Jump to content
Great War Forum

Remembered Today:

Steve Dunhill

WW1 Telescope Sniper TEL SIG (MK II) 1915

Recommended Posts

Steve Dunhill

 

I have the following WWI era leather bound telescope. Measures 35 inches when extended, including the sun shade, and 11 when closed.

Engraved:


TEL SIG (MK II) also GS
BROARDHURST CLARKSON & Co
LONDON
1915
5830

 

Is the TEL SIG (MK II) a rare telescope of WW1?

 

Can anyone help me please?

 

 

 

 

 

a.jpg

b.jpg

c.jpg

Edited by Steve Dunhill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikB

It's unusual for 1915 - not sure I've seen one with that date before. The Mk.II I had was puzzling enough, dated 1909 but marked for Clarkson - which had been taken over by Broadhurst in 1908.

My Tel. Sig. 'keeper' is a Mk.III from Ross in 1915. Considering that the Mk.IV was introduced in Feb 15, it's hard to avoid thinking several marks were in concurrent production, or maybe piece parts like drawtubes made originally for one mark may have been used indiscriminately in later production, as there are cases of some components being freely interchangeable between marks, whilst others appear specific to particular examples within a mark. 

 

Examples of the former are eyepieces, which I'd guess the army tended to store separately from the main telescope assemblies, as the moderating filters allegedly introduced for the Mk.IV** may also be found haphazardly with any other mark of the telescope (including my Mk.III). Examples of the latter are different lengths of rayshade found on otherwise identically marked Mk.IVs. 

 

Without detailed inspection against engineering piece part drawings (which I don't have), I think it's difficult to impossible to define the exact differences between marks, and enough time has elapsed - and enough examples have survived - for there to be a large and unknowable number of bastardised assemblies out there.

 

I'd guess it's possible that a 1915 Mk.II might hold interest for a more focussed collector than I am, but it would take some clear provenance associating it with a particular event, unit or individual to give it any special value. If it works well it's a nice telescope to have and worth keeping for that reason alone. Finding or making end caps and a carrying strap could improve its usefulness.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Dunhill

Thank you for your provided information.

 

It's your first time that you have seen a Military Mk. II telescope produced and dated 1915?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikB
6 hours ago, Steve Dunhill said:

Thank you for your provided information.

 

It's your first time that you have seen a Military Mk. II telescope produced and dated 1915?

 

I think so.

I've seen Broadhurst Clarkson Mk.IVs dated 1916, and I don't believe I've seen any Mk.IIIs from them. So far as I can see from the LoC listings in WW2 repair manual pages I've got copies of, the Mk. II wasn't actually declared obsolete for future manufacture till 1923. I don't know what they were playing at, and the variety of marks and configurations that are found makes me wonder whether they did! To some extent that's supported by the whole 'mark and star' system being overhauled between the wars.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Dunhill

Thank you for sharing the information with me. I am very GRATEFUL to you.

 

Do you think that my telescope - one can say that's its VERY RARE? One of its kind!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikB
57 minutes ago, Steve Dunhill said:

Thank you for sharing the information with me. I am very GRATEFUL to you.

 

Do you think that my telescope - one can say that's its VERY RARE? One of its kind!

 

All I can say is that I've seen quite a few Tel.Sig.s and don't think I've seen that mark/date combination before, and from the introduction dates of the marks, it'd seem unlikely there'll be many like it. They can be decent scopes, but I've not kept detailed records of all those I've seen in the past

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
reese williams

Steve,

What MikB is saying is that a MkII with a 1915 date is unusual, Not that a MkII is rare. There are a surprising number of Tel.Sig &G.S. telescopes surviving. I have a 1903 Throughton and Simms marked MkII. The 1915 date on yours is unusual, in that it leads to our further understanding of how long different models were in production. It doesn't add anything to the value of the piece. It would have to be the most ardent and obsessive of Tel.Sig. collectors who would think the date added any premium to the value. As it is, it is a nice representative piece. Resist the temptation to polish the brass of the draws. They were originally blackened. Polishing will definitely decrease it's value. 

Edited by reese williams

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MikB

I think the same as you, Reese.

 

Resist also the temptation to re-black - unless you've got a way of keeping the blacking solution out of the engraving. Originally it was done after blacking, so should show bright. Blacked engraving on blacked drawtubes are a dead giveaway for recent restoration.

 

OTOH, there's nothing wrong with reviving the leather sensibly. Mostly I just use a neutral shoe polish, but there are lots of products out there.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Interested

I know nothing on this subject, but I wonder whether the "Mark number" represents new releases that supersede previous models, or whether each mark has different features (magnification, draw length etc), in which case, it would be expected that various Marks would continue to be manufactured to satisfy the different needs.

Just a thought...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Dunhill

Thank you for your provided information...

 

If you find any more information, please do share it with me and other members too.

 

Thank you :)

 

Edited by Steve Dunhill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...