Pep Posted December 24, 2016 Share #1 Posted December 24, 2016 Got this from a reputable dealer. Once I had in hand some things just seemed odd compared to the 1914 and 1916 kits I have. Anyone have an opinion as to the authenticity of this. Thanks, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Finn Posted December 24, 2016 Share #2 Posted December 24, 2016 Just what makes you even think it might not be authentic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bheskett Posted December 24, 2016 Share #3 Posted December 24, 2016 Looks good to me. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keystone Posted December 24, 2016 Share #4 Posted December 24, 2016 Reproduction Made by "What Price Glory". http://www.ebay.com/itm/US-Navy-and-Marine-Corps-USN-USMC-Model-1907-First-Aid-Packet-Reproduction-/231539364876?hash=item35e8d2540c:g:nLAAAOSwPgxVNsir Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Der Finn Posted December 25, 2016 Share #5 Posted December 25, 2016 Wow! I feel like a jerk for asking the question above - my apologies! Had absolutely no idea anyone was reproducing items like this! One does learn something new every day.................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pep Posted December 25, 2016 Author Share #6 Posted December 25, 2016 Reproduction Made by "What Price Glory". http://www.ebay.com/itm/US-Navy-and-Marine-Corps-USN-USMC-Model-1907-First-Aid-Packet-Reproduction-/231539364876?hash=item35e8d2540c:g:nLAAAOSwPgxVNsir That was my first thought but there are differences. The most notable is the recess where the ring should reside. The repro has a small "rise". the one I posted is completely flat. Also the color is different. I am not fully convinced it is a wpg version. Does anyone have a real one to compare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted December 25, 2016 Share #7 Posted December 25, 2016 I don't believe yours is a WPG bandage kit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
world war I nerd Posted December 25, 2016 Share #8 Posted December 25, 2016 I don't have the information in front of me right now, but I'm pretty sure that the Army & Navy first aid packets dated 1916 and earlier all did not have the indentation on the back for the pull-ring. Your packet is dated 1915, but it has the indentation on the back. If my memory is correct and if the addition of the indentation on the reverse of the Navy first aid packets happened at the same time as the Army first aid packets, this could be a red flag. Anyway, counter clockwise from upper left here are the fronts of four U.S. Navy first aid packets ... a 1907 packet with hooks that were designed to engage with the eyelets on a cartridge belt before the adoption of a first aid pouch (posted elsewhere on the forum by an unknown member), your 1915 packet - not sure when the belt hooks were abolished and I don't know what the Navy used for a first aid pouch prior to adopting a first aid pouch of its own in 1916 ... not sure if a 1915 dated Navy pouch would still have the belt hooks or not, & two 1917 contract U.S. Navy first aid packets (one from Bay State Militaria.com & the other from here on the forum). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
world war I nerd Posted December 25, 2016 Share #9 Posted December 25, 2016 Clockwise from upper left are the reverse of your 1915 dated packet with indentation, the 1917 dated packet from above, with indentation (lower, right) & two 1918 dated packets, both with indentations, from Bay State Militaria.com. Other than the color of the paint and possibly the fact that your packet has an indentation which may not be correct(?), the only difference that I can spot is the fact that your packet has sharper, rather than rounded edges, when compared to the other examples. For some reason I don't have any images of the reverse of the earlier packets without the indentation for the ring ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
world war I nerd Posted December 25, 2016 Share #10 Posted December 25, 2016 Oops! Wrong Photo ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pep Posted December 25, 2016 Author Share #11 Posted December 25, 2016 I have this 1916 USN packet and it has the recess for the ring. You can see the geometry inside to hold the ring down when stowed. The 1915 is just a clean recess with no "clip" to hold the ring down. You are correct it has "sharper" edges than I am used to seeing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pep Posted December 25, 2016 Author Share #12 Posted December 25, 2016 I don't believe yours is a WPG bandage kit. Do you think it is a repro though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
world war I nerd Posted December 25, 2016 Share #13 Posted December 25, 2016 As mentioned, I wasn't entirely sure about the year when the indentation for the pull ring was adopted. I thought it was 1916, but obviously I was wrong about that or else the Navy switched to the packet with an indentation at a later date than the Army did. I'll have to did out that information (if I can find it) ... It's difficult to determine if your packet is a repro or not, my instincts say it is, but I'm not 100% positive. I couldn't tell from the photos; is the case made from brass? