What's new
British Ordnance Collectors Network

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!

Reject 4.5" How shell..

S

starshell

Well-Known Member
Premium Member
IMG_7032.jpgIMG_7034.jpgIMG_7035.jpgIMG_7036.jpgIMG_7037.jpg

Hello,

Here's an interesting 4.5" (reject?) dated 1916, which I thought I would post for the interest of members.
Having compared to another identical 4.5" I have, this one is taller by around 1/8th of an inch. As you can see the base has not been completely turned nor the base plug threads cut. I'm convinced it's a reject for some reason and would love to know what, but it could be a number of things.
I am surprised the shell was date stamped before completion, and the strong line chiselled into the body over other stamps: could this be a 'reject' mark?
Any info would be much appreciated.
Many thanks and enjoy!
Cheers!
 
I find many 18 prs and a few 4.5" here and I often wonder if they were rejects being 1915 & 16 mostly, but never quite so
obviously marked as yours.
 
By the look of the mark where the drive band was I would say the band has been removed at some point.
Cheers
Andy
 
Hi Andy,
I think the chisel cut over the wavy raised ribs was to prevent the driving band from turning on the shell when fired (despite the wavy ribs). I believe this was done a few times around the shell band recess, although others here might know more.
I'm not convinced this shell ever got to the band fitting stage.....
Many thanks!
 
starshell said:
Hi Andy,
I think the chisel cut over the wavy raised ribs was to prevent the driving band from turning on the shell when fired (despite the wavy ribs). I believe this was done a few times around the shell band recess, although others here might know more.
I'm not convinced this shell ever got to the band fitting stage.....
Many thanks!
Click to expand...

Just saying have seen loads of shells with there bands removed and leaving the classic chisel mark to cut the band off like in the photo.
Cheers
Andy
 
Andysarmoury said:
Just saying have seen loads of shells with there bands removed and leaving the classic chisel mark to cut the band off like in the photo.
Cheers
Andy
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. Had a few really nice shells offered to me in the past, but without driving bands.
Someone out there likes Copper.....
Cheers!
 
the copper was worth more to the owner than the shell. Lots of shell sizes are not too difficult to reband but unless its yours or doing a mate a favour then ecconomicly its probably not worth getting done. Even a rare one would still be valued as a rebanded.
 
Hi TimG,

Sorry, I should have pointed out in my post that the measurement I took didn't include the raised unturned section on the base. Had that been turned off, the shell would still be 1/8th taller.
The shell does have a slight dent to the top, therefore slightly affecting the threads, but to my eye looks fairly recent. Would that have been grounds for rejecting the shell back in the day?
Many thanks!

TimG said:
Starshell,

This should explain why it is 1/8" longer.

TimG

View attachment 171231
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top