Brian Wolfe

Hello Ehjaz,

Good to see you posting here my friend and thank you very much for setting the record straight.

Regards

Brian

The Ross rifle was discarded early in the war in favour of the Lee Enfield and along with it the bayonets. These became surplus equipment and therefore available for modification. There are many examples of shortened Lee Enfield bayonets used as trench raid knives as well suggesting that "found" weapons were fair game for modicication. Modifying your issued bayonet would be taboo of course. Even entrenching shovels were sharpened for use as battle axes when on trench raids. I would also think that these modifications may have been undertaken by the armourer in the field to supply the soldiers' needs.

For such a "modern" war at the time there was a lot of brutal Medieval technology in use.

Regards

Brian

Hi Peter,

I've owned one of these in the past and they were indeed modified for use as a trench knife. Considering the number of these that used to be around I would think there was some sort of official involvement either in supplying numbers to the troops for modification or government modification. My bet woud be on "in the field" modification.

Thanks for posting this very nice and hard to find item.

Regards

Brian

Hi Chris,

No problems from this end on what was said and I would have to agree with you about the relationship between the British and the US was getting to be too much like it was in 1812. I also would not be surprised if your figures were not pretty close.

Stupidity is very expensive, oops...I mean war. I just glad the two nations didn't come to blows as my wife likes her annual cross border shopping trip with the ladies too much... it's really the only peace I get.

Regards

Brian

In my opinion eBay has made shilling easier because now you cannot see who has placed bids. In the past if 153mleo (me) was bidding and bid on one particular seller's items yet never bid high enough to win the item it was pretty evident what was going on. So why use a shill? The obvious is that you can run the bids up so you make more money. However, another reason is that, at least in the past, it cost more to put a "reserved bid" on an item and the shill could place a maximum bid equal to the "reserve bid" and cost the seller nothing for the protection.

More on this in my upcoming blog, if you are interested (shamless self-promotion).

Regards

Brian

Hi Chris,

Interesting comments. Any embargo by the United States would have had to come before August 1914 and therefore prior to the war; I doubt anyone would have taken it very seriously. After the war had started to escalate, but before America’s entry into the conflict in April 1917, an early cease fire would have resulted in the loss of a great deal of revenue the Americans were making from the war. Even if the USA had attempted to bring the parties to the negotiation table prior to the actual outbreak of hostilities I don’t believe European countries took the Americans very seriously. Not that there was anything negative about America but Europe of the time was all about themselves.

It was clear that the Germans feared the entry of the Americans into the war later on as is evident by the Zimmerman telegram intercepted in January 1917. Mexico, who had been offered territories and other encouragements by Germany to invade the USA, however, they declined the “kind” offer. Even so, this enraged the Americans, as well it should have; one country enticing another to invade yet another is indeed a serious threat. America entered into the war later that year in April.

As to America attacking the Royal Navy in 1915, I believe that would have been quite a cowardly act, something America is not (in my opinion) prone to undertake. It would have given the USA a place in history presently held by the actions of Japan on 7 December 1941. The American Navy also might have gotten a surprise had they indeed attacked the Royal Navy in 1915/16. It could have very well have been 1812 all over again. America would have soon found they were fighting on two fronts. A classic tactical error made far too often in military history; though that never stopped Germany from undertaking a two front conflict...twice. The results of this also being a disaster...twice.

I would suggest that the tactics used by the American Army was suited to the allied military of the time and basically based on tactics formulated in the previous century. In fact the Americans used the same tactics in their first battles even though the military forces of both the allies and Germany had changed. I applaud the USA for insisting that they fight under their own flag, so-to-speak, rather than being absorbed into the different counties needs. However, this also led to the sacrifice of far too many young Americans discovering what the allies had discovered in the first three years of the war.

On a lighter note, look at all of us being armchair generals. I must admit that had I been in charge of the allies or even the Germans, victory would have been easily assured for the opposing side by Christmas 1914.

It’s been a long time since I have enjoyed a post as much as this one.

Regards

Brian

She told me she was your sister!

Seriously, my wife always clouds the issue with reason and logic. How is a man expected to win an argument when women resort to those tactics?

Regards

Brian

I tend to be one who avoids debates on the forum for the most part. Why? Not because my feelings are close to the surface, that’s most evident to those who really know me. Debates should have the purpose of educating not only those involved but also those whose part is purely as a spectator. Far too often debates de-evolve into what can only be described as two monkeys in adjacent trees throwing feces at one another. Debates should be well thought out academic exchanges of opposing opinions and not a verbal bar fight, the purpose of which is to win regardless of fact.

So far the current debates over the Great War have been of the former rather than the later and I thank all involved for keeping it in that arena.