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pep Posted December 25, 2016 Author Share #14 Posted December 25, 2016 As mentioned, I wasn't entirely sure about the year when the indentation for the pull ring was adopted. I thought it was 1916, but obviously I was wrong about that or else the Navy switched to the packet with an indentation at a later date than the Army did. I'll have to did out that information (if I can find it) ... It's difficult to determine if your packet is a repro or not, my instincts say it is, but I'm not 100% positive. I couldn't tell from the photos; is the case made from brass? My packets for the army go from 1906 up to 1914 and are without the indentation. the 1916 dated ones all have the indentation. I do not have a 1915 dated one. The packet is made of brass or some type of non-magnetic yellow metal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Posted December 25, 2016 Share #15 Posted December 25, 2016 Do you think it is a repro though? I'm no expert Pep so I can't really say. On the one hand it looks good to me and on the other I have questions. I don't know of any other repro's other than WPG's. This to me just doesn't look close enough to the WPG bandage. Sorry I'm really no help here. Ronnie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quartermaster Posted December 25, 2016 Share #16 Posted December 25, 2016 I really am no expert on such things but the packet first questioned and all the examples offered up to compare to all seem to have sharp, crisp letters stamped into the metal but the WPG repro packet has letters that look softer like the die wasn't struck hard enough or it is made less sharp maybe because the die was worn out, maybe it was an operator error and it wasn't made correctly or (my guess) it's the work of a repo concern that doesn't know better or doesn't care and wanted to cut costs. Using only the wording on the packets to compare - I would guess that all the pictures on this post are of the same heritage (meaning original) and the WPG version is markedly different to my eyes. I only have two cents but I pitched 'em in!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragoon Posted December 26, 2016 Share #17 Posted December 26, 2016 Just a quick response here is my Army 1915 packet should it help. I agree with the edges being less rounded on your example. Should it also be of use it weighs 122 grams. I should add the actual colour is slightly lighter than in this photos. Kurt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinb Posted December 26, 2016 Share #18 Posted December 26, 2016 My 1907 Navy doesn't have the ring on the back but on the side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinb Posted December 26, 2016 Share #19 Posted December 26, 2016 1913 Army has the ring on the side as well. One interesting thing about my 1913 is that once painted it was stacked against another packet and its markings transferred over. You can see them on the back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinb Posted December 26, 2016 Share #20 Posted December 26, 2016 1917 and 1918 Navy both have the ring on the back recessed into a ring shaped depression. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinb Posted December 26, 2016 Share #21 Posted December 26, 2016 I'm leaning towards the original posted packet being a replica. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bheskett Posted December 26, 2016 Share #22 Posted December 26, 2016 I have followed this post with great interest as I had jumped in with both feet stating that it looked good to me. I would have bought it without hesitation. Now I think I may have payed for a repop, but live and learn and this lesson cost me nothing but a slightly red face from embarrassment. I have a 1910 and 1916 dated bandage and the 1910 has the ring on the side and the 1916 has the indentation for the ring like the samples shown. Thanks for the lesson fellas. Bob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jprostak Posted December 26, 2016 Share #23 Posted December 26, 2016 When I first opened up this thread and looked at the packet in question, I can see what gives you pause to think it may not be original. There is something that just isn't giving me a good feeling, especially the paint job and where there is bare metal. It's almost too nice. That said, I also noticed that on the packet in question the font size on the last line "Patent Applied For" is the same size as the other small size font. On all the known to be originals shown, it is a smaller font than all the rest and can be noticed when all the packets are shown together. Also take a look at the "&" between the packets. Just some Christmas food for thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
world war I nerd Posted December 26, 2016 Share #24 Posted December 26, 2016 These images don't help Pep determine if his first aid packet is authentic, but they do show how the early Navy packets with & without belt hooks were attached to the cartridge belt ... all photos courtesy of the John Adams-Graf collection Early Navy shore party on ship with 1909 Benet-Mercie machine guns circa 1910 -1916. Note that the first, second & fifth sailors from the left have jury-rigged their first aid packets onto their cartridge belts with cord. These were likely early packets whose belt hooks have either been broken or lost. The two packets suspended from only one corner have likely also had one of the packet's hook suspension rings broken off as well. Also does anybody know what the canister shaped article slung from the left shoulder of the fourth sailor from the left is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
world war I nerd Posted December 26, 2016 Share #25 Posted December 26, 2016 Close ups of the three first aid packets and what looks to be a Navy issued swivel holster whose flap may have been embossed with the initials "USN" ... Photos courtesy of the John Adams-Graf collection 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