21 replies to this topic

[33rd div mgc]

I found last year an original 1915 dated 08 helve carrier at all places, a church hall clothing sale.........£6.80 later....... it was in my sweatie hands....

Attached to it was also a piece of webbing which look  like a WW1 Mills webbing Officers water bottle carrier (very similar to the 37 pattern with the top strap fixing right over the bottle to the front) and an American 1918 dated water bottle. The webbing carrier is the same colour as the helve, which makes me think it's contemporary.

When I tried to fit my 1915 dated helve to it, the top strap would not fit around the helve and was about 1" inch to short, ( see photo) when I tried a helve with a smaller shaft, bingo...it fitted.
Interestingly, the 1915 dated helve fitted onto the bottom of the 08 carrier, same as the bayonet scabbard, so that rules out any shrinkage to the webbing.

You can clearly see the difference between the thinner helve on the left and the 1915 dated one on the right.

The question is,
Was the helve made with a thin shank before 1914 and made thicker at the start of the war if  found that the thinner helves were not up to job of trench digging and breaking ?

Attached Files

•  IMG_0511.JPG   45.75K   2 downloads
•  IMG_0513.JPG   45.79K   0 downloads

[centurion]

As far as one can tell the entrenching tool design (and its helve) design did not change fron 1908 until a long tine after WW1  However I have seen a brief mention of the use of something called the Drosopoulos Pattern entrenching tool on an experimental basis during WW1. I don't know what the Drosopoulos Pattern looked like or if the helve was different.

Just a thought -could the webbing be Canadian intended to hold that silly entrenching tool introduced to make Same Hughes lots of moolah

[33rd div mgc]

centurion, on 29 February 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

As far as one can tell the entrenching tool design (and its helve) design did not change fron 1908 until a long tine after WW1  However I have seen a brief mention of the use of something called the Drosopoulos Pattern entrenching tool on an experimental basis during WW1. I don't know what the Drosopoulos Pattern looked like or if the helve was different.

Just a thought -could the webbing be Canadian intended to hold that silly entrenching tool introduced to make Same Hughes lots of moolah

Here's a photo of the back of the carrier, you can see MW & S 1915

Attached Files

•  1915 date.jpg   21.92K   1 downloads

[GRANVILLE]

I find this particularly interesting in that I bought an Entrenching Tool off eBay a few years ago and when it arrived I could instantly tell the helve was of a thinner diameter than the previous one I was having to replace.  At that time I didn't give it too much thought, assuming there must have been subtle variations in manufacture? In my case the repro helve carrier fastened around it withoug any issue so again I didn't think further about it untill reading this posting.
Dave Upton

[33rd div mgc]

GRANVILLE, on 29 February 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

I find this particularly interesting in that I bought an Entrenching Tool off eBay a few years ago and when it arrived I could instantly tell the helve was of a thinner diameter than the previous one I was having to replace.  At that time I didn't give it too much thought, assuming there must have been subtle variations in manufacture? In my case the repro helve carrier fastened around it withoug any issue so again I didn't think further about it untill reading this posting.
Dave Upton

Dave

You can clearly see the difference in the two helve shafts on the right photo. The helve on the left can be seen to be shaved down until you reach the tapered metal head.

(Shaved down after the metal end was attached ? )

The other thing I noticed about this helve, is the metal head angle of the taper is different to other heads I have, and it answered the question as to why the other helves were not a good fit in the 1909 entrenching tool and rocked about.

On fitting the thinner helve, it was a perfect fit on the 1909 head,  the same taper on both.

This make me think the thinner helve could be a pre war issue.

[GRANVILLE]

As I mention above, when I got mine and realized the helve felt thinned than I had expected, I did consider the wood had been so worn over the years that this must account for it. On reading what you are observing, I can now see there is a distinct difference, and because there is I would wager that the thinner helves are early and that the pattern was 'beefed up' on account of over enthusiastic trench digging leading to too many helves being snapped.

