have already classified as "7 lattice" - but I do need to check everything. It's only a setback rather than a disaster.

 

The problem continues to be that I am still "getting my eye in", and I am still missing stuff even now. Shame really, the "7 or more" lattice identification chart I published at #127 did seem to be working a treat. I was right about one thing mind, I did need to consolidate on what I think so far.

 

When I do get this sorted - and I will - It will be interesting to compare it with that original list of types. There wasn't an "8 lattice" on that - but we have found one. According to that list there were also 3 versions without crossed laurel stalks below that bottom flower - and so far I think we only have one.

 

"Should've gone to SpecSavers!" - Can't argue with that one little bit! - made me laugh out loud.

 

Regards,

Mike

 

[Don]

On 2017-6-2 at 22:06, Medaler said:

 

dd

 

 

No no no, yours looks grand to me - and in very nice condition too. All of them on here look grand to me, I am just trying to test the set of rules that I have found in order to determine which versions we have, and to test that those rules actually add up as a scholarly and valid interpretation.

 

At the very least, we seem to have both discovered and proved that there are several legitimate variations.

 

If my interpretations are now correct, and yours is also plated, it looks like a "Type 5"

 

Plated - Can't tell from the picture - but for a "Type 5" it needs to be.

Full stop after 1914 - No

Narrow "M" - No

Squashed roundel - No - Looks perfectly round to me

Cross Hatching - 7 - counting the bosses below the scabbard where the lattice intersects

Inverted flower - Looks like central petal uppermost - so no, not "inverted" - a bit tricky to confirm 100% from the picture

Crossed Laurel Stalks - 2 stalks visible - so yes, crossed stalks - crossing behind the flower.

 

If you can confirm the bits I am unsure about we have our first match to the list I found.

 

Regards,

Mike

Hi Mike I enclose hopefully a better pic and thank you for sharing your research

DON

[Medaler]

Hi Don,

Many thanks for that. I'm afraid I've gone quiet at this end, but I will be posting again soon. Hopefully this time around with an accurate form of identifier for all the types that we seem to have found so far.

 

As for "my research", all I am doing is pulling stuff together. Non of this would have been possible without fellow members sharing pictures of their tins. I didn't set out to do this, but it seems to be a subject that we can get together on and produce something worthwhile. I am stabbing in the dark a lot, and learning as I go along, but I think we can take this subject forward between us that will allow other members to be able to consult a chart that identifies their tins for them.

 

Regards,

Mike

 

I have taken the liberty of turning you picture round.

 

 

[redbarchetta]

On 2017-6-11 at 21:44, Medaler said:

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

Mike,

Catching up on this now, sorry...

Yes, my tin is the same as your tin 3 at #27.  Mine is a bit less worn than yours, so I can confirm central petal downwards at the bottom, upwards at the top,  Crossed laurel stalks and, yes, wider gap between 1st and 2nd leaf pairs on RHS.

Also noticed the flags flying on the battleship are squarer than the 'Don-type', which are thinner and longer than the ones on this tin.

James

[redbarchetta]

On 2017-6-11 at 23:05, Medaler said:

Hi James - Tins 3 & 4 sorted - You have found me an "A" version of the 19 leaf model !!!

 

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

Mike,

I don't think your third image of the rib is from my tin 4 - have you got it mixed up with another image (quite understandably, I'm struggling to keep up myself!). 

My tin 4 is identical to #36 and my tin 3 (just much crisper!) with that rib being the same as #36.

One less thing to worry about!

James

[MikeyH]

Have often wondered why 'Christmas 1914', is not set centrally within its bordered area. It upsets the otherwise perfectly symmetrical layout.  Is there a reason?

 

Mike.

[redbarchetta]

On 2017-6-12 at 21:42, Medaler said:

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.

 

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

 

 

Mike,

And so we draw to a close...  My tin 5 is the same as Bob's - it does have a full stop (apologies) and there are three leaves on top of the scabbard, but the left hand one has almost completely merged into the scabbard with polishing, but you can just make it out its shape under the magnifying glass.  

Thanks for all your hard work so far...

James

[Medaler]

On 23/06/2017 at 11:14, redbarchetta said:

Mike,

Catching up on this now, sorry...

Yes, my tin is the same as your tin 3 at #27.  Mine is a bit less worn than yours, so I can confirm central petal downwards at the bottom, upwards at the top,  Crossed laurel stalks and, yes, wider gap between 1st and 2nd leaf pairs on RHS.

Also noticed the flags flying on the battleship are squarer than the 'Don-type', which are thinner and longer than the ones on this tin.

James

 

Hi James,

 

Many thanks for that, it's good to know I seem to be on the right track with this one. Always nice to have another pair of eyes to confirm that. I will be going through your answers one by one.

 

You are right about the flags. They seem to show some variation between one die and another, sometimes it is how "stiff" they are in the breeze, sometimes the length to width ratio of the flag and, in that spectacular one that I missed completely for a start, no flags at all !!! I am a bit wary of reading too much into the flags in case worn dies could produce smaller ones, or that the polishing of the tins could erode them away into a different appearance. It's really difficult nailing all this down from pictures, so your feedback is really helpful.

