Identifying vessel (from markings on binoculars)

[4thGordons]

I am struggling to identify a possible vessel based on the markings on these binoculars. Based on the case that they came with the binoculars were apparently supplied by John Bliss and Co NY (which google tells me was a supplier of nautical instruments)

 

 

The markings are in some instances difficult to make out, and I am not sure if I should read across (line by line) or up and down (left then right)

 

It appears to say:

Property             P  8x24

HMS                   Q M C

Dover                 18092

 

The other side also has some stampings but they are hard to make out even under magnification

Perhaps BALD?? on the left and MILITARY on the right?

Any suggestions in interpreting these markings would be appreciated.

 

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

26 minutes ago, 4thGordons said:

Perhaps BALD?? on the left

BALDUR I think.

[KizmeRD]

Fine binoculars, but I think you may struggle to link them to any particular RN ship, and if service issue, there would invariably be a government arrow stamped somewhere prominent.

Also 8x24 binoculars are not widely used at sea, as they aren’t that good in low light conditions (more common to see 7x50).

All we really have so far that point towards a possible naval connection are the initials ‘HMS’, which depending on context could possibly mean something entirely different to what we normally associate with those three letters.

John Bliss NY were better known for their chronometers, but they did indeed import French made binoculars for sale in the States.

Good luck,

MB

 

[KizmeRD]

11 hours ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

BALDUR I think.

HMS Baldur was (I think) an administrative Royal Naval (WW2) base in Reykjavik Iceland, so that may be a possible link to hunt down (however the word  ‘Dover’ is perplexing).

MB

Edited 3 April by KizmeRD

[DavidOwen]

Opposite Baldur is that Cunard?

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

1 hour ago, DavidOwen said:

Opposite Baldur is that Cunard?

I think 'MILITARY'??

Perhaps @arantxa could confirm or post a better picture?

Edited 3 April by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr

[4thGordons]

Ummmm I 

1 hour ago, Dai Bach y Sowldiwr said:

Perhaps @arantxa could confirm or post a better picture?

???  I am not sure he has access to it!

I however will try and post a better pic when I get home - it is very hard to read even in hand but I will try. I think it says MILITARY but will get the macro lens out and see what I can do

Chris

[DavidOwen]

On further examination I agree it is Military not Cunard (which wouldn't have made much sense anyway!).

[KizmeRD]

@MikB Always a good source of information where binoculars are concerned.

Perhaps he can assist with the meaning of some of the markings.

MB

[Dai Bach y Sowldiwr]

1 hour ago, 4thGordons said:

?  I am not sure he has access to it!

Haaaah!

I wasn't paying attention as usual.

1 hour ago, 4thGordons said:

 I think it says MILITARY but will get the macro lens out and see what I can do

Chris

Edited 3 April by Dai Bach y Sowldiwr

[MikB]

If they were ever accepted as a British military class, they'd likely be an 'S.6' "Binoculars of unsusual design".

The following is all guesswork, as I don't recall having ever examined a similar pair.

They show a superficial similarity to the German 'Fernglas 08' and I would guess they're of similar Galilean design. If they really are 6x24 it's hard to see where you'd put any prisms and, for that matter, how you'd match them to normal human interpupillary distance without elongating the bridge - they can't be much more than 70mm from outer edge to outer edge of the objective casings. Fernglas 08s have a 39mm objective.

As for the markings, I wonder if they're associative advertising - like everything from compasses, belt pouches, pocket knives and torches might in current times get advertised as "tactical". In the early 20thC there was even less control over such claims than there is now. I once had a Galilean pair nicely marked up as 'The Royal Guard' with no realistic claim whatever to such a role.

'QMC' might be intended to stand for (US military) Quartermaster Corps, just as 'HMS' might be intended to invoke association with the RN. Both are engraved with a very different level of precision and process to the 'Made in France' on the field side of the eyepiece bridge, suggesting they were done sometime after production. So far as I can see there are no military markings I can recognise as official. 

There's been an HMS Baldur (after a Norse god) , both as a requisitioned northern isles supply ship and a stone frigate, but I don't know dates for either. 

As I said, all guesswork - this was a period of rapid technical change and little control over advertising claims.

Edited 3 April by MikB

[4thGordons]

Thanks everyone for your contributions,

I have attempted to take a few more pics of the markings - but nothing new - also some overviews for scale

The objective lenses appear to be about 50mm (2") in diameter, the binoculars themselves are approx 130mm long (depends on focus setting as the ocular lenses move in and out) and 110mm "wide" when closed.

There are no broad arrow markings or classification marks (S6 etc) that I can see.

It does appear to say H 8X 24 (I omitted the H above)

Pics below - not great as it is currently chucking it down and I had to rely on indoor lighting

 

Seems to confirm both BALDUR and MILITARY

[seaJane]

I'd be very tempted to put this down to an officer labelling his own kit in a joking frame of mind. Anyone with initials QMC ever recorded serving on BALDUR?

[TullochArd]

4G I’d say your binos are of a type in use with the US military before the Great War.  “Military” was a Bliss grade and Q.M.C. could certainly be Quartermaster Corps, which only came into existence in 1912 having been the Quartermaster Department since 1775.  The diverse fonts and sizes of the Stamp Set(s), Metal Marking and seemingly unconnected references are intriguing.  Their curious randomness may, in part, be the result of the not uncommon practice of wartime equipment cannibalisation?     

As for identifying the vessel: “H.M.S.” and “BALDUR” must have been at the tail end of the instruments active service. Dr A.D.Kindley’s “Fortress in the North, Iceland in WWII.”  tells us:

• BALDUR  I was, in tum, the ships "ST CLAIR" (23/10/40-6/10/43) and then "NEMISIS" (6/10/43-4/6/45) with Nissen Huts on shore.
• BALDUR II was a RN W.T. station and a transit camp outside Reykjavik.
• BALDUR III probably Hvalfjorour (or Hvitames); there were also isolated W.T./Radar stations at Adalvik and Srebol. 

……..and here's a tantalising crossover link for you.  The US took over formal command of the Icelandic Garrison on 22/4/42!