Dave Upton

[GRANVILLE]

The other thought that now crosses my mind, was the way prior to the war, in certain regiments it was common practice to polish & burnish the life out of everything, especially in the Guards. As it happens I'm currently re-reading 'A Private in the Guards' by Stephen Graham (literary Guardsman in 1917) and he has quite a bit to say on this subject.

In respect of the helve, he tells how they took pummice to the wooden handles and worked it untill they virtually gleamed white and the metal fitting was similarly burnished by some means untill it dazzled. Seems hard to imagine today, but I have no doubts this was done, and possibly if the pattern was not at some point 'beefed up' as I speaculated, then the thinner ones to the touch might just be the result of over enthusiastic burnishing by Guardmen amongst others??

Dave Upton

This is what he actually has to say: p102 There was one unforgivable sin, and that was having the handle of one's entrenching tool dirty. The metal part of this tool had to be like silver; the wooden part of this tool had to be polished with sandpaper till it was white and smooth as ivory.

[Chief_Chum]

We bought a few in a job lot from Australia a few years ago and, for whatever reason, they all rattled about in the carriers, unlike the ones we already had which were a good fit...

[33rd div mgc]

tocemma, on 29 February 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

I'm not sure any real conclusions can be drawn from this. As the thinner version in the original post is not dated it is impossible to know when it dates from. I have just checked the helve holders and helves in my collection and all are interchangeable. Cetainly as far as I'm aware there was no change to the design of the webbing helve holder throughout its service life, and only one official change to the helve in 1944 which added a fitting for the spike bayonet then issued.

For information the helve holders I have tried are dated as follows 1909 (frst year of issue) there is a picture of this example on the karkeeweb site, 1914,1915,1917 and lastly 1918. I have others and will check but I am not expecting to see much difference beyond what would be reasonable in an item turned from wood and hand finished. The helve holders I have tried are dated 1912, 1914, and two dated 1915. All of the helves and webbing were completely compatible with no appreciable difference.

The only other`thing I have seen is where MKII helves have had the bayonet fitting cut off in order to be passed off as ealier examples. There are two giveaways on these

1. the helve was thicker in profile and tapered down to the bayonet fitting. Where these later have been cut off this taper is still evident.

2. Genuine examples of these WW1 helves have a tool marking from the machine used to turn them. This shows as a small hole in the centre of the bottom end face of the helve. Usually the top (ferrule) end of the helve has clamp marks from manufacture present.

I also note the karkeeweb site shows an example dated 1911, which does not appear to be thinner or 'waisted' It might be possible that early examples were waisted in a traditional way, like the shaft of a hammer for instance, but I doubt there would be variation in helves enough to prevent the closing of the helve holder.
Surely such oversize examples would be rejected by Army inspectors.

The very earliest intrenching tool heads have a different central 'eye', deeper on the examples issued from 1909 until 1911. I have an example by Lucas, dated 1909, as well as several later examples. There is no difference in the ferrules on the helve, once again other than manufacturing variance, and all are interchangable.

I hope this is of interest.

Regards

Tocemma

I've had a look at the bottom of the helve, and it has the impression of the machine's 'live centre' still in the bottom.
However, I did find last year another thin helve, the same as the one above, but this one had the 1944 mod for the No. spike bayonet.....when laid side by side, they are both the same length. Plus this one fits the eye of the 1909 head very well with no rattling about, same as the above.....
What has happened to it, is the wood has started to split from underneath the metal head and runs down the shaft for 1" inch. Also, on close inspection, where the shaft has been shaved down until it reaches the head, the bottom end of the head has been peined over to make it flush with the shaved down step on the shaft. giving the bottom edge a chamfered look, this is not due to the amount of times the helve has been fitted in and out of the head,

[Andrew Upton]

GRANVILLE, on 29 February 2012 - 02:17 PM, said:

The other thought that now crosses my mind, was the way prior to the war, in certain regiments it was common practice to polish & burnish the life out of everything, especially in the Guards. As it happens I'm currently re-reading 'A Private in the Guards' by Stephen Graham (literary Guardsman in 1917) and he has quite a bit to say on this subject.