 

That "Don type" exhibits a lot of minor differences to all the others, but those swept forward guards on the bayonet are a unique identifier of that type (so far). That is where I hope this is all heading, to come up with something that says "If your tin exhibits this feature of xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, then it is a type 1".  Simple, single, "one hit" identifiers that prevent someone from having to compare an uknown tin with pictures of all the other known types in order to make a positive identification.

 

Thanks again James, I will get to your other 2 later.

 

Regards,

Mike

[Medaler]

On 23/06/2017 at 11:31, MikeyH said:

Have often wondered why 'Christmas 1914', is not set centrally within its bordered area. It upsets the otherwise perfectly symmetrical layout.  Is there a reason?

 

Mike.

 

Hi Mike,

Yes, the "Christmas 1914" legend is always low to the centre of the Cartouche, and I can't think of any technical reason why that would need to be the case. Some of the different "types" vary quite a lot in font size and letter spacing, but they all share that feature to some degree.

 

Regards,

Mike

[Medaler]

On 23/06/2017 at 20:26, redbarchetta said:

Mike,

I don't think your third image of the rib is from my tin 4 - have you got it mixed up with another image (quite understandably, I'm struggling to keep up myself!). 

My tin 4 is identical to #36 and my tin 3 (just much crisper!) with that rib being the same as #36.

One less thing to worry about!

James

 

Hi James,

 

Yes, definitely your 4th picture down, and therefore your "tin 4" in my shorthand. It's the second of your two 19 leaf versions. Again, those 19 pairs of leaves are a unique identifier of the "type" because they must be from a distinct die rather than a variation to another "known" die.

 

As for struggling to keep up - tell me about it! - Hence my desire to consolidate a bit at this stage. Having thought that I could divide all the possibilities (roughly) in half by the number of lattice intersections, I am now reconsidering that thought. and now have clear 6 lattice types, 6 lattice with 7th intersection just visible, Clear 7 lattice types, and a 7 lattice version with an 8th lattice intersection just visible. At that its perhaps all getting far too complex for that to form an "instant recognition" for a "primary sort". I may end up going with it for the time being mind.

 

Attached is what I have as your "tin 4", you can just see that odd rib shape on the right side of the upper cartouche.

 

Regards,

Mike

 

[Medaler]

On 23/06/2017 at 11:39, redbarchetta said:

Mike,

And so we draw to a close...  My tin 5 is the same as Bob's - it does have a full stop (apologies) and there are three leaves on top of the scabbard, but the left hand one has almost completely merged into the scabbard with polishing, but you can just make it out its shape under the magnifying glass.  

Thanks for all your hard work so far...

James

 

Hi James,

Grand! I can rule that out as a variation then. Many thanks for coming back on these 3 tins, it has really helped me with details that I couldn't quite make my mind up about on the pictures. As I have said, I have been downloading the pictures and magnifying the images, but sometimes I have been losing resolution before I have managed to pin things down. It's all part of the fun.

 

Warmest regards,

Mike

[pioneecorps]

Interesting thread this, I have only just ordered aged reproduction items for my ( CHRISTMAS 1914.) box, to use in my last WW1 exhibition next year. 

 

Gerwyn

[Radlad]

New Daily Mail commemorative ones that are marked on the bottom as such have just surfaced in the smoking supplies section of my local cheap shop. Much lighter and poorly made than the original but at £1.99 each they make good trinket boxes. I bought a couple when I saw them this morning and they have a few left.

 

Prepare for a surge in Ebay listings

[pioneecorps]

5 hours ago, Radlad said:

New Daily Mail commemorative ones that are marked on the bottom as such have just surfaced in the smoking supplies section of my local cheap shop. Much lighter and poorly made than the original but at £1.99 each they make good trinket boxes. I bought a couple when I saw them this morning and they have a few left.

 

Prepare for a surge in Ebay listings

I'm sure I read somewhere years ago, that Dunhill had fetched out commemorative Xmas tins in the 50s, post a photo of them Radlad.

 

Gerwyn

[Radlad]

2 hours ago, pioneecorps said:

I'm sure I read somewhere years ago, that Dunhill had fetched out commemorative Xmas tins in the 50s, post a photo of them Radlad.

 

Gerwyn

I'm having a great deal of difficulty posting photos on forums since the changes to Photobucket. If you PM me an email address , I'll scan the boxes and send you the results. You can then do with them what you wish.

[pioneecorps]

16 hours ago, Radlad said:

I'm having a great deal of difficulty posting photos on forums since the changes to Photobucket. If you PM me an email address , I'll scan the boxes and send you the results. You can then do with them what you wish.

Thank you Radlad, there's no need to do that, I only thought the other members would also be interested in seeing them.

 I keep my photos on a memory stick, and use when needed.

 

Gerwyn