Can u read this date?

[Dronic69]

Hi All,

Here's a couple of pics of a projectile with what I conclude to be the date stamp (could be wrong?). But initially I'm just after thoughts on what the actual numerals are????

I reckon it's: "7/97" but it could be "7/37"????

Also are those a Vickers "V" and a maxim "M" stamps top and bottom left? (or is the "M" just a "II"????)

Thoughts please?

Thanks
Cheers Drew

BTW - I'll elaborate later on the projectile itself so as not to bias the focus on the date.

 

[Darren]

id say definatly looks to be a number 9.

Darren

 

[super7]

Looks indeed to be a '9' instead of a '3'.

Regards, Jan

http://www.westernfront.nl

 

[V40]

Same here. It looks like a number "9".

 

[Lou]

Almost looks like an upsidedown 6 ???

 

[hangarman]

Definately 9
Hangarman

 

[John D. Bartleson Jr.]

Stamp;

I' make it 7/9 7
John

 

[Charlie]

I make it 7/7 with a separate 9. Unusual to mix up different size stamps for the same marking?!

 

[Grenademan2005]

Yes, the number 9 without the top left part.

 

[Lou]

A lower case "g" maybe???

 

[Grenademan2005]

A lower case "g" maybe???

You like to see different things, Man! :tinysmile_classes_t

 

[waffenamt]

I' make it 7/9 7
John

yep,i agree with John as well.

best

waff

 

[Dronic69]

Thank you all for your input and interpretation!

OK, so the next question - is it a date stamp or perhaps a Lot number etc?

I'll won't keep you in suspension any further - it is an 18 pdr shrapnel projectile, BUT the reason I first queried the date is that my understanding the 18pdr was only first introduced in 1904 onwards. If it is a date stamp, this would imply 1897......around the 15pdr era - now you can see why I stated "7/37"

The normal "18Pr" marking is so faint that it seems to be missing the numeral 1 and looks like "8Pr" I have used 40x magnification and the"1" is just not there and seems never was.

The diameter using caliper is 83.36mm, and the length is 220mm. The projectile walls are relatively thin and has the characteristic "cup" compartment in the base (hence shrapnel and not HE). It has broad arrow stamps, one large one enclosed in a circle and numerous "N" perhaps denoting Navy (British) rather than "Nordenfelt"? There is only a large single "V" above the "7/97" and some may have noticed an "18" under the "7/97" as well.
I forgot to get a base shot but has stamped "766" or "76C" + a small broad arrow.

So is the "7/97" a date stamp? (which is the common format from my past experiences with 18Pdr projectile markings), a lot?
or perhaps just incorrectly stamped???

Further thoughts?

Thanks
Cheers
Drew

BTW - the ruler moved - I swear I had it aligned with the end of the base!

 

[Dronic69]

Here's a couple pics of the base markings.

I have even compared the type of stamping used on the base (i.e. turn the "6" upside down and compared it to the side stampings - seems that the base "9" is different - the bottom curve ends with a more pronounced dot.

So, my current thoughts are:

1) The date stamp (if is a date stamp) is perhaps "7/07" - they attempted to re-stamp the "0" and mis-aligned?
2) The "18" under the "7/07" is actual the year (1918)??
3) No bloody idea!!!!! :-(

CHeers
Drew

 

[staples57]

Looks like "7/9 7" to me!

 

[Dronic69]

Hi Staples,

Yes it does look like "7/97" to everyone -including moi!

In the past I had a couple of 18pdr projectiles, with similar date stamping just above the driving band, hence I'm confident that it is a date stamp. (see below for a "7/1928" shrapnel projectile and fuse, incorrectly painted as a HE, but the "stenciling is over the stamping") and the sectionized 1940 HE 18 pdr & fuse (although this date format is "8-40", but positioned just above the driving band)

I'm forming the opinion that it has been incorrectly stamped:

1) Researching further, it appears that the British did not tender for the 18pdr design until at least 1902/1903 with the early version produced in 1904;
2) With a diameter of 83.36mm, it is definitely an 18 pdr, as the 15pdr, 13 pdr all had diameters of around the 76mm mark;
3) Perhaps at the time a "0" stamp was not available and the "9" was used in stead? As back then it would have been easily dated - for the same reasoning perhaps it was meant to be "7/17" i.e. either side of "9"??? (OK I know this is getting somewhat "far fetched!")
4) There was a "joker" in the factory!!! What's a date stamp back then when the Projectile was going to blow up anyway! (just to annoy me 100 years later!!!)