In respect of the helve, he tells how they took pummice to the wooden handles and worked it untill they virtually gleamed white and the metal fitting was similarly burnished by some means untill it dazzled. Seems hard to imagine today, but I have no doubts this was done, and possibly if the pattern was not at some point 'beefed up' as I speaculated, then the thinner ones to the touch might just be the result of over enthusiastic burnishing by Guardmen amongst others??

...

This is what he actually has to say: p102 There was one unforgivable sin, and that was having the handle of one's entrenching tool dirty. The metal part of this tool had to be like silver; the wooden part of this tool had to be polished with sandpaper till it was white and smooth as ivory.

I was interested to read that, having recently purchased two new/old-stock WW1 pattern handles on Ebay to replace a missing handle on one 1915 e-tool head I have and another undated head that came with one of the late WW2 style handles that had had the bayonet fitting removed. When I got the new handles they were absolutely filthy, and when I started to clean them up what I thought was the standard black paint job for the metal tops turned out to be some sort of well gunged up metal preservative. Stripping that off revealed the following:

http://postimage.org...x3kxtw7at/full/



Although somewhat stained with age, both are very highly polished. The left was 1942 dated, the other maker marked G.W.T.Co.Ltd.

With the "thin" helve - I recall seeing a dealer on Ebay or similar who sold what they had described as a very early pre-WW1 pattern e-tool handle that had no metal fitting to the top. Instead, the wood was simply flared out (much like a modern replacement pick helve). That one seemed to be thinner than a standard helve, but it could simply have been a "fair fantasy" as I've never seen any other reliable source to back it up.

[4thGordons]

Chief_Chum, on 29 February 2012 - 02:25 PM, said:

We bought a few in a job lot from Australia a few years ago and, for whatever reason, they all rattled about in the carriers, unlike the ones we already had which were a good fit...

I was just about to say I got an Australian manufactured intrenching tool (head is fabricated in two parts and smaller) and the helve that came with that is markedly slimmer.
Chris

[GRANVILLE]

Judging by the amount of evidence pointing towards some helves being slimmer, I would have thought this was a job for Jow Sweeney to draw on his extensive records and clarify what if any LoC's are recored.

Dave Upton

[33rd div mgc]

Despite all the information that has been put forward....the evidence is still clear (see photos)....my MW & S 1915 dated helve carrier will only take the thin helve , and not the thicker helve.

The plot thickens

[Andrew Upton]

33rd div mgc, on 29 February 2012 - 08:49 PM, said:

Despite all the information that has been put forward....the evidence is still clear (see photos)....my MW & S 1915 dated helve carrier will only take the thin helve , and not the thicker helve.

The plot thickens

Dickie, I have a repro that I had to repeatedly soak and stretch before I could get both the bayonet scabbard and helve through the loops. I still wonder if this isn't just a similar but entirely period manufacturing slip (and not being able to be used helped in its consequent survival), and the fact a thinned down helve actually does fit is just a coincidence. Unless the Australia suggestion is a clue, given their '08 webbing pre-war had some differences to the British issue, eg the water bottle holder:

http://www.karkeeweb...rriers_wbc.html

[Joe Sweeney]

GRANVILLE, on 29 February 2012 - 08:33 PM, said:

Judging by the amount of evidence pointing towards some helves being slimmer, I would have thought this was a job for Jow Sweeney to draw on his extensive records and clarify what if any LoC's are recored.

Dave Upton

Sorry Dave--I'm of little help here.  I only have the LoC that Skennerton published or found on "Karkee Web". I've never come across anything calling out a thinner helve but may not have a complete picture.

Joe Sweeney

[GRANVILLE]

Joe Sweeney, on 29 February 2012 - 09:49 PM, said:

Sorry Dave--I'm of little help here.  I only have the LoC that Skennerton published or found on "Karkee Web". I've never come across anything calling out a thinner helve but may not have a complete picture.

Joe Sweeney

Thanks Joe, although I think we were depending on you! As Dickie says: the plot thickens.

