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!

Unfinished Mills No36 Casing

P

peregrinvs

Well-Known Member
Hi,

I acquired an unfinished Mills No36 casing at Stoneleigh today. It is covered in surface rust and I'm intending to clean it back to bare metal. When I have done so, would it originally have been left in bare metal, painted white for practice use or coated in shellac?

I don't have a picture, but it looks more or less the same as this one on Paul Spence's website:

http://www.paul-spence1964.com/Unfinishedcasting1.html

Thanks,

Mark
 
It's worth noting that a number of 'unfinished' No 5 and No 36 bodies have appeared in the last 2 years. I was told by one dealer that they were repro. I have bought one of each and the makers mark on the 36 does not look as clear or crisp as an original. My jury is still out on a verdict.

John
 
Thanks for the responses. I recall the dealer concerned had a quantity of them last year, but only one left this year which I bought. (The price had lowered) You're right that the maker mark is indistinct and another thing that occurred to me is that the surface rust doesn't look that old. Ah well; it's still a nice paperweight even if it is a repro and the price paid wasn't excessive.
 
This is mine Ive have it for about 25 years and the freind who gave it me said he owned it for years.

z4.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_0255.jpg
    IMG_0255.jpg
    271.5 KB · Views: 44
zephyr4 said:
This is mine Ive have it for about 25 years and the freind who gave it me said he owned it for years.

z4.
Click to expand...

That's not an unfinished casting that's a improvised throwing practice grenade. WW2 possibly Home Guard. There are lots of locally made variants.

John
 
peregrinvs said:
Thanks for the responses. I recall the dealer concerned had a quantity of them last year, but only one left this year which I bought. (The price had lowered) You're right that the maker mark is indistinct and another thing that occurred to me is that the surface rust doesn't look that old. Ah well; it's still a nice paperweight even if it is a repro and the price paid wasn't excessive.
Click to expand...

I do have my suspicions about these recent 'discoveries'. That's not to say that real unfinished casting don't exist. I've got two that I am happy with. A WW2 BBC marked body where everything is done apart from the threads being cut and a Morum & Co WW1 body where the striker hole is a fraction off centre and was clearly taken off the production line.

The 36 body I bought had the same reddish surface rust as yours but I cleaned it back with a wire brush on an electric drill then sprayed it with matt clear varnish. It now functions as a paperweight on my desk. John
 
zephyr4 said:
I have one that looks the same, there is no sign of any paint.

z4
Click to expand...
Are there any other tell-tale signs to look for when trying to spot a repro. Most repros of grenades that I have encountered usually have a shortfall or two and it isn't real hard to identify one, then again there are others that are perfect and had I not been told they were repro I would never have known. I hate repros/fakes as I see no usable place for them in collecting unless they are obvious (such as a resin cast body) and therefore used as a facsimile filler piece until a genuine specimen can be located......Dano
 
There was a good summary on Dave's Mills Grenades Website about some fakes he had encountered.

John
 
I've cleaned off the surface rust and had another inspection. The front marking is still indistinct although it vaguely resembles 'JM' over 'M'. It's more clearly marked '48' or '43' on the rear at the bottom of the lever channel. It also seems to be very neatly cast and compares favourably with a complete No36 I have. I was coming round to believe it was probably a repro, but I'm less sure now. Need to do some pictures.
 
If it's like the one on the left it's a fake, if like the one on the right then it's a genuine John Harper, Willenhall. The difference is quite marked.






Tom.
 

Attachments

  • Fake JHW.jpg
    Fake JHW.jpg
    52.2 KB · Views: 49
  • Genuine JHW.JPG
    Genuine JHW.JPG
    142.4 KB · Views: 44
Thanks. Definitely more like the one on the left. Other things that occur to me are that the metal looks suspiciously clean and even (i.e. not old) now I've cleaned the surface rust off and the hemispheres are about 1mm out of alignment. Ah well; repro it is then. Thanks for all the input.

Mark
IMG_2730.JPG
 
Now I've seen it I'd say it's definitely repro. Mine is a bit better than that one so the mould must have been coming to the end of it's life when they made that one. I'm away at present but I'll put up some photos of mine next week. John
 
This is my No 5 'unfinished casing'. It looks pretty good all around but the hole in the base is not circular. That could be a casting error originally or a repro man's mistake. I'll try and put up a photo or two of the 36 tomorrow.

John

DSCN0498.JPGDSCN0499.JPGDSCN0500.JPG
 
John, I simply have to think that your NO.5 unfinished casting is with little doubt not even a reproduction. When I think of repro's there are simply much more lucrative castings that make more sense to reproduce. In my opinion (for what that is worth) your unfinished NO.5 is in no way a reproduction. I think it is original and an important link in the development of the Mills Grenade. I am sure there are many pros and cons in the wind on this one but it just looks right, and an important linkpin in the development of the Mills Grenade. I have seen some cheesy repro's in the fold on the market and for what it is worth I believe yours to be totally correct. I am not a Mills collector nor have I any vested interest in the originality of this piece, however in the overall historical signifigance of such a piece I certainly see the value of such a connecting piece. I am by no means an expert but brother, that casting appears to be righteous......Dano
 
Last edited:
de%20seaming%20mills.jpgjust a thought . .didnt the original casting have a sunk in mark for where the filler screw is to be drilled?
 
dano1917 said:
John, I simply have to think that your NO.5 unfinished casting is with little doubt not even a reproduction. When I think of repro's there are simply much more lucrative castings that make more sense to reproduce. In my opinion (for what that is worth) your unfinished NO.5 is in no way a reproduction. I think it is original and an important link in the development of the Mills Grenade. I am sure there are many pros and cons in the wind on this one but it just looks right, and an important linkpin in the development of the Mills Grenade. I have seen some cheesy repro's in the fold on the market and for what it is worth I believe yours to be totally correct. I am not a Mills collector nor have I any vested interest in the originality of this piece, however in the overall historical signifigance of such a piece I certainly see the value of such a connecting piece. I am by no means an expert but brother, that casting appears to be righteous......Dano
Click to expand...

Thanks Dano. I'm trying to keep an open mind on this one. I'm 60% sure its right. This body is pretty good in most respects.

Darrol. Thanks for the photo. You may be right there but as every maker made their own moulds It's probable that some makers put a marker and other wouldn't. In a production scenario I would have though the casting would have been dropped into a jig for drilling to ensure consistency and speed of production.

John
 
OK. After a good rummage in the bunker I've found my other unfinished Miss 36 castings.

Here's the one I bought a little while ago mentioned in the earlier posts. It does look similar to Mark's though is better made.


DSCN0564.JPGDSCN0565.JPGDSCN0568.JPG

I'll add photos now of one I know to be genuine.

DSCN0566.JPGDSCN0567.JPG

This is a BBC made 36 which is complete apart from there being no thread in the base plug hole.

John
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top