Real WW1 Bugles?

[Dave66]

4 hours ago, PhilB said:

Here`s mine.

Another nice example.

just had another look at the two I mentioned above, and under the broad arrow there are issue numbers...was this an earlier practice and if so does anybody know when that changed?

the 1890 potter is broad arrow w.d. Over 50, and the 1900 is broad arrow over 59.

[PhilB]

I have often wondered about the disposition of all the ordnance marked, war years bugles - where did they all go? Were many replacements required? Are Royal Navy/RNAS/RFC bugles distinguishable from army ones? How many bugles required for a full infantry division including other arms?

[Dave66]

49 minutes ago, PhilB said:

I have often wondered about the disposition of all the ordnance marked, war years bugles - where did they all go? Were many replacements required? Are Royal Navy/RNAS/RFC bugles distinguishable from army ones? How many bugles required for a full infantry division including other arms?

I've often wondered if the way they were supplied and accounted for changed...similar to the way clasp knives of the early 20th century were W.D. marked and then all of a sudden Great War era knives are sterile apart from the manufacturers details.

The trouble with the broad arrow is it only proved government ownership, and didn't define which branch or service it was issued to.

 

Dave.

[Andrew Upton]

8 hours ago, Dave66 said:

Another nice example.

just had another look at the two I mentioned above, and under the broad arrow there are issue numbers...was this an earlier practice and if so does anybody know when that changed?

the 1890 potter is broad arrow w.d. Over 50, and the 1900 is broad arrow over 59.

 

Not issue but inspectors numbers. Basically so that if it turned out a defective item was accepted into service it could be traced back to the man who passed it fit for purpose.

[Robert Rytir]

Another example for you to view.

 

Cheers Rob

[suesalter1]

Love to know where people are getting these from? I've had no luck so far.

 

Sue