This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
| Although I have not removed the box from mine, I can tell you with certainty that yours is not real. On mine, the small round disc on the front of the box is missing. There is a cylinder of sheet metal the diameter of this disc that continues the whole inner length of the box. The explosive charge fit here. Inside of the box (in between this cylinder and the outer edge) is scrap metal for additional fragmenting. My wood is more of a yellow/brown color and my label is much larger. Did you get my email about the other British grenades that I was told were to be faked? You sent me photos of two of the other four I mentioned. I was also told that these would come out of England but was not told who would be selling them or if the seller is the one faking them. |
| The No 12 is a forgery. The give away is the fuze pocket which is the most difficult part to replicate without the proper tooling. The case construction is not consistent with the originals. The fuze lighter is wrong. The fragmentation plate is close but not identical. I cannot make out the label but its likely a photocopy rather than a 'letterpress' original - you say its brown, I suggest you dip it in water and make tea out of it since tea staining is commonly used to fake old documents. |
| Other emails regarding this grenade |
| I sent an email to XXX and he certainly seemed to think he was on to a great source. My uncertainty was the label. Told XXX that to see such a uniform coloration, as well as the convenience of no legible writing, raised my suspicions. Story sounded way too full of intrigue too. Excerpt as follows:"...There has been a very good find, sealed in a cellar of an old farmhouse in France, the problem is, if they are reported to the local authorities, they will all be taken away and destroyed, so somewhere along the line, someone is inerting them, then they are brought over a few at a time, the 12's where the first, and I'm expecting some 44's within a week or so, its sort of as and when, they bring them back, usually when they come over for more building materials, and just a few at a time,..." I've mentioned to XXX that I think reputable dealers are being taken in as well. These forgers gain the trust of someone with a good reputation in hopes of validating the "find". I'm surprised at the effort! Serious fakery. (A pox on them!) |
| i have swapped e mails with you on a couple of occasions, the last about about your book. i visited your site this evening and saw your article about the no12 grenade.....now this looks similar to one i have in my collection. the metal box is just under 3 inches wide and approx 4 inches long the "handle is over a foot long. your picture appears to show a very dark wood, now you will see from the time that this mail is sent that it is late here in england. the reason being that i have taken my grenade appart, and it seems to have the same construction as yours. this grenade was purchased in london at a shop in islington fro m a dealer called chris farlow....if you are as old as me [44] you will know that chris ran a pop group as well as his shop he gave up [many years ago dealing from the shop but is still about] after a fight with the local council over his mothers house rates bill he was know in the militaria world as the fat boy. i was still at school at that time. but used to visit his shop and a few others with a friend from the imperial war museum. they purchased pieces from the dealers in those days .chris was heavily into nazi stuff.. mainly ss. but he also liked ammunition, i bought a lot of bits from him over the years [he would let me pay off the bill over the weeks...never writting any thing down] sorry i have wandered but you know how old memories go. now this grenade was very exspensive...almost £5.00 which twenty odd years ago was a lot of money, and thats my point....twenty years ago.....the end of the igniter is missing off mine, i have always assumed that this had broken off with age [brass "season "fractures at stress points, mine shows about two turns of scew thread....the friend from the war museum was mike willis one of the keepers in the firearms deptment mike looked it over before i splashed out and gave it the ok it was taken to the museum during one of my school holidays along with a load of other treasures for identification....now the i wm has a no 12 in its collection AND IT IS NOT LIKE MINE, its as the top picture...the iwm was not worried about the differance i was told that the collection they had only contained a few of the grenades produced by a few of the main manufactures.....could the one you show be a "restored grenade"?..if not then these fakes have been around for twenty years or more....why have we not seen them before?My Reply Interesting. I do not believe this is a "restored" grenade. The No. 12 to the best of mine and anyone elses knowledge were only made by one manufacturer, Roberite and Ammonal. The No. 12 was a production grenade, not an artisan grenade, meaning there were production drawings and specifications for manufacture. They were also made only in relatively small quantities compared to grenades like the Mills bomb. There is no such thing as a Mk. II. Therefore they should all be pretty much the same. I sent the photos to two different collectors that have confirmed original No. 12 grenades, both had no hesitation in determining them as fake, based on the things you see on the webpage. Neither one has anything to gain by bullshitting me either. I have also had emails from other collectors over there that have seen other No. 12's at the fairs and without exception they have been fakes. So, yes, the fakes have been about for years. These ones, were accompanied by a fanciful story that they had been found in a walled up cellar someplace in France along with the other most rare of British grenades the No. 44 and a few of the more common No. 35's and No. 24's (both easy to manufacture and fake). Could we get a providence on the No. 12's- No. The construction is wrong, but