Jump to content
The Great War (1914-1918) Forum

SCOUT REGIMENT and SIGNALLING TELESCOPES


philsr
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm afraid I'm in about the same place as you, MikB with regards to the "true identity" of KEC. No amount of research seems to uncover anything to support or dispell the popular opinion of it being Kodak Eastman Co.

Here's a pic of the markings on a very nice KEC. Also the unusual markings on an early HCR.

I'm currently reading through the thread to see what I may be able to contribute to the knowledge here- so if I repeat something already discussed please let me know.

post-20135-026502300 1279978039.jpg

post-20135-072614400 1279978117.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I'm in about the same place as you, MikB with regards to the "true identity" of KEC. No amount of research seems to uncover anything to support or dispell the popular opinion of it being Kodak Eastman Co.

Here's a pic of the markings on a very nice KEC. Also the unusual markings on an early HCR.

I'm currently reading through the thread to see what I may be able to contribute to the knowledge here- so if I repeat something already discussed please let me know.

post-20135-026502300 1279978039.jpg

post-20135-072614400 1279978117.jpg

I think the brass-blacking on KECs is superior to other makers as you see more of them with it still in decent condition. Mine is much like yours but has the blobby brown thermoset covering (my missus calls it 'petrified poo').

Optically it's indistinguishable from a BC except that the smallest drawtube has to be pushed a long way in to focus.

Do you find HCRs as good as BCs?

Regards,

MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the brass-blacking on KECs is superior to other makers as you see more of them with it still in decent condition. Mine is much like yours but has the blobby brown thermoset covering (my missus calls it 'petrified poo'). Optically it's indistinguishable from a BC except that the smallest drawtube has to be pushed a long way in to focus. Do you find HCRs as good as BCs? Regards, MikB
That KEC (not mine) looked to be probably unequaled for finish on the tubes.... But, I can tell you for sure that this particular telescope was refurbished by armourers/ instrument fitters in the late seventies. They did an estimated 100 telescopes per year mainly for issue in the CES for the L42A1 sniper rifle. The work required varied from none at all to a complete strip out, re-cover, re pack and re coat the tubes. Whatever was needed. Lenses were changed and threads repaired- the whole nine yards. The leather coverings were replaced with a non stretch material called Rexine which was mainly black, but there was also a browny red colour too. Tubes were occasionally bead blasted and painted (although it was not an officially sanctioned finish) rather than chemically blackened as original. Over a few years I had bought and sold over a dozen Tel Sct Regt until I ended up with my HCR. Along the way I had several B&C scopes but it was overall condition, not optical quality that was my main concern. I will say that alongside the B&C, I find there is no real difference looking through my HCR. The outer coating you refer to as "pp" was a vulcanised rubber. This was approved for use during WW2 as an alternative to leather which was in great demand and probably short supply. It varied a lot in both texture (from very lumpy and wavy to fine grit- like) and colour from a dark chocolate brown to a sandy colour. All the manufacturers used it at some stage, fairly late in production. From my pics, I can show the rubber on B&C # 24360; HCR # 20387; and KEC # 21619. There are others, these are just the lowest numbered examples. Here's mine in a D^D STD INST No21 MkV.

post-20135-068078000 1280148072.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But, I can tell you for sure that this particular telescope was refurbished by armourers/ instrument fitters in the late seventies. They did an estimated 100 telescopes per year mainly for issue in the CES for the L42A1 sniper rifle. The work required varied from none at all to a complete strip out, re-cover, re pack and re coat the tubes.

But what I can't think any refurb programme would do is detail-mask the manufacturers engraving prior to reblacking, or deblack the engraving afterwards. To see it bright against a blacked tube is a practical guarantee that it's as per manufacturing original, just as seeing it blacked along with the tube is that it's been refinished.

Regards,

MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But what I can't think any refurb programme would do is detail-mask the manufacturers engraving prior to reblacking, or deblack the engraving afterwards. To see it bright against a blacked tube is a practical guarantee that it's as per manufacturing original, just as seeing it blacked along with the tube is that it's been refinished.

Regards,

MikB

MikB, you are most probably right with that statement. I was going off the fact the body had been re covered and the tube looked too good to be original, especially compared to pics of a couple of other KEC's I have on file.