Dave Upton

[Manxy]

I think the issue here is possibly more the helve holder than the helve. Photo shows holders (L to R) 1918, 1915, 1916. The dark coloured (slimmer) helve fits all three holders, whereas the lighter helve only truly fits the left and centre holders – it won’t (comfortably) fit the top loop of right hand one. The only difference between the holders is the positioning of the snap fastener on the right (1916) example. It’s slightly, but noticeably, further away from the brass tab and therefore marginally restricts the circumference of the loop when closed. Not much, a couple of millimetres say, but that’s also the difference in the diameter of the two helves, visible in the top left inset photo. 33rd div mgc’s 1915 holder also appears to have a very pronounced offset fastener, more so than my 1916 example.
Neither helve has a taper nor have they been sanded – the dark one is dated 1915 – the light one is undated and I've always believed it to be early WW2, but who knows. The difference in the diameter of the helves was I imagine within the tolerance permitted at the time or maybe just down to the vagaries of wartime mass production, which probably also accounts for the difference in the position of the snap fastener ?

Cheers

Manxy

[Wardog]

With regards to Australian entrenching tools, they used the two piece type mentioned, but I have also had a 1916 standard type which had the mentioned deeper eye- so at least 1 Australian manufacturer kept the original deeper eye. Regards, Paul.

[John Thorne]

Depending on how it was stored, web can shrink over time. Given that, plus the fact that there was a significant manufacturing tolerance when they were made, suggests to me that we shouldn't place a lot of emphasis on the exact size of the loops on a particular example. As for helve shafts, "received wisdom" amongst collectors has been that earlier ones are thinner. I haven't noticed that myself, and I haven't seen any documentation that would suggest there was a design change in the diameter.

[33rd div mgc]

John Thorne, on 01 March 2012 - 01:34 AM, said:

Depending on how it was stored, web can shrink over time. Given that, plus the fact that there was a significant manufacturing tolerance when they were made, suggests to me that we shouldn't place a lot of emphasis on the exact size of the loops on a particular example. As for helve shafts, "received wisdom" amongst collectors has been that earlier ones are thinner. I haven't noticed that myself, and I haven't seen any documentation that would suggest there was a design change in the diameter.

I agree about webbing shrinking, especially water bottle cradles, with the webbing helve carrier I have, it seems strange that only the top strap has shrunk and not the rest which clearly fits the bayonet scabbard.
I still think this was made this way to  a thiner helve and the press stud is a good 3/4" inch from the male part.

It could be a simple of case of making the carrier to fit old stock helves

[Manxy]

tocemma, on 01 March 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

.....The idea that there are two sizes of helve holder is a bit unlikely to say the least. There is nothing in LoCs to back up that idea. Why would they be faffing about making non standard helve holders in 1915 just to accommodate early helves? What date range were these earlier helves made in?

Regards

Tocemma

I agree, 'unlikely to say the least', and I think we're in danger of reading too much into this  - the fact that one of my helves won't fit through the top loop of one of my helve holders (which hasn't shrunk) is clearly down to a minor flaw in the holder's manufacture, and not because the helve is too thick - the fastener has ended up where it is by accident not design, and the same manufacturing flaw, only more pronounced, can be seen in the photographs of the 1915 holder that kicked this topic off.

Cheers

Manxy

[33rd div mgc]

Manxy, on 01 March 2012 - 08:53 PM, said:

I agree, 'unlikely to say the least', and I think we're in danger of reading too much into this  - the fact that one of my helves won't fit through the top loop of one of my helve holders (which hasn't shrunk) is clearly down to a minor flaw in the holder's manufacture, and not because the helve is too thick - the fastener has ended up where it is by accident not design, and the same manufacturing flaw, only more pronounced, can be seen in the photographs of the 1915 holder that kicked this topic off.

Cheers

Manxy

Cheers Manxy

That might be why my helve carrier has survived all this time (this I did think off originally), but with the thinner helve's I have, it made me question that theorey.....