look really good when all put together, but some of the construction details are just not there. The labels on the back are not only discolored, but are exactly the same color as the wood. Also, when I opened the package, I got the distinct odor of Danish Oil, it dissapated quickly, but was definitely there. I must admit they fooled me as well, until I started digging. If yours looks like the one shown on the webpage, i suggest you take it to visit XXX and get him to have a look at it. He will be able to tell you in more detail. Much appreciate the email, nice to hear from you again. I love these little mysteries, great fun digging out the truth on them. His Reply many thanks for your reply.which i read with interest.the last few weeks i have been doing a little bit of detective work myself.i have also managed to capture one of the so called fakes.so lets begin the source of the grenade is interesting...it came[on loan]from an english collector....XXX who i note was a supplier of some photos in your book.......the grenade sent to me is identicle to my own specimen[25 YEARS ]in my collection but as you describe the wood is almost black..with a red..painted "filling" band on the shaft.so i think we are talking about the same objects. i was trained as a chemical engineer but spent most of my working time as a developement engineer.i have during the course of my career taken out some thirty patents...a few dealing with paint and surface finishings.i started collecting ammunition at the age of eight,and enjoyed a period in one of our territorial engineer units as a t.a commisioned officer.....the unit was based in the south of england and was the only t.a eod unit.....right thats my background out of the way one of my early e mails to you was offering you a copy of a the r.c.ms.handbook on grenades[produced in1969]the author i have known for many years.the first thing i did was to compare the two samples with the SCALED drawing in the book...they are almost spot on[i have always found this to be so with other drawings in the book.some years ago the authour visited my home and spent sometime going through my collection,my hairbrush was inspected and commented on. the exact words have gone but to the effect that i was lucky to have one as the rcms collection lacked an example.prehaps a trade at sometime the imperial war museum has an example on public display,this shows a differant pattern, as per your description larger box type... internals can not be seen.however there is a major differance,the example you show as "real" has the handle made of a fine/medium grained wood[beech ?].the iwm oneisof of a course grained wood[pitch pine?]as are the two with me.so thats one big differance in a" standard pattern"..as you know materials are specifyied the box of the two samples,was checked and found to be TIN plate [as it should be].most platted sheet steel is now tern[lead] or zinctec[zinc]the last commercial use of tin is in overseas"tincans" the material i believe is not allowed to be used in the eec treated zinctec or aluminium now.the modern process for producingtinplate is a continous bath method [like glass] and this gives a very destinct wavy finish to the sheet material.this surface effect was not visible on the two samples here.the last producer of tin plate in the uk has jus tbeen closed down igniter set......you show a picture in your book of an igniter with two split pins arming[upper]and safty[lower] the rcms book show layout as per yours the example in skennetons book shows a screw bar as per the two here the iwm has a third type "hinged over center pin...... the rcms illustration shows no internal box/tube asmbly..all other illustrations of other grenades show any hiddern detail as a section. you mention smelling danish oil when you stripped your example but the" odour soon went away."...danish oil is not a highly volatile liquid....it does not evaporate quickly..[but i do believe you did smell a solvent] the paint FILLING BAND on the sample sent to me was an alkyd based paint[andstill sticky under the surface this are a modern type of paint[last 20 years ]the black mess on the wood dissolves in acetone.......the lable was removed by soaking...and appears to be a very fibrous texture...however its age cannot be commented on...but is of the right type......upon washing some of the surface finish off an area of epoxy filler was found. this was softerned and removed with further solvents.it was finally removed to expose an area of rotted wood. the collection in the iwm london was donated in the post ww1 years i have not got exact dates it seems that exhibits were transfered to form a national collection for some years after the war.it is and never has claimed to be a full collection of all types only a representative collection of what was avaidable then.the no 12 is shown with an acceptance date of 20 may 1915 obsolete 20 july1920 as we know these two dates are both from "official publications and do not claim to be exact dates of first and last issue......1915 was the nadir of the"impro" grenade i am convinced that the sample sent to me by ray ford is the same as my sample,which has been varified enough for me.it has been in my collection some twenty five years......if these were fakes why has it taken twenty five years for you to find them...there are enough variations in the official design as it is....there is no deffinate complete collection of all types/patterns.....