Here's another KEC, leather clad, all original. It still had the faded portions of the blackening where the tubes sit inside the packing glands. I've noticed this on almost every telescope that retains any of it's blackening on the tubes. I just assumed the KEC in the post above had some other type of finish. Knowing some were painted, it seemed the obvious answer. I'll show the pic to a bloke who did the re-furbs in the late seventies and ask what he thinks.

Yes, its confirmed the tubes haven't been re finished. He also said the outer covering is definitely Rexine and likely done at the time he was involved. He went on to say that if it was glued on it was an instrument shop job, but also some were done by "sailmakers"- These were stitched inside out then put onto a hot brass mandrel and stretched before being pulled over the telescope body to cool and skrink.

He said it was the same material used to re-cover the Bedford coach and 3 ton RL lorry seats...., "and everything else really". Black was used for the binos and brown for the telescopes.

post-20135-099452300 1280153480.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest buffdog

I have a Telescope, Signalling Mark III.

Marked with a Broad Arrow

TEL SIG ( Mk III ) ALSO G.S.

No. 154

ROSS, LONDON

1911

Excellent shape, clear optics, leather covered, 3 5/8 inch long sunshade.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a Telescope, Signalling Mark III.

Marked with a Broad Arrow

TEL SIG ( Mk III ) ALSO G.S.

No. 154

ROSS, LONDON

1911

Excellent shape, clear optics, leather covered, 3 5/8 inch long sunshade.

.

I also have a Ross Mk.III, No. 6868 from 1915. Its rayshade is a gnat's over 4" long. There was disscussion of this earlier in the thread - there seem to be two lengths, found practically at random. The 1909 Clarkson Mk.II I have also has the 4" rayshade - a bit of an anomaly, this example, considering Clarkson were absorbed into Broadhurst Clarkson in 1908; my guess is it was made up with pre-existing components and dated on completion, because it certainly isn't a modern repro.

Regards,

MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Guest celticranger

MikB, you are most probably right with that statement. I was going off the fact the body had been re covered and the tube looked too good to be original, especially compared to pics of a couple of other KEC's I have on file.

Here's another KEC, leather clad, all original. It still had the faded portions of the blackening where the tubes sit inside the packing glands. I've noticed this on almost every telescope that retains any of it's blackening on the tubes. I just assumed the KEC in the post above had some other type of finish. Knowing some were painted, it seemed the obvious answer. I'll show the pic to a bloke who did the re-furbs in the late seventies and ask what he thinks.

Yes, its confirmed the tubes haven't been re finished. He also said the outer covering is definitely Rexine and likely done at the time he was involved. He went on to say that if it was glued on it was an instrument shop job, but also some were done by "sailmakers"- These were stitched inside out then put onto a hot brass mandrel and stretched before being pulled over the telescope body to cool and skrink.

He said it was the same material used to re-cover the Bedford coach and 3 ton RL lorry seats...., "and everything else really". Black was used for the binos and brown for the telescopes.

post-20135-099452300 1280153480.jpg

I have a telesope that is exactly like the one in the photo by son. I noticed the discussion going on and thought you might be interested in mine. It has BC LTD CO 15830 O.S.12G.G.A 3 MARKS ON SCOPE. Also TEL SCT.REGT. MK11s

It is brass and leather with a leather case. There should be a filter on the eyepiece but its disappeared. If anyone is interested I will put photos on. I was thinking of putting it on Ebay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have a telesope that is exactly like the one in the photo by son. I noticed the discussion going on and thought you might be interested in mine. It has BC LTD CO 15830 O.S.12G.G.A 3 MARKS ON SCOPE. Also TEL SCT.REGT. MK11s

It is brass and leather with a leather case. There should be a filter on the eyepiece but its disappeared. If anyone is interested I will put photos on. I was thinking of putting it on Ebay

It's a Broadhurst Clarkson (63 Farringdon Rd., London)from WW2 onwards. This is one of the more common types, but of reliably good quality if it's in good nick. Minty ones can fetch £250 - £300 or so on the Bay - a missing filter will bring that down a bit, but it depends on the market how much - also on how nicely you photograph and present it.

