Jump to content

Original Pattern 2 Canteen cover?


Montana40
 Share

Recommended Posts

About a year ago I purchased a named USMC field gear lot. The interesting thing about the entire lot was that all of the items were in near mint condition. Since it is difficult to find the items in the condition they were I did some research on the named owner. The owner volunteered for the USMC in 1942 and was discharged in 1946. He was in his late 30's when he joined so I assumed his age had a great deal to do with his assignment. He was assigned to the states during the entire war so that explained the condition of the items. He evidently was issued a full set of field gear in boot camp or upon completion and they remained in his sea bag unused until the fellow I purchased them from obtained them..

 

I recently listed the Pattern 2 canteen cover on ebay, sold it and within a couple weeks it was returned indicating that it was a reproduction. I also had a black porcelain canteen returned at the same time indicating that it was also a reproduction because it did not have a date or manufacturer stamped on the bottom. I personally have few if any doubts about the canteen cover being original and feel that it is the mint condition that has convinced the buyer that it was a reproduction. I have seen information in the past which indicated that not all porcelain canteens had the manufactures stamp on the bottom. But need some expert opinion. Any assistance to settle the issue would be appreciated.

 

post-4195-0-86625000-1488991621.jpg

 

post-4195-0-62280500-1488991647.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ArchangelDM

Is that green nylon stitching I'm seeing , I'm leaning on the side of repro on this one. The blackened poppers are just way to mint for 70 plus years. Bag or not they would show some type of movement marks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catfishcraig

The cover looks good but the date stamp looks to be 1942-1945. Not sure when they stopped producing this pattern. Here is a link to another mint cover with a stamp with older dates. I'm not sure that the difference means anything at all but it may have been stamped later.

 

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/index.php?/topic/148680-mint-2nd-pattern-usmc-canteen-cover/?fromsearch=1

 

 

On another note the Marines age would not have kept him state side. My great uncle was 35 and assigned to a 60mm mortar crew on Okinawa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that green nylon stitching I'm seeing , I'm leaning on the side of repro on this one. The blackened poppers are just way to mint for 70 plus years. Bag or not they would show some type of movement marks

Just typical Marine Kelly Green thread from the Marine depot made items.The set as good as it gets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

General Apathy

About a year ago I purchased a named USMC field gear lot. The interesting thing about the entire lot was that all of the items were in near mint condition. Since it is difficult to find the items in the condition they were I did some research on the named owner. The owner volunteered for the USMC in 1942 and was discharged in 1946. He was in his late 30's when he joined so I assumed his age had a great deal to do with his assignment. He was assigned to the states during the entire war so that explained the condition of the items. He evidently was issued a full set of field gear in boot camp or upon completion and they remained in his sea bag unused until the fellow I purchased them from obtained them..

 

I recently listed the Pattern 2 canteen cover on ebay, sold it and within a couple weeks it was returned indicating that it was a reproduction. I also had a black porcelain canteen returned at the same time indicating that it was also a reproduction because it did not have a date or manufacturer stamped on the bottom. I personally have few if any doubts about the canteen cover being original and feel that it is the mint condition that has convinced the buyer that it was a reproduction. I have seen information in the past which indicated that not all porcelain canteens had the manufactures stamp on the bottom. But need some expert opinion. Any assistance to settle the issue would be appreciated.

 

attachicon.gifDSCF6730.JPG

 

attachicon.gifDSCF6731.JPG

.

Hi jblodg, thanks for showing your canteen set, personally from your photos I don't see anything wrong, with the canteen or the cover, in my shoebox somewhere I have a very similar condition USMC set. Unfortunately I don't have the USMC set to hand or any photo's in my files, all I have presently in my files is this Army canteen set, all dated 1942 all unused, there's examples out there folks if you find them. I hope this aids in showing that not all canvas covers are worn out, or ' repro ' if they appear mint. The snaps on my cover are unscratched, I don't even close them when packed away I leave snaps open to save wear and tear.

 

regards lewis.