Debates, arguments and disagreements would be quickly and easily resolved if only the world would accept my theory that my opinion is the only correct one.

So far it’s been a hard sell.

Regards

Brian

Hi Paul,

I believe that you are 100% correct, it was a matter of "when" rather than "if".

Regards

Brian

The outbreak of the First World War should be seen in the same light as a domestic dispute as viewed by the neighbours. Or better yet by the neighbours great grand children one hundred years later. Who shot who and what was said at the trial is all well documented and memories tainted by the media of the day and in the present. No one stops to think about what first led to that fateful decision to resort to violence.

><

Europe had not seen a large scale war for almost one hundred years before 1914. The Napoleonic War probably should be seen as the first World War as it involved pretty much every continent at the time much as what we now call the First World War. This left Europe with nearly a century of peace, punctuated by smaller wars that were over relatively quickly (sound familiar). Russia had suffered a humiliating defeat at the hands of the Imperial Japanese Navy in 1905 and left them looking for a means to re-establish their honour on a world scale. Russia of the time had never forgiven Austria/Hungarys annexation of Bosnia in 1908 and added to this Russia had failed Serbia when they were confronted by Austria-Hungary at that time and again in the Balkan Wars of 1912 1913.

Germany had also failed to back Austria-Hungary during the confrontations mentioned above so both Germany and Russia were looking to regain the confidence of their people in the area of global politics and alliance obligations. In addition to this Austria-Hungary as well as the Ottoman Empire were in trouble from within and needed to be seen as supporting their nations rights and pride.

Britain had suffered greatly in the eyes of the world, outside of their own Empire, due to their actions in South Africa and either needed to turn inward to bolster their image or be very careful not to find themselves in another embarrassing fiasco, at least in the eyes of non-Empire nations. France was still bitter over the Franco Prussian War in 1871and their loss of territory due to that conflict. There were jealousies outside of Europe over the colonies held by the powerful nations. Japan was eyeballing the colonial holdings in the Pacific and perhaps we should include America in this category to a point.

There was also a belief that any war could be avoided through diplomacy and even through the threat of war. Up until 1914 a threat of war had always been enough to get both parties to take a step back and reconsider the situation; after all no one really wanted war. A buildup of naval power between Germany and Britain is now seen as leading inevitably to war, however, this may not actually be the case at the time. The Kaiser felt that a stronger naval presence would elevate the nation on a world scale and thereby strengthen them as a trading partner with other powerful countries such as Britain and to a lesser degree, Japan. The other benefit in the view of many at the time of an arms buildup, especially naval, was that it assured a balance of power thereby avoiding any future wars. It was the Mutually Assured Destruction scenario (is this starting to sound even more familiar).

The buildup of the German Navy was viewed by Russia as a threat as they had lost two thirds of their naval fleet to Japan in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905. All Russia had left was their Baltic Fleet. In order to compensate for this inequity Russia sought to ally herself with France. Russia had the man-power but lacked the machinery of war, so to speak; an alliance with France, Germanys traditional enemy, would help balance the scales.

Add to this the theory of Social Darwinism, that being that the strongest nations would survive and the weaker nations would go, for the lack of a better term, extinct. It was a matter of evolution, natural and inevitable. Also at that time the general feeling within many nations was that there was glory in war and that is was one of mans greatest callings. Remember that the horror of the first great war, the Napoleonic War, was no longer in the living history and much of what had been written for the civilian readership would have been glorified.

The musket of fate had been charged with powder, the ball seated, the pan primed and the hammer at half cocked, just waiting for the next action. Like any firearm left loaded and laying around it was only a matter of time when one of the children would decide to play soldier.

The Austrian-Hungarian Empire decided to use the assassination of the Arch-Duke as their casus belli and attack Serbia. The reasons now seem slightly unimportant considering what was to follow. It could have been for more territory, expansion of Empire, or simply a matter of regaining lost national pride and bolster unity in an already fragmented Empire. Remember that the track record for such military actions was that it would be a short little war which would no doubt be mediated by a third party. A treaty would evolve and gains made at an acceptable loss of men and material.

However, since Germany had allied herself with Austria-Hungary and in essence given them a card blanc for their actions. Perhaps Austria-Hungary had counted as much on Germany as a mediator as it was a military backup; but that is even more speculation than even I am prone to offer up for debate (even though I just did).

Russia, not wanting to be seen as once again letting down an ally, as she had in the 1912-1913 Balkan War, and declared war on Austria-Hungary and her ally, Germany. German response was to attack France as she was an ally to Russia and a quick victory on their western front would eliminate the need to fight on two fronts and allow the full might of the German war machine to be concentrated on Russia. Good sound German military thinking, too bad for them no one else was ready to except this fine German rational. Once France had been attacked Britain was drawn in to the fray through their alliance with France.

