G Hanson

My #1 - early MP. My #2 - early “H” Division.

WW1 trench club. Metal pieces are boot studs.

No Mike, I don't think this was a painted example. Most dealers/collectors refer to this style truncheon as being early 20th century but I personally believe these to be earlier and from at least 1887. We know that there was a radical change to the truncheon regs in 1887 which stipulated the change in length and the retirement of the leather carrying tube. In the police/military things dont suddenly change overnight and there is a rather lengthy process from idea to sign off to implementation. The process regarding the implementation of whistles shows this to good effect as the police orders from Feb 1885 state the future intention to issue all officers with whistles. The order from May 1887 now details the use of said whistles and also cancels the Feb '85 order. So, it appears they gave themselves a 2 year window with which to ensure they had enough stock prior to roll out. Another important point is the 1885 order suggested keeping a reserve stock of rattles behind for nightwatch officers as a contingency until full issue of whistles was achieved. I personally believe the same happened with regards to the truncheon. Yes, some officers must have kept their old stock and shortened these as per orders but what about those new officers joining? Granted, just like the reserve supply of old rattles there was probably a small supply of old stock but I find it hard to believe that all newly appointed officers in 1887 were issued with shortened and stripped old stock, but would rather have been issued a newer shortened model which is why i think this style should be dated before early 20th century. As for lack of MP marking? Oversight or expediency who knows? However, this is most definitely a Met issued piece. I think the key to solving this particular puzzle is in the officers number. If we can determine the entry dates for officers 215H, 64K and 469G, then we could have some tangible dates to work with.

No problem Mike, glad to share. Truncheon #3 also displays a nice 'H' Division stamp as well as a couple of stamps to connecting Divisions 'G' & 'K'. Also of interest is a stamp which I initially thought was another 1884 Ordnance inspection stamp however, this stamp clearly shows the letter 'P' stamped beneath the 'WD'. My thought was that this stood for 'War Department Police' but this is clearly not the case as the correct title would have been 'War Department Constabulary', so I don't actually know what this stamp is? Stamps on the truncheon are; 215H, 64K, G469 and the strange ordnance stamp.

#2 - Early 'H' Division truncheon. "Parker 233 Holborn" stamp on pommel clearly identifies this piece as an earlier pre 1877 painted example. However, this has been altered post 1887, being shortened and paint removed. Shows remnants of the black paint and the red MP cartouche. Stamps are; Parker 233 Holborn, H305, K149 and the 1884 Defence Ministry Ordnance Board inspection of Met Police equipment stamp of arrow and WD.

Mike, I completely agree with your 2nd post regarding the early stamped MP truncheons. It has been my own belief that the stamp - MP below crown - was the early stamp whilst the stamp - MP with crown in between the M & P - was the post 1887 version. Like you I am not a truncheon collector per se, but I wanted both an Metropolitan Police & City of London Police example from the period 1888. Below is my small collection which includes the early MP truncheon (#1) 2 interesting H Division marked examples (#2 & #3), a CoL (#4) and a nice Victorian period Detectives piece (#5). Early version with MP stamp. Double stamped; top & bottom.

After reading Nick's post I had a very quick look in my book on the police in Jack the Ripper era; "Capturing Jack the Ripper, In the boots of a Bobby in Victorian England". Undoubtedly, most collectors here will already own this book but for those that don't, I would thoroughly recommend you get this absolutely fantastic piece of work. As great as the book is, it has left me somewhat confused as the Index (p253) refers to a PC 56H Mizen which is backed up on p131. However, on p132 it refers to Mizen as PC 54H and on p90 as PC55H? I would of course love this to be connected to one of the ripper murders however, I have to be realistic. Is this a genuine untouched original or re badged/buttoned put together? I don't know but if I had to pick one I would probably go with the latter as after all, this was a £15 purchase from a car boot sale. However, It doesn't really matter to me either way as this represents a wonderful, thoughtful present from my wife and well worth £15 of anyone's money.

Thanks Mike & Andrew for your comments. I am away this weekend but will try and get some interior shots posted as soon as. Andrew, thanks for the tip on the buttons. Unfortunately, the seller is all out of QVC horn buttons so if you could part with some of yours I would be hugely grateful. The buttons on the tunic are identical on the front with the majority marked as “English Made” apart from 1 which appears to have a makers name which is illegible. Tunic currently locked away in a suitcase but the awful smell is still managing to get out!! Desperate to clean it but don’t want to take the risk.