[look at the no5/23/36] for variations in the castings. and no book with out mistakes/wrong attributions....i would most stongly surgest these to be an impro design that was productionised for official manufacture HOWEVER I BELIEVE THAT THE XXX NO 12.....HAS BEEN RESTORED....hence the epoxy filler and "wash off age"and alkyd paint ring My Reply Don't you love a good controversey! Excellent work. So let me give some other things to think about based on your findings. One of the guys that has deemed this to be a repro is a Lt. Col. in the TA, Ordnance Corps and occasionaly lectures at the IWM on the subject of grenades and the like. He has an original. I must say that I trust his opinion. The other fellow, is an American that collects only WWI and is quite knowledgeble, also has a verified original grenade to compare. I also have a copy of the RMCS manual, and copies of the Treatise of Ammunition 1915 and 1917. The diagram in the RMCS manual was taken from the Treatise, redrawn, but its the same drawing. I also scaled some drawings and a photo of a No. 12 some time ago with the idea that I would make myself a reproduction of it. I compared the handles that I made and the grenade from XXX (yep, I got mine from him as well). They are pretty darned close. However, my scaling of the box with a known measurement (I forget at the moment which one i used) turned my box out to be about an inch longer than these ones. I found the segmentation of the iron to be about an inch square etc etc. Conclusion, the box for the No. 12 is larger than the ones on these "repros". The No. 12 is a very rare grenade, and many collectors have never seen a real one, let alone own one. So, a good reproduction like these, could easily fool even a very advanced collector. Had the author of the RMCS manual ever seen one before? Could he put yours side by side with the IWM one to compare them? I don't know. As for the wood, well, I would expect some differences in the wood used, not much but a bit. I would have thought a hardwood of some type like beech would be used. If as you think, the wood used on these is old wood, well, that is easily explained. Over this way, one thing that is quite popular is reusing old wood to build things. pull an old barn down and you will find all kinds of guys wanting the wood. Cut out the bad parts and build goodies with the rest, gives a real character to the finished items. So, old wood is not a problem for the reproductions, lots of it around. Likewise with the tinplate. While it may not be manufactured anymore, you cannot tell me is is not available, just look around in the junk shops, you will find lots of things made out of tinplate going real cheap. They didn't exactly need a lot of it. And the added bonus is, its already weathered. Igniters- the Treatise of ammunition specifies "igniter, safety fuze, percussion Mark I or II" Mk I, as in the RMCS manual, two split pins, Mk. II, hinged over centre pin. I disagree that Skennertons book show one with a screw pin, I think its the Mk. II with the hinged centre pin. It also does not show the screw cap holding the fuze holder as the repro grenades have. I looked at the igniter in the repros. And gotta tell you, they just don't work for me. These things had to be easy to use and quick to use. the Mk 1, pull the safety pin, then pull the retaining pin, throw the grenade! On the Mk. II, ensure the hinged pin is over to one side, pull the safety pin, when ready to throw, give the hinged pin a push and it straightens out and is released, easy! On this one, unscrew a little nut, pull the safety pin, grab a little pin and pull it out under spring pressure (I don't have it in front of me, but I don't recall a hole through it to fit a lanyard to pull it with). Nope, too hard to do in a hurry, Doesn't work for me! Paper in the label, still available, I know, I work in that field and that type of paper is still being manufactured, the only way to tell would be carbon dating the paper or having the ink tested, but since it was contaminated with whatever i expect that would be useless. Now, If, 25 years ago, or thirty years ago, someone produces a few No. 12 reproductions for his buddies to fill holes in collections, never intending to sell them as real. They pass through a number of hands and the history gets lost in the shuffle, all of a sudden, because they are so rare, they are taken as real no. 12's. Not too many of them around and mostly in collections that are not on public display so they don't get seen often by people that can compare them with known real ones. So they never get noticed. Now along comes somebody in the year 2000 who gets access to one of these thirty year old fakes, but doesn't know its a fake, so he goes out and picks up a bunch of old wood and tinplate, and a lathe and some brass, and copies the thirty year old fake. Guess what we have on hand now. You say you think they have been restored, well, I don't know if you heard the supposed story about where these came from, but restoration certainly does not fit with the story. His Reply ok i hear what you say...but the rot on the wood was on the lower face/end as if they had been badly stored....pins/igniter...nope dont wear it...all typesof 12 have two pins...arming/safety as for ease of use i dont think this was a design feature at that time....look at the hook issued/made up to pull pins on the no5 types...i know the story about the no20grenades...i have seen them andthey are very poor wrong dimensions wrong detholders/shape and wrong materials.and I KNOW.who is making them...they were made for one of the ww1 dressersup groups.i a collection of have impro grenades[rememberthe pic i sent you] now have you ever seen a strapped french raquet grenade....no nor had i until i found a relic in arras.....paper sorry you carnt carbon date "modern" materials.....sorry as i said too many people here over too many years have looked at my grenade and been happy with it...[ill take your lt col[retd] and raise you....etcetc.]at the end of the day i am afraid that we must differ.i would make one requestwould youconsider posting our exchange of mails and the others you have on your site...eighty years on i dont think we will find adeffinate answer but who knows...lets really get the ball rolling.....to condemthese as fakes is too harsh at this trime My Reply Differing opinions is what makes this game fun. So what do you raise my Lt. Col with???. I have sent him both your email and my reply and am interested in what he has to say about them and our ideas. Actually, I do not think condemning them as fake now is too harsh as I truely believe that they are. I would much rather people think of them as fake that think of them as real and pay way too much for them if they are fakes. If later they are found to be real, and I would have to see some documented evidence to prove that (since we have documented evidence on the others), then the people that have them get a bonus. Ultimately it is up to the person that is buying the item to make his own decision. they can label me a crackpot if they want, but if it saves one collector from being taken, its worth it. His Reply just one thought....i think that it is too early to condem them as fakes....if they are[ and i doubt it]...i for one would not love you any more i f i missed the chance of buying a12 because of your present advice.......so a debate/discussion is needed....at the end of the day there are more things in heaven and hell.... |