My head hurts!
Cheers
drew

BTW - THe 1940 18pdr HE was made by guess who? Has "BHP" stamped on the body, which I only just noticed with this "research exercise"!!!

 

[Dronic69]

Footnote:

I just picked this up last w/end at an auction - damn frustrating as it had the usual light coat of rust all over, but easily enough to brush/rubbed off with your hand prior to the auction. Suspected it was an 18pdr - but do you think I could find the blasted "18PR" body stamp to confirm it!!!!! (It wasn't until I got it home and hit it with fine steel wool + oil before I could locate the, well very faint "8PR" stamp)

Then unable to find "18PR" stamp and noticing the date stamp of "7/97" I started to get really excited thinking that I was wrong and it could will be a 15pdr projectile (couldn't remember the 15pdr diameter at this stage) but then as I used to have both the 15pdr AP & HE, the HE had more of a sleeve fit for the adapter, not a screwed one & normally is stamped "15pdr" on the base.

Ho Humm, I should just stick to fuzes.......

Cheers
Drew

 

[ben2000]

hmm

Well, the other lot of photo's appear to show an 'X' visible beneath the 18Pdr stamping suggesting it's a late mark of shell. I would suggest that the part of the 'date' that is stamped '97' could just be a lot number? and that what appears to be a / is just a scratch where it impacted the ground. There is an '18' stamped under the '7', so i think it's a July 1918 manufactured 18Pdr?

Just my interpretation :tinysmile_twink_t:,

Ben.

 

[Dronic69]

Hi Ben,

This is an interesting observation and point you highlighted - the 1928 Projectile that I use to have has a MK XVI (Mk16), so this would also aligned with the 1918 vintage for a Mk 10 or 12(?)
(Actually it is stamped " X 11" under the 18pdr stamping, suggesting perhaps Mk 12? you can just make the "11" out in the photo - space between the "X" and "11")

Perhaps one of our 18pdr specialist may be able to quote the stats for MK and period of production?

Good point - thank you!
Cheers
Drew

Having another look - under the "7/97" there's lets say distorted "11" and a "-" between it and the "18" >>>perhaps "11-18" - I say distorted because if it is a "11", then it was not stamped by the same punch as used for the "1" in the "18" - certainly doesn't have the top small stroke leading off to the left. Further the "11" looks like the two outside stroke of a "M", which to my earlier comment if it stood for "Maxium" - which of course is not logical for a 1918 British manufacture projectile - right?

I have also drawn to the conclusion that this projectile may been re-stamped at a later time, explaining why some stamps are deep while others very faint. Although it has been fired, comparing the patina of the body overall, it is fairly consistent. I think the MK will pin the vintage.

 

[Darkman]

Drew,

I have a few 18 Pndr shrapnel projectiles and have just had a look at them. I only have 1914, '17 and '18 dated ones - nothing as early as 1907. However I believe your projectile is 1917 based on the following:

Reason 1: I reckon on yours below the "18 PR" is "XII" signifying a later Mk 12 projectile. My 1914 shell has "V" stamped - Mk 5. My 1917 and both 1918 shells have all got XII - Mk 12 stamped. The XII stamped on yours indicates that the 7/?7 relates to 1917.

Reason 2: The distinctive and stylised font of the 7s in the date and on the base, together with the 9s on the base do not match the "9" in the date. Have a look at the different styles where the circular part joins the tail. ie I do not believe the 7/?7 date stamp is 7/97. I reckon the ? numeral is indeed a double stamped 0 - zero. But not to indicate 7/07. I agree that the double stamped zero was meant to signify a stylised 1 by either a lazy stamper or the 1 stamp was missing as you suggest.

Incidentally was this purchased at the large clearing sale outside Shepparton on the weekend? There was a fair bit of interest in the militaria and ordnance, but unfortunately I couldn't attend. My girlfriend's son went (he is into old tractors) but knows nothing about militaria/ordnance. He did say however the autioneers were clueless and started all lots at minimum $50. I noticed a good variety or ordnance ranging from fuses, grenades, shells, bombs etc. I also know a number of dealers attended (eg. IS Wright's from here at Ballarat for one.) Where there any bargains to be had or was it over-priced?

Regards,

Graeme (Ballarat.)