Up to the last minute on 4 August, 191 4 war could have been avoided but the decision was made to continue. Rational thinking had gone out the window to be replaced by amygdala hijack on a global scale.

Regards

Brian

And let's not forget, the average citizen - even in Britain - didn't get a vote. It was still the elites making the call..

Hi IrishGunner,

I believe that all men in Britian got the vote (sorry ladies) in 1884 due to the Third Reform Act,

On another note, please remember that this is a section dealing with WWI and not the aftermath. Yes a lot in the post WWI era led to WWII and even to where we are today in the world but the discussion should really not exceed 1919.

We can do that in the section for the 100th anniversary of WWII in 2039.

Regards

Brian

Very true Chris. It is a known fact that "both sides" had a need for heroes including aces and no doubt the figures were never questioned because the higher the count the more valuable the man was to the war effort both on the front and back home. Ah, propaganda.

The other point I would make is that we as a society seem to need others to look up to.

After all without the encouragement of a hero or two we might lapse into a state of peace. And that would never do.

Regards

Brian

I would agree that there was a lot of room to exagerate "kills" early in the war as pilots were not only allowed but encouraged to go on lone hunts for enemy targets. Later on, especially after the Amreican entry into the war they were formed into squadrons and the lone wolf style was not allowed. It is almost impossible to exagerate your exploits when you are surrounded by your fellow pilots. I am all for any proven facts, however, since none exists I think the most we should do it take the claims as "possible" and let it go at that until solid proof can be offered. I often wonder if the "need" for aces by the military machine and those at home was so great that high scores, if you will, exceeded the required facts of the day.

Regards

Brian

A good post to kick this section off. My first thought was, "and the stage was set".

Regards

Brian

Mervyn,

I agree with you and Canada is a good example where we almost always take the negative attitude about our past. Few, and there are some let’s be honest here, glorify war, but a number of years ago the World War One Ace, Billy Bishop VC, came under “fire” when a fellow (with a German name, it’s been pointed out) wrote a book stating that Mr. Bishop faked most of his “kills” and subsequent documents that led to his receiving the Victoria Cross. Thank the Gods that there is a Royal Canadian Legion as they came out in defence of his record. The general public seemed to accept the author’s accusation which is no surprise as it seems that Canadians are not allowed heroes, especially those connected to the military.

Two years ago Linda and I visited the Canadian War Museum in Ottawa and, to the shame of this country, attached to the display featuring Billy Bishop VC was a plaque that said that “In recent years the war record of Billy Bishop has come under question” (not a direct quote). I am not given to spontaneous utterances but I did blurt out a resounding “What the hell? Those bastards!”

A national hero and in a national museum and he has been treated like this? The book questioning his record was short on provable facts and still we, no not “we” but rather “they”, elected to take the coward’s path and rather than defending a national hero have run to hide from possible confrontation. Thank God our service men and women have taken the stand for our nations and not chosen the easy out.

Respectfully

Brian

Hi Mervyn,

I would have never thought this to be an American piece but the crest would support that hypothesis. I would say that the workmanship is sadly more indicitative of today's hobbiest. That being said I think this is still a very worthwhile addition to any collection. It shows that we as a society, or at least a small segment of society, is holding on to a tradition to goes back hundreds of years. You know how much I like specimens that show a link to other eras, such as medal groups with two or more monarchs, or in the case of a Canadian police helmet I have that had the helmet plate changed from a Victorian to the King's crown badge. If this solves the mystery then it is an even more significant specimen, provided you accept my thinking of "links to the past".

Come to think about it, considering our interests, I guess we here at GMIC are links to the past ourselves.

Regards

Brian

Hi George,

I too would be interested in seeing the photos. Thanks in advance.

Regards

Brian

I totally agree with David, an excellent post.

Thanks to both David and Nick on this one.

Regards

Brian

You've done it again Nick, a great post to open on Christmas morning (our family Christmas was held earlier).

Thanks to you and all of the members, especially here on the Japan Section, for making this a top notch forum.

Regards

Brian

Always something to dream about.

Regards

Brian

These have to be the most beautiful awards anywhere.

Thanks for never failing to add so much valuable information and absolutely wonderful specimens to the forum.

Regards

Brian

Hi Ross,

Perhaps we are not poles apart only the Atlantic Ocean.

As to your comment on the type of wood you are spot on. After I responded and went back to the shop I realized I was thinking truncheons, my error.

Also I agree that these were made locally and could vary greatly in quality and I too have an example where the crown is poorly cast.