 

.

 

post-344-0-74917900-1488996406.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catfishcraig

Thinking the stamp is 42-43

You might be right my eyes are not as good as they use to be. Can always put under night vision light to make sure but I agree it looks good to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

About a year ago I purchased a named USMC field gear lot. The interesting thing about the entire lot was that all of the items were in near mint condition. Since it is difficult to find the items in the condition they were I did some research on the named owner. The owner volunteered for the USMC in 1942 and was discharged in 1946. He was in his late 30's when he joined so I assumed his age had a great deal to do with his assignment. He was assigned to the states during the entire war so that explained the condition of the items. He evidently was issued a full set of field gear in boot camp or upon completion and they remained in his sea bag unused until the fellow I purchased them from obtained them..

 

I recently listed the Pattern 2 canteen cover on ebay, sold it and within a couple weeks it was returned indicating that it was a reproduction. I also had a black porcelain canteen returned at the same time indicating that it was also a reproduction because it did not have a date or manufacturer stamped on the bottom. I personally have few if any doubts about the canteen cover being original and feel that it is the mint condition that has convinced the buyer that it was a reproduction. I have seen information in the past which indicated that not all porcelain canteens had the manufactures stamp on the bottom. But need some expert opinion. Any assistance to settle the issue would be appreciated.

 

attachicon.gifDSCF6730.JPG

 

attachicon.gifDSCF6731.JPG

Make sense.some times age played a factor sometimes not and was based more on his job skills.I have a uniform to a Marine who was older by WW2 standards.He was kept state side and due to his shooting skills was an instructor for marksmanship as I recall.I have never ran his name but the uniform has a white didcharge diamond on it as well.

 

Doesnt surprise me with the unissued gear and a black canteen.I recently read a topic where the enamel were not liked by the army after testing and seems the Marine Corps ended up with a vast amount of them and they issued them more states side as to free up stocks of standard to be used for deployments overseas.It was stated that the canteens were known to rust(after coating damaged) and damages the inner coating chipped off and would cause debris and sediment of the enameling in the water when drank.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for the information. There is no doubt that when something is mint it most likely will be suspect. In regards to the blackend "Poppers" on the cover . .. within the lot there was a USMC stamped web belt that had no chipping or marks on the metal latch or any metal parts. The leggins also had absolutely no wear. So it did not suprise me when the cover was in the condition it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catfishcraig

Thanks for the information. There is no doubt that when something is mint it most likely will be suspect. In regards to the blackend "Poppers" on the cover . .. within the lot there was a USMC stamped web belt that had no chipping or marks on the metal latch or any metal parts. The leggins also had absolutely no wear. So it did not suprise me when the cover was in the condition it is.

Sounds like a nice set!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DQP had some odd or various hardware.In an old topic I posted a cover that has a nickle or plated hanger.Came in a similiar gear group that was unissued.I recall a cover or with cutters tags to of the cross flap style in the group as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cap Camouflage Pattern I

One of my enamel canteens does not have any markings, came with a first pattern USMC cover and a made in Japan web belt for like $5, I don't think it's fake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Schnicklfritz

Nothing wrong with the cover or canteen. It is a typical USMC Depot made item with the proper marking. Sometimes you see the same mark, but in bluish/black ink. Sometimes you see the larger Depot stamp. Sometimes you see none at all.

 

Enamel canteens were a beast. Supposedly, the enamel would chip off the canteen and would be swallowed by whoever drank from it. It would be like drinking glass particles.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cover looks as original as any I have seen. But the hook looks like the army pattern. Perhaps it was replaced? But it doesn't look like the stitching has been messed with. The hook does look like it has been slightly bent on the left side so perhaps it was bent to fit through the loop and then bent back. Really nice cover!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What kind of ding dong would return that! That is a super nice original set in my opinion.

 

I have a unissued USMC 1943 machete & sheath with the original paper lable still on the blade when I posted it hear my mail box had some hits if it were for sale!

Some things just never were used or issued.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...