Regards,

MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just got a Scout Reg BC LTD Co. # 24929 with an original non cut down tripod and original carrying sling for the short bipod. I posted photos of the bipod and sling here on the signaling telescope stands, bipod thread on this forum. Also here's a discussion on it on Milsurplus forum http://www.milsurps.com/showthread.php?t=25731 Ray

That's an exceptionally nice Scout Reg. I'd suggest waxing the leather to keep it supple and shiny, but be very careful to preserve the blacking - it will start to come off even with a wipe from an oily rag on a BC example, which is why yours is so unusual. Pity that it makes them difficult to use in that condition without risking deterioration.

Regards,

MikB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Thanks for the compliment on the scope MikB. The scope is in hardly used condition as noted by the large pecent of the blacking still remaining. Also the leather case it came in is also in close to being in unused condition. Ray

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 years later...

Better late than never...

 

vincent.jpg

vinc2.jpg

vinc3.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, cwbuff said:

Better late than never...

 

I'd not seen an A L Vincent example prior to my earler posting on this thread, but you've another one there, and a nice one too if its optics are up to scratch. Sharpness and regularity of the engraving is better than Broadhurst Clarkson, as is the quality of the barrel leather. The rayshade has extra beading and doesn't look as if it was intended to carry a leather sleeve. As with other similar examples, there's no OS numbering, but the Broad Arrow is there, which indicates WD acceptance.

 

I'm thinking there may never have been an exhaustive detailed drawing set for making Scout Regiments, because the variations in IIs's appear too elastic. The spec may have been more text and LoC based.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MikB said:

 

I'd not seen an A L Vincent example prior to my earler posting on this thread, but you've another one there, and a nice one too if its optics are up to scratch. Sharpness and regularity of the engraving is better than Broadhurst Clarkson, as is the quality of the barrel leather. The rayshade has extra beading and doesn't look as if it was intended to carry a leather sleeve. As with other similar examples, there's no OS numbering, but the Broad Arrow is there, which indicates WD acceptance.

 

I'm thinking there may never have been an exhaustive detailed drawing set for making Scout Regiments, because the variations in IIs's appear too elastic. The spec may have been more text and LoC based. 

I have been told that this A.L. Vincent & Co. is the same company that made the Vincent motorcycle. The optics are excellent on this telescope. I have used it at the rifle range mounted on a 1915 Mk V Signal Telescope Stand. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, cwbuff said:

I have been told that this A.L. Vincent & Co. is the same company that made the Vincent motorcycle. The optics are excellent on this telescope. I have used it at the rifle range mounted on a 1915 Mk V Signal Telescope Stand. 

 

On the face of it, that'd need some evidence. Vincent motorcycles was headquartered in Stevenage, Herts., not London EC1, and was headed by a Philip Vincent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, MikB said:

 

On the face of it, that'd need some evidence. Vincent motorcycles was headquartered in Stevenage, Herts., not London EC1, and was headed by a Philip Vincent.

Do you know if the number on it, "2613" is a serial number or a contract number?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, cwbuff said:

Do you know if the number on it, "2613" is a serial number or a contract number?

Typically a serial number. Late WW2 and later examples bore OS (probably 'Optical Stores') numbers - effectively SKUs, but I don't think I've seen contract nos. on this sort of WD equipment. There's some evidence suggesting serial nos. were restarted each year, but that would only be logical if the year was also engraved on the instrument in manufacture, and they stopped doing that around 1920, with only sporadic reappearances in 1940 and (I think) '41. I think A. L. Vincent examples are few in number compared to BC & Co. or even HCR, so the low serial no. on yours is not surprising.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Just acquired this heavy beast of an instrument - 

 

/|\
TEL: SIG: (Mk IV) also G.S.
BROADHURST, CLARKSON & Co
LONDON
1917
22084

 

Optics seem flawless. Leather is supple and is at least 8/10 in excellent condition. Both the high and low power attachments appear to be original to the telescope since both were manufactured by Broadhurst, Clarkson & Co. just like the telescope. 

 

I'm pretty sure the tripod isn't military issue. It's a "Depose" brand timber tripod, probably for rifle club spotting telescopes.