I am still not convinced as I've seen a lot of examples of turner's work both from modern back to ancient times and I feel this is not old. The example you have just shown is perhaps not a good example as it is head and shoulder above the one we are discussing. The very style of the handle on the one in question is not, in my view, reminicent of the era. it looks too much like the poorly made gavels given to local mayors over here made by a hobbiest.

You will also notice the defect in the handle in one photo that runs along the grain of the wood. This looks like a defect in the wood and not shrinkage cracking. Consider these points, the amount of wood needed to make this would be from the scrap pile or "short ends" (in my shop) so a defect in this small a piece of wood would have resulted in it having been thrown in the wood stove and the project started over. One needs to remember that these original tip staffs represented the Crown so a defective handle would probably not be let out of the shop.

This sort of grain "tear out" is caused by using the skew turning tool as a scraper rather than as a cutting tool. These are used held on an angle to shear off a ribbon of wood leaving a smooth surface that needs no sanding. A common amature mistake is to us this tool or a square scraper to remove the material causing tear out which has to be sanded out. Deep tear outs can't be sanded out as it would involve too much material removal and take too long.

So perhaps the craftsman used the tool in the incorrect position? Not likely, as not every fellow in the area owned a lathe so I would think a housewright or other woodworking professional would have gotten the job to produce this. The tool would have been used to cut not scrape as not only is this faster and leaves a fine finish there is no need to use sand paper which was expensive and time consuming. If the lathe was in the shop of cabinet maker it may have been powered by water , steam etc. however if in a local craftsman shop it could have been foot powered, making the proper use of the skew tool even more important.

I would suggest looking through some trohpy shops to see if they have this type of crown and crest for sale. If you find some then it is a mystery solved, if not at least that can be crossed off the list.

As I said before I do hope I am wrong about this and even if I am correct it may very well have been a retirement gift that harkened back to older more traditional days.

Regards

Brian

Hello Ross,

These discussions are always touchy at best and we all have to draw our own conclusion. You have collected for 45 years and I have been a cabinet maker for only 40 so wood and hardware are just part of life for me. I never intended to say screws of the period are all hand made and I have a source for screws that would appear to be period as well as square cut nails etc. All machine made screws are NOT always pointed, it depends on what you want them for. I've made many antique reproductions over the years but I would say this is neither old nor an attempt to copy an antique. As to the wood I would expect a darker wood such as lignum. The wood asside I will stand by what I am going to respectfully say next. The turning quality is second rate even by today's professional turner's standards. There are sanding scratches on the handle so it was never really finished with the finer grit papers as would be expected by either a period piece of a modern made piece by a knowledgable turner. The bands around the handle are too wide in my opinion and the edges not fginished to a "crisp" condition. This would lead me to believe it is a type of wood that could not take a sharp corner such as lignum or other hard species of wood. There is no patina on any of the surfaces that would make me believe this to be an original period piece. I too have several tip staffs in my collection and while the collection is not extensive they make your specimen scream "modern" by compairison. As to the box, I would say there is nothing to suggest that it has any age at all. The support for the tipstaff is also very common to modern presentation boxes where the attention to detail, if there is much at all, is on the object being presented and not the box. The lining is not finished on the edges and I would have expected that an original presentation box to have been "flocked" rather than material glued to the box sides and staff support, but that is only conjecture.

As to the stain I would not have expected a tipstaff to be only half stained, if stained at all. To say that this was one of a lot and all the rest are authentic therefore this one is authentic may be wishful thinking. Over the years I've purchased several lots (never a lot containing tipstaffs), and there is often a copy or two that was slipped in either on purpose or accidently. If this was a lot from one collection it may have been an item that struck the collector's fancy. I say that because I would have included it in a collection as I actually like the piece.

So with 40 years of experience in cabinet making and antiques repair and reporduction plus having several tip staffs myself what are the chances of me being wrong? To be honest...pretty good. There are so many what ifs and possibilities that for me to say without a possibility of being wrong that this is modern would make such statements worthless. I would have to be pretty egotistical to say that I am 100% correct, especially when I hope that I am wrong. If I saw this at a show and wanted an authentic piece I would not purchase it. If I saw it and it was priced as a modern presentation piece I would probably have purchased it as such.

So here we are both hoping I am wrong.

Good luck with your research.

Regards

Brian

I feel this is a modern piece made for someones retirement. The finish and techniques used to produce both the tip staff and box are modern as well as the hinges and screws. Also, the type of wood used is not, in my opinion,consistant with period made tip staffs.

Still a nice piece for a collection and if this is the beginning of a trend, upon the retirement of higer officials and military offcers, I am happy to see this taking place.

Regards

Brian

Hello Ross,

I really like these helmets, a very nice specimen and thanks for posting it.

While not militaria I think it will be seen more often in this section than in the non-military section; I hope Mervyn agrees.

Regards

Brian