| Interesting debate with XXX about his "20", then "25" year old no 12. It is understandable, no one wants to admit one of their most rare items is a phony. I liked your theory about one of these old fakes being copied by the new fakers. How ironic. That would explain the mistakes being replicated again. The thing is, I was warned about this over 6 months ago by a guy from England. He told me exactly how this was going to happen, and that is exactly how it did. He even told me the numbers they were going to start with, and they did. He also said that German Stick grenades are next, WWI and WWII. This first run was a test of the market to see how much money they can generate through ebay. Awhile back I bought two WWI large head stick grenades, both of them in remarkable condition, nearly mint, with about 90% paint and markings on one and 95+% on the other. Having heard about these guys faking or planning on faking stick grenades, I was a little nervous about this purchase (they were very expensive). But, they turned out to be genuine ( if they are fake, there is not a way in the world to tell, they are perfect in every way.) |
| I think your idea of a long-lost-fake fooling the fakers and they in turn copying the fake is a valid hypothesis.I am reminded of a T.V. program years ago (late 1970's I think) about the "Bermuda Triangle". This program was tracing the myths and legends reported as fact in the many books on the subject at the time. The investigators did a very good job of finding the root source of the actual data. Typically obscure info, incorrectly transcribed then "lost", only to be uncovered years later and accepted as fact due to its age and perceived authentic nature. Also, the authors were not motivated to disprove there own remarkable sources as it would destroy the premise for their books. Reactions during taped interviews seem very similar to the back and forth email you posted. Held to their beliefs even when presented with irrefutable evidence to the contrary. (Much like our dear x-president Billy.) I also agree with the age discrepancy of the "find". Early WWI, by definition, scrambling to use whatever they got their hands on. Why leave these No.12's sitting around for so long? Also, If I were inerting these, why not keep all that scrap shrapnel? Of course that would be very hard to guess as to what was correct. Convenient that it is not present. Especially since the "finders" were very aware of the potential collectable value. Also if you are going to smuggle grenades out of a country that has such sever penalties for possessing even inert ordnance, why not keep more of the fuze components? Again they were aware of the value of such details. Now the financial perspective: Original manufacturer...You set up an assembly line and make one after another, same-same. Wood shaping and hardware locations should all be uniform, especially since this was a short production run. (Any idea as to how many?) Fakes are only good to make if you can make a profit. This is a perfect subject - relatively simple, and very few verifiable examples for comparison. What do the 'bodgers" hope to accomplish... Sell a half dozen for $5000? Then what? Flood the market and quickly you will loose. For all the effort it doesn't seen like a good return on your investment. Or maybe the idea is to be "validated" as original. Then trickle these into the market here and there. If your "inventory" consists of a half-dozen different types, you can rotate stock. So then a $1000 extra income every couple of months as a revenue stream is not a bad idea. XXX tells me there is a guy in Europe using original equipment to make "authentic" WWII German paratroop helmets. Trickles those in a few a year, keeps the market tight, and makes a few odd thousand dollars a year extra spending money. Or maybe they want be validated so the examples in their collection gain a "pedigree"? Ahh well, I'm afraid these will make there way into the collecting stream and will be harder and harder to separate from the truth as time goes on. Certainly seems there are those who have no interest in helping clear the air. As you said, why do they want to discredit their crown jewel? |
| I just found a very nice photo of a No.12 in Ian Hogg's "The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Ammunition" p.113. The photo is the same angle as your second "real" picture, looking from the right bottom, so it makes comparison easier. The wood shape and component placement is almost perfectly identical. While the igniter is a bit different, it is still a closer match to the "real" than the "fake". A black and white photo, but still the color and grain of the wood appear to be a good match, again much better than the "fake". Two big dimensional differences: The "fake" has a larger paddle surface and the mounting rods are further up. Also the metal box has what look like 45 degree mitered corners, like the "real", not folded over square one like the "fake". And as you point out the round fuze plug/disc is completely different. Not at all like the "fake". As I mentioned... short production run, one fabricator... Should be same-same.I vote for at the VERY least "suspect", voting for (being kind) "Reproduction", I certainly would not grant it "original" status. |
