artu44 Posted May 14, 2012 Share #1 Posted May 14, 2012 I've spotted a couple of "strange" birds this week. A couple of M1916 requiring a lot of attention in markings. The first is "unheard" while the second an obvious repro, http://cgi.ebay.it/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewIt...em=170838896449 http://www.ebay.com/itm/Very-Nice-1943-Dat...=item48453fc4eb Please enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fausto Posted May 14, 2012 Share #2 Posted May 14, 2012 Yes Arturo, you're right: a lot of attention about the markings of the Craighead holster. All the M1916 .45 holsters made by Craighead I have seen in years were not dated. Compare the 1944 date to the 1943 which usually we see on .38 revolver holsters...the 1 and the 9 are good, the 4 is different. But we know that a difference in the font is not a proof of a bogus stamp, as we find all sort of fonts - on other U.S. items - by a same manufacturer even in the same year... Who knows... BTW this holster has been offered in past by the same seller and apparently went unsold... Here a picture of the markings on a .38 revolver holster by Craighead... Fausto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artu44 Posted May 14, 2012 Author Share #3 Posted May 14, 2012 Fausto font dont lie. They can be not the same over the years but it applies more to web gears made by zillion and inked . Leather stuff is marked by punching and a punch is a durable iron tool, why change it once in a year? Anyway markings should be consistent for a certain period of time. In this case do you have noticed that 1944 is stamped one by one and the size is huge if compared with the usual Craighead 1943? Moreover none ever seen another of them and there's no chance uncle Sam issued an order just for one sample. Even the rarest M1916 is present in at least three collection of members here. Watch in the pic holsters originally undated, punched the way seller thought it would brought more money. No mention of that repro badly punched BOYT43. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fausto Posted May 15, 2012 Share #4 Posted May 15, 2012 Yes Arturo...you're right. That 1944 looks definitely not good and very suspect. And by the way I totally agree with you about the fact that even the rarest holster should be known at least in a couple of examples around the world... Maybe with one exception: the M1916 holster Boyt 41... up today I have seen just the one of Charlie Flick... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artu44 Posted May 15, 2012 Author Share #5 Posted May 15, 2012 Yes Arturo...you're right. That 1944 looks definitely not good and very suspect. And by the way I totally agree with you about the fact that even the rarest holster should be known at least in a couple of examples around the world... Maybe with one exception: the M1916 holster Boyt 41... up today I have seen just the one of Charlie Flick... Yes, only Charlie here owns a Boyt 41 but our beloved forum is not the center of universe so a few of them could be likely also in other hands. Consider Pearl Harbour occured in dcember 7 1941 so the 41 fiscal year actually lasted few days, just the time to issue some contract including Boyt. 41 dated stuff is not so easily found, I have only an M1924 first aid pouch so marked. 1944 and 1945 were years of full capacity production then I cannot think Craighead would have been ordered an ultrasnmall amount of holsters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now