19667899_110748629553550_9046082594895121837_o.jpg

19944500_113924785902601_230282027873658119_o.jpg

19956164_113955569232856_2518026576619040706_o.jpg

s-l1600 (5).jpg

s-l1600 (3).jpg

s-l1600 (6).jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Congratulations - looks like a nice one. Sling straps are very often missing or in a poor state - yours looks as good as the rest of the instrument. These are heavy beasts - one of the great advantages of the later Scout Reg is its lighter weight. But they're still a joy to use in the right situation. ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, MikB said:

Congratulations - looks like a nice one. Sling straps are very often missing or in a poor state - yours looks as good as the rest of the instrument. These are heavy beasts - one of the great advantages of the later Scout Reg is its lighter weight. But they're still a joy to use in the right situation. ?

 

Thanks MikB,

 

I bought it online from overseas with very little info from the seller. I figured that if the leatherwork was in such great condition, then the rest of the telescope would be too. Sure, there was a risk that the objective lens may have been infested with fungus or smashed, but it was worth the risk and I was not disappointed.

 

The weight was a huge surprise to me. I'm heading out to the mountains for an overnight hike and a bit of scouting and some field panorama sketching on the weekend, so I think I'll definitely notice the extra weight of the telescope and tripod. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/07/2017 at 14:46, thejungleisneutral said:

 

The weight was a huge surprise to me. I'm heading out to the mountains for an overnight hike and a bit of scouting and some field panorama sketching on the weekend, so I think I'll definitely notice the extra weight of the telescope and tripod. 

TT&H were trying to design a Tel. Sig. Mk.V during 1916. Some officer noted that it was lighter than the Mk.IV, and proposed thickening the brass to return it to 'service weight'! 

It was ludicrously difficult to use, as it had 4 snap-in eyepiece lenses in place of the 2 eyepiece assemblies, and mercifully seems not to have got past prototype stage...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, MikB said:

TT&H were trying to design a Tel. Sig. Mk.V during 1916. Some officer noted that it was lighter than the Mk.IV, and proposed thickening the brass to return it to 'service weight'! 

It was ludicrously difficult to use, as it had 4 snap-in eyepiece lenses in place of the 2 eyepiece assemblies, and mercifully seems not to have got past prototype stage...

 

The MkV was designed by a committee by the sounds of it!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A spot of field panorama sketching this weekend using the Tel. Sig. Mk.IV for the fine details.

Other relevant equipment shown - 

Verner's Pattern VIII prismatic compass

Type A Mk. II ("AII") Ivorine rectangular service protractor

 What Price Glory repro of a leather map case

Sam Browne compass case

 

20170716_073956.jpg

20170716_081001.jpg

20170716_081014.jpg

20170716_081044.jpg

Edited by thejungleisneutral
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 years later...

Hi everyone,

 

My name is Will, and I live in South Australia. I have been collecting Lee Enfield rifles for some time now, including a genuine No4T sniper variant. I have been keeping my eyes peeled for a scout regiment spotting scope to complete my kit. Over the past few years i missed out on a couple, so jumped quickly on a purchase yesterday and bought one i thought looked correct.    

 

It is marked:

TELE.SCT.REGTS.MKII s

HCR & SON LTD.

OS 126 GA

NO.7704

/I\

I have been researching flat out (including this thread) trying to work out some information and have discovered that there are a lot of fake/reproduction Broadhurst Clarkson telescopes out there. How can i be sure it is the real deal.  The seller has owned it for 10 years and it was apparently owned by a collector with a No4T sniper set before him for  a long time. It is leather wrapped and comes with the case (which is missing the shoulder strap). It looks old, the lenses need a service/clean and it has a few small dents etc.   

 

Are there still leather original shoulder straps available for these units and are they simple to clean/service (if you are the handy type) or am a better off sending it off to a professional? I haven't received it yet but will post pics when i do. Thanks for any help, it is really appreciated. 

Screenshot_20200602-104955_eBay[1].jpg

Screenshot_20200602-105036_eBay[1].jpg

Screenshot_20200602-105020_eBay[1].jpg

Screenshot_20200602-105047_eBay[1].jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...