A few days ago my wife decided last minute to go to a car boot sale with my sister in law, leaving me behind to do some "DIY" (aka watching football). She returned home later with a carrier bag proudly and excitedly stating she had bought a "really, really old coat". Before I even opened my mouth to say "what on earth for?" the smell from the carrier bag hit me like a kick from a mule! This was an old coat alright with that familiar smell of stale tobacco, sweat and general age mustiness. Immediately, I wanted to snatch the bag from her and throw it in the garden, that was until she pulled out the "stinky" offender and my eyes fell out onto the floor. "Happy early birthday present" she said. Missing two front lower and two skirt buttons so if anyone can help me source replacements I would be most grateful. Also, one belt hook is missing and the loop to secure the duty armband, which is heavily mothed, looks to have been period replaced by a cotton becket. Apart from these issues and the offending smell, it is a great piece.

Moor Lane Bridwell Place Cloak Lane Tower St

??.....and my Receiver-General was glad I didn't.

As my former rank was Sergeant, I decided to collect a Sgt's medal from each Division involved in the hunt for JTR. I have been looking for a 'H' Division example for many years and when the Roskelly piece appeared on DNW I thought I would finally be able to complete my quest. I put an initial bid on the medal with the intention of tuning in to the live auction. However, due to reasons beyond my control I could not partake in the live auction and my initial bid was beaten by just £20. I am still feeling physically sick!!

It transpired that the above helmet did not have 6 panels on the exterior as first led to believe, but rather a 6 panel construction interior! So, the hunt continues. Can anyone please tell me if the Victorian era Met Police helmets ever had a single vent hole and if so, when did they change to two vents?

The fact that there is a possibility they could be Victorian is enough to make me happy. Do you think the leather is from the collar of the tunic?

Sorry, completely forgot to post the front. Would be nice if these were of the Victorian period.

Thanks Dave. Would I be right in believing Victorian era would have split pin fixing?

Hi all, Can anyone please tell me what period these collar number fixtures were used?

Yes Dave, hard to see but 6 panel construction.

I apologise in advance to forum members for clogging this thread with questions but another quick one if I may? This one is not advertised as Met police but would this be considered as the same or similar? It certainly looks similar to these "novice" eyes!

Dave, that's brilliant thanks. This really helps a lot as I always thought the 1880s Met Police helmet had only one vent hole. The hunt continues...with vigour!

Thanks Dave, you’ve saved me a fair few quid. I nearly got this thinking it was a Met police style helmet. Good job I checked! That said, I’ve spent the best part of the afternoon searching as you suggested however, I really cannot see the difference from the grainy black & white pictures available? Can anyone please help my poor old eyes and post a picture of a Met Police helmet from the 1880s so that I can determine the correct shape? Thanks again Dave.

Hi All, Would this pattern of helmet be the same as used by the Met Police for the 1880's period?

Try this. www.zollgrenzschutz.de

Hmmm....whats Himmler holding?

According to Himmlers orders laid down in RdErl. d. RFSSuChdDtPol. im RMdI. v. 1.7.36, all employees not employed on police duties were to be issued with a Hausausweis. This pass allowed the employee the authority to gain access to secured buildings/areas where they were employed, but did not afford them any police powers. The basic design of this Hausausweis remained almost unchanged from its inception until the end of the war, apart from a few minor changes to wording and font used. The Hausausweis was made of white card and was validated in the same way as the SiPo Dienstausweis in that it was valid for 6 months from date of issue, being allowed a further 6 months extension. The pass was not valid after this extension and was renewed after 1 year. On 12.10.36, Himmler further decreed that all employees of the Ordnungspolizei not employed in police duties were also to be issued with a Hausausweis. However, this had a completely different design to those issued by the SiPo. The Orpo. Hausausweis was also white in colour but was bi-fold instead of single sided and was made from oilcloth or schreibleinen, similar to the Polizei Dienstausweis. This very rare example is of the Orpo. Hausausweis style but as one can see, it is has been issued by the Kriminalpolizei in Prag. I have only ever seen one other of this style of Hausausweis being used by the SiPo and that was to the same duty station. The reason for this is unknown to me at this time, but it is